Some people called Duncan Smith think they’re fit to be government ministers And that voters are all idiots who’ll believe any lie they tell ; Wrong on both counts ; And what you can do about it

Conservative Work and Pensions Minister Iain Duncan Smith has responded to a court ruling that it was illegal for his department to tell unemployed people it was compulsory for them to work unpaid for private companies or lose their unemployment benefit, when the law parliament passed only allowed for voluntary unpaid placements, by making dishonest personal attacks on one of the people who brought the case (1).

Smith says people who think they are “too good to stack shelves” are wrong and that their attitude is “unacceptable”. Cait Reilly never objected to stacking shelves though – she objected to doing it for no pay for a company that was profiting from her unpaid labour, especially as this would mean the firm would hire less paid staff (2).

She objected to the government helping big companies avoid paying the minimum wage (and in fact avoid paying one penny for the work done for “workfare” workers). (Department of Work and Pensisons guidelines for Workfare ‘Providers’ warn that offering a job at the end of a Workfare placement could breach the National Minimum Wage law. (3))

She objected to being told that if she didn’t complete the unpaid placement, she would lose her unemployment benefit.

A decent government minister wouldn’t lie to the unemployed and tell them that workfare placements were compulsory when the law passed by parliament only allowed voluntary placements. Nor would they force them to stop unpaid work they enjoyed for a museum, a public asset, for unpaid work for the profit of a company.

Duncan Smith also pretends there will be a paid job at the end of workfare. For most people there isn’t. Research on workfare in other countries commissioned by the Department of Work and Pensions in 2008 concluded that ‘There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers.’ (4).

As the Boycott Workfare blog points out, the claim made by Duncan Smith and the Department of Work and Pensions that half of people who do workfare are no longer on benefits after 13 weeks, does not show half of them are getting jobs (5).

Smith’s choice of 13 weeks as the relevant time-frame is also interesting given that his department brought in a ‘sanction’ against unemployment benefit recipients for “non-compliance” (including even missing an appointment) of cutting off their benefits for 13 weeks (This is one of the most minor 'sanctions' - higher ones include no benefits for 3 years) (6).

So how many of the people who aren’t on unemployment benefit after the 13 weeks have got a paid job Mr Smith? ; and how many had their benefits cut off even though they don’t have a job yet? ; and how many of those were for being late or missing unpaid work or an appointment with a DWP official on just one day?

Figures released by Tesco last year showed only 21% of those who were put on workfare placements with them got a paid job at the end of it (300 out of the first 1,400 (7) – (8).

You can judge the general level of honesty on this subject from the government from the fact that they are fiddling the unemployment statistics by counting people on unpaid workfare placements as “employed” in “new jobs” (9).

Smith, true to form, is being utterly dishonest. He’s also a hypocrite. When he was in opposition he toured the country in teary eyed meetings with the poor, the disabled and the unemployed and charities working with them, promising them that when he got into government he would help them rather than punish them.

After less than three years in government Smith as Welfare minister has approved not only a 21^st century version of the 19^th century workhouse through unpaid “workfare” placements like Cat Reilly’s; but also letting French IT company ATOS get commissions on the number of disabled people they take benefits from on the basis of the say of doctors ATOS is employing and who often refuse to even look at their medical records or their GP’s opinion (10).

(The leadership of the Labour party actually initiated this scheme and gave ATOS this contract in 2008 in a shameful betrayal of vulnerable people and their supposedly democratic socialist ideals, though the Conservatives have made it even harsher than it was under Labour by changing the terms of the contract (11) – (12))

Smith is also rumoured to be currently trying to scrap the appeal process against ATOS rulings, because 40% of people stripped of their benefits by ATOS have had them restored on appeal to tribunals (though ATOS keeps its commission payments for removing someone from disability benefit even if their ruling is found to be wrong on appeal) (13) – (14).

Smith has also approved caps on housing benefit, along with an insane “bedroom tax” which takes away the housing benefit of anyone living in a flat or other property with more than one room in it and the government thinks one of them could be converted into a bedroom (15).

But, warm-hearted, compassionate men that they are, he and Lib Dem Treasury minister Danny Alexander have now let it be known that they will oppose any further welfare cuts (16). That’s nice of them. How about reversing all the ones you’re making? Then there might be anyone who gave a flying fuck. Currently it’s a bit like Hitler pledging not to invade any more countries now he’s done France, Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Austria and Greece.

I know whose behaviour I think is unacceptable – and it’s not Cat Reilly’s, it’s yours Mr Smith. You would not make an acceptable local councillor never mind an acceptable government minister.

What You Can Do

Go to the Boycott Workfare website to find ways you can help end Workfare in the UK
(there will also be a week of action against Workfare on 18^th to 24^th March)

Sign this petition to keep the Disability Living Allowance instead of the ATOS contract

If you’re in Scotland, sign this petition to the Scottish government to ban the bedroom tax

Wherever you are in the UK, sign this petition to scrap the bedroom tax

Join the Peoples’ Assembly Against Austerity – a non-party group to oppose austerity and welfare and public service cuts which members of any party and of no party can join

Sources

(1) = Independent 13 Feb 2013 ‘Poundland ruling: Back-to-work schemes in disarray as no-pay placements judged unlawful’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/poundland-ruling-backtowork-schemes-in-disarray-as-nopay-placements-judged-unlawful-8491398.html

(2) = Independent On Sunday 17 Feb 2013 ‘Nobody is 'too good' to work as a shelf-stacker, says Iain Duncan Smith’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nobody-is-too-good-to-work-as-a-shelfstacker-says-iain-duncan-smith-8498374.html

(3) = Department of Work and Pensions – Work Programme Provider Guidance - Chapter 3c – work experience on a voluntary basis and community benefit work placement,
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wp-pg-chapter-3c.pdf ; ‘Even if they are not paid by the employer, participants will qualify for the NMW (National Minimum Wage) if they are regarded as employees of the employer AND are participating in a trial period of work with that employer, in which the employer has agreed to offer a job to the participant if they successfully complete the trial, in cases where the trial is in excess of six weeks… “Employment” has a wide meaning, and participants are likely to be regarded as employees if they agree voluntarily to take up the placement with a particular employer.…The NMW is very unlikely to apply to participants mandated to participate in unpaid work experience or an unpaid community benefit work placement through the Work Programme, or to Participants who volunteer to take part in an unpaid placement of either type which is not a work trial exceeding 6 weeks.’

(4) = Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 533 ‘A comparative review of workfare programmes in the United States, Canada and Australia’,
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2007-2008/rrep533.pdf (see page 5 , paragraph 7)

(5) = Telegraph 21 Feb 2012 ‘Iain Duncan Smith: it's better to be a shelf stacker than a 'job snob'’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9095050/Iain-Duncan-Smith-its-better-to-be-a-shelf-stacker-than-a-job-snob.html ; 5^th paragraph, 1^st sentence, ‘The Government says half of those who join the scheme have either found work or stopped claiming benefits after 13 weeks.’

(6) = Telegraph 03 Jul 2012 ‘Lazy jobseekers to lose benefits for up to three years’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9370402/George-Osbornes-plans-to-use-billions-of-pounds-from-British-pension-funds-cash-to-pay-for-roads-fail-to-get-going.html ; 4^th sentence ‘The new sanctions regime, which come into force this Autumn. will see a claimant losing their benefit for 13 weeks for a first failure to comply with the rules.’

(7) = Guardian 10 Feb 2012 ‘Unions call on UK high street giants to halt unpaid work schemes’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/10/unions-shops-unpaid-work-schemes ; ‘Tesco said that over the last four months around 1,400 people had worked for free for a month as part of work experience in its stores, and since the scheme began 300 jobseekers had gained a job with the company.’

(8) = Daily Mirror Blogs 16 Feb 2012 ‘Outrage over Tesco's £1.50 per hour "job offer"’,
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/02/post-2.html (see ‘Tesco’s Statement’ at bottom of the page on that link)

(9) = Guardian 15 Jan 2013 ‘Statistics cast doubt on coalition's '500,000 new jobs' claim’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/15/statistics-doubt-coalition-500000-jobs

(10) = guardian.co.uk 31 Jul 2012 ‘Sick and disabled people are being pushed off benefits at any cost’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/31/disabled-people-benefits-panorama

(11) = New Statesman 23 Jan 2013 ‘The Shadow State: The "dehumanising, degrading" treatment of disabled people’, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/shadow-state-dehumanising-degrading-treatment-disabled (see especially 2nd paragraph and 9^th paragraph)

(12) = BBC News 17 Aug 2012 ‘Watchdog finds weaknesses in benefits system’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19244639

(13) = New Statesman 23 Jan 2013 ‘The Shadow State: The "dehumanising, degrading" treatment of disabled people’, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/shadow-state-dehumanising-degrading-treatment-disabled ; 11^th paragraph, 2^nd to 3^rd sentences ‘On average 40 per cent of challenged decisions are overturned at tribunal – one in ten of the total assessed. It has cost £60m thus far to assess the appeals. Some 1,300 people have died after being placed in the “work-related activity group” for those expected to start preparing for an eventual return - 2,200 died before the assessment process was completed.’

(14) = Channel 4 News 08 Feb 2013 ‘Disability testing system causes ‘misery and hardship’’, http://www.channel4.com/news/disability-testing-system-causes-misery-and-hardship , ‘But the public accounts committee report though, lays much of the blame at the door ot the Department for Work and Pensions. It says the DWP relies too heavily on the decisions taken by Atos assessors. And how good are those decisions? Well , according to the committee, 38 per cent of the department's decisions were overturned in appeals...In the meantime Atos Healthcare were paid more than £112m to carry out 738,000 assessments between 2011 and 2012. The PAC report adding: "It (the department) has failed to withold payment for poor performance."’

(15) = Independent on Sunday 17 Feb 2013 ‘'We won't put up with this': Residents facing brunt of 'bedroom tax' will refuse to pay’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/we-wont-put-up-with-this-residents-facing-brunt-of-bedroom-tax-will-refuse-to-pay-8498691.html

(16) = Guardian 15 Feb 2013 ‘Senior ministers to oppose more welfare cuts’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/15/ministers-oppose-more-welfare-cuts

Additional Ranting

The Conservatives’ theory is that people don’t work because they’re lazy. The reality is that even on the government’s own (fiddled) figures there are 5 people unemployed for every job vacancy available. And the real ratio is much higher because of all the fiddling of the unemployment figures. For instance people on temporary, unpaid “workfare” placements are counted as employed and in “new jobs”.

The Conservatives’ theory is that most people on disability benefit could actually work easily and are being prevented from getting jobs and getting on in life by receiving benefits and believing they can’t work (with the unspoken assumption again that there would be enough jobs for all of them even if this was true). Look at the Paralympic athletes they say, that proves that it’s all in the mind – glass half empty or glass half full perspectives. Unfortunately this is all bollocks. Many people are genuinely disabled and simply cannot work – and what’s more many of those who have become disabled worked and paid taxes for decades before becoming disabled due to illnesses or ageing.

The Conservatives’ theory is that the welfare state is creating dependency and a drain on the economy. The reality is that it is vital to a civilised society which doesn’t want to leave many of it’s people to die of hunger, cold or treatable diseases and illnesses, which is why it was created, in infancy and weak form in the late 19^th to early 20^th centuries and in it’s full form since the end of World War Two. Charities cannot do what welfare states and national health services do – we know that because there were lots of charities before there was a welfare state and they never came close to reducing poverty for the majority.

The welfare state is not a drain on the economy either. For instance unemployment benefit during recessions helps to limit a downwards spiral of falling wages and more people made unemployed, followed by people spending less money on buying goods and services (because many of them now have less), followed by firms sacking more employees and cutting pay for the rest as they can’t sell as many goods or services.

The Conservatives are trying to bring us back to the 19^th century and many of the Liberal Democrats are supporting them and basically agree with them. Worse still much of the leadership of the Labour party largely share their ideology and only differ in how quickly they want to dismantle the welfare state and privatise the NHS by the back door.

Much of the leadership of the Liberal Democrats and the Blairite wing of the Labour party seem to differ only in wanting to do this more gradually.

Supreme Court Judges in Egypt have little legitimacy as appointees of Mubarak dictatorship, but Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, though elected, need to compromise further on drafting a new constitution - while the opposition need to remember Morsy and the Brotherhood are elected and that another long period of instability could lead to a military coup or push the Brotherhood into the arms of the military

While there are some serious problems with the draft Egyptian constitution, much of the criticism of President Mohammed Morsy by the Egyptian opposition and much of the media has badly misrepresented the facts. Morsy, Egypt’s first democratically elected President since Independence in 1953, over-ruled judges most of whom are appointees of the former dictator Mubarak or of the military (1).

These judges have not only found almost everyone charged with killing, injuring or ordering the killing of unarmed protesters under Mubarak not guilty, they have also attempted to dissolve the elected Egyptian parliament and were considering dissolving a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution which includes representatives of trade unions, Coptic Christians, Al Azhar (an Islamic theological university, but one critical of the Muslim Brotherhood) – and this was after the Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court judges had dissolved the previous Constituent Assembly, with the new Assembly being much more representative as a result (2) – (5).

Morsi’s decree merely allowed him to over-rule the dictatorship era judges until a new constitution was in place. This was to be for eight months as the constituent assembly finished drafting the new constitution (6).

(Some members of the opposition say he should have maintained the 1971 Constitution, but the 1971 constitution gives the President the power to to appoint or sack the Prime Minister and the entire cabinet (Article 141) and to choose when to dissolve the upper and lower houses of parliament to call new elections for them (e.g Article 204) (7). The new draft constitution says the President has to get parliament’s approval for his choice of Prime Minister and to go to war. So the draft constitution puts more limits on the President’s power than the existing 1971 one does.(8)- (10))

When the opposition claimed that Morsy was taking too many powers to himself and accused him of making himself a dictator he brought the referendum on the new constitution forward to 15^th December so he would have the powers for less than a month (11). Since then the opposition first said they wanted the referendum on the new constitution delayed until a wider range of people got input into the new draft constitution, before saying they want it cancelled entirely (12).

The draft constitution written by the Constituent Assembly, while it includes some very questionable Islamic fundamentalist aspects (e.g the only religions permitted are Muslim, Christian and Jewish ; and religious education is to be a core subject in primary and secondary schools) is in many ways much more progressive than the 1971 constitution – for instance including equality for women (marred by a qualification that this be where it would not conflict with Islam) and the right of all employees to have a share of profits of any firm or co-operative they work for, as well as for some employees to sit on the board of directors of any firm , plus a guarantee of the right to adequate housing, transportation, food and clothing, provided by the state where necessary (13).

The lack of protections in the Constitution seems to be far more serious for Shia Muslims and Baha’i (both considered “false” Muslims by Sunnis, the Muslim majority in Egypt) than Coptic Christians or women. As with Burmese Rohingya Muslims in Burma being labelled “not Burmese” by the Buddhist majority, the Sunni majority in Egypt say Egyptian Shia should “go back to their own country” (14).

Some of the claims that the draft constitution makes no reference to womens’ rights are wrong if you read it though (15) – (16).

Gang rapes of women in Egypt are still common, as they were under Mubarak, but whether these attacks are organised or permitted by the new government is not certain (17).

While the draft constitution makes many references to Islam and Sharia Law it says Al Azhar – Cairo’s main Islamic university – will decide on what does and does not conform to Islam or Sharia. Al Azhar’s current head was appointed by Mubarak, is fiercely critical of the Musim Brotherhood and is widely considered much more moderate than his predecessor, so any Egyptian version of Islamic law is likely to be much more moderate than that of the Taliban (18). This could change though, if a more extreme leadership takes over Al Azhar – and this is one of the major problems with the draft constitution. However if a majority of Egyptians vote for it, it will be hard to call this undemocratic.

The 1971 Constitution also says Sharia was to be the main source of legislation and it’s section on women’s rights is almost identical to the draft constitution’s. The only areas in which the draft constitution seems to be less progressive are in switching from freedom of religion to only allowing Islam, Judaism or Christianity; and in banning the NDP party which was Mubarak’s party and which had banned the Muslim Brotherhood (19).

Of course a progressive constitution does not guarantee progressive policies – and much of the opposition accuse the Brotherhood of continuing Mubarak’s neo-liberal policies on the orders of the IMF (20).

The opposition say Morsi has had his own people killed, just like Mubarak. Yet it seems so far that both sides’ supporters are killing one another (21). It’s possible Morsi is using Brotherhood thugs the way Mubarak used hired thugs to attack his opponents and claim no involvement, but it’s equally possible that both sides’ supporters are simply getting out of control.

Some revolutionaries seem to believe that any government which does not give them exactly what they or their party wants is illegitimate. The reality is that no government can ever give everyone exactly what they want, because there are too many different people and groups who want conflicting things. Morsi’s government is far from perfect, but it is at least democratically elected, so has some legitimacy whether the opposition, I or anyone else, likes or dislikes it’s policies and views.

While some opposition leaders, like Ayman Nour, have agreed to talks with Morsi, others like El Baradei, who refuse, may simply need to accept that they are in a minority and they will have to compromise to get even a little of what they want (22).

Of course being elected is not a blank cheque to do whatever you like without giving the people who elected you a say on it, but Morsi is providing the people with a say through a referendum.

Ideally a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution should be elected directly, rather than indirectly by the elected parliament, as with the current Egyptian one. The opposition seem to have decided that they will not accept anything except new elections months after the recent ones, on the grounds that they didn’t like the results of the last one. That is not reasonable and it is not likely that the results of new elections would be different.

All that the opposition’s refusal to talk to the elected President is doing is strengthening the hand of the military and former members of Mubarak’s dictatorship. Likely results could be a military coup and another military regime or dictatorship, or, even more likely, pushing the Muslim Brotherhood into the arms of the military.

(There has already been a sign of the latter in Morsy’s decree giving the military the power to arrest and try civilians until the 15^th December referendum. The draft constitution also makes a General elected by other military officers the Commander in Chief of the military – rather than the elected head of government being the CinC as in most democracies. There are also disturbing allegations that anti-Morsi protesters are being tortured by Muslim Brotherhood members before being handed over to police to be jailed (23) – (25)).

Neither outcome would be progress towards most of the revolutionaries’ aims. Much of the draft constitution would be. If they want it changed (and some of it badly needs changed) they should do what people have to do for a democracy to function – start discussing it with their opponents and negotiate a compromise that keeps the military and the former Mubarak regime cronies side-lined.

Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood also have to make compromises – starting with ending their refusal to delay the referendum on the new constitution until a draft more acceptable to the secular minority in Egypt and to religious minorities can be agreed on. This does not mean they have to accept the rulings of a constitutional court made up of appointees and sympathisers of the former dictator though (26).

The opposition have to remember that an indefinite delay in putting a new constitution into place could play into the hands of the military and former Mubarak regime members though, who could use the continuing instability as an excuse for a military coup that excludes any elected government.

Morsi has to remember that being in the majority in a democracy does not mean you can ignore the wishes of the minority entirely – and that around half the people who elected him were voting against Shafik and the Mubarak regime remnants rather than for him or the Brotherhood.

It’s possible that Morsi could yet turn out to be a would-be dictator and the Brotherhood could yet try to enforce fundamentalist Islam on all Egyptians, but a division between the secular and religious opposition to the former dictatorship and military rule could turn this into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Dialogue with them would be much better than making the Brotherhood likely to ally with the military, as has happened with Islamic fundamentalist parties and the military in Pakistan.

And if the opposition believe they can overthrow an elected President and an elected parliament as easily as they overthrew Mubarak, they are likely to be kidding themselves. In a democracy sometimes you have to accept election results that you don’t like.

 

(1) = CNN 23 Nov 2012 ‘Egypt's Morsy says courts can't overturn him’, http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/meast/egypt-morsy-powers/index.html ; 2^nd and 3^rd paragraphs ‘Morsy also ordered retrials and reinvestigations in the deaths of protesters during last year's uprising against strongman Hosni Mubarak. That could lead to the reprosecution of Mubarak, currently serving a life prison term, and several acquitted officials who served under him…The order for retrials could please some Egyptians who've expressed disappointment that security officers and others have escaped legal consequences over last year's protester crackdown by the Mubarak regime.’

(2) = BBC News 14 Jun 2012 ‘Egypt supreme court calls for parliament to be dissolved’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18439530

(3) = BBC News 09 Jul 2012 ‘Egypt court challenges Mursi's reopening of parliament’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18765947

(4) = New York Times 05 Dec 2012 ‘Egyptian Court Postpones Ruling on Constitutional Assembly’, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/world/middleeast/egypt-morsi-constitution-vote.html ; 1^st paragraph ‘Egypt’s constitutional court on Sunday put off its much-awaited ruling on the legitimacy of the Islamist-led legislative assembly that drafted a new charter last week, accusing a crowd of Islamists outside the courthouse of intimidating its judges’

(5) = New York Times 05 Dec 2012 ‘Egyptian Court Postpones Ruling on Constitutional Assembly’, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/world/middleeast/egypt-morsi-constitution-vote.html ; 6th paragraph ‘Egyptian courts had previously dissolved both the elected Parliament and an earlier Constitutional Assembly, and the breakup of the current one would have completely undone the transition. President Mohamed Morsi cited the pending ruling on Nov. 22 when he put his own edicts above judicial review until ratification of the constitution, saying that he intended to protect the assembly until it finished its work.’

(6) = Egypt Independent 22 Nov 2012 ‘Morsy issues new constitutional declaration’, http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/morsy-issues-new-constitutional-declaration

(7) = Guardian 10 Dec 2012 ‘Egypt's hopes betrayed by Morsi’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/09/egypt-hopes-betrayed-mohamed-morsi ; 9^th paragraph ‘A leader who wanted to unite the country would use our 1971 constitution until we got through this difficult time. But once again we have a presidency that would see Egyptians murdering Egyptians on the streets before it puts aside party politics and tries to lead honestly in the interests of the people.’

(8) = Egypt State Information Service ‘Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt 1971’, http://www.sis.gov.eg/en/LastPage.aspx?Category_ID=208

(9) = Reuters 30 Nov 2012 ‘Factbox: Egypt's draft constitution’,
http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-egypts-draft-constitution-001332044--sector.html ; ‘POWERS - The constitution limits the president to two four-year terms. The president must secure parliament's approval for his choice of prime minister. The head of state can declare war with parliament's approval, but must consult a newly defined national defense council, in which generals outnumber civilians.’

(10) = Egypt 12 Feb 2012 ‘Egypt's draft constitution translated’,  http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/egypt-s-draft-constitution-translated

(11) = BBC News 10 Dec 2012 ‘Egypt: Who holds the power?’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18779934

(12) = Channel 4 News 09 Dec 2012 ‘Cairo protests: opposition demands referendum cancellation’, http://www.channel4.com/news/cairo-protests-opposition-demands-referendum-cancellation

(13) = Egypt State Information Service ‘Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt 1971’, http://www.sis.gov.eg/en/LastPage.aspx?Category_ID=208

(14) = New Statesman 03 Jul 2012 ‘The plight of Egypt’s forgotten Shia minority’, http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/world-affairs/2012/07/plight-egypt%E2%80%99s-forgotten-shia-minority

(15) = Amnesty International 30 Nov 2012 ‘Egypt’s new constitution limits fundamental freedoms and ignores the rights of women’, http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/egypt-s-new-constitution-limits-fundamental-freedoms-and-ignores-rights-women-2012-11-30

(16) = See (8) above

(17) = Unreported World, Channel 4 (UK), Series 2012, ‘ Episode 14 - Egypt: Sex, Mobs and Revolution’, http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/episode-guide/series-2012/episode-14

(18) = Al Jazeera 28 May 2010 ‘Egypt appoints senior Sunni figure’, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2010/03/2010319165631215994.html

(19) = BBC News 30 Nov 2012 ‘Comparison of Egypt's suspended and draft constitutions’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20555478

(20) = Guardian 10 Dec 2012 ‘Egypt's hopes betrayed by Morsi’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/09/egypt-hopes-betrayed-mohamed-morsi ; by Ahdaf Soueif;  4^th paragraph ‘Concerning the economy it's become clear that the Brotherhood's programme is basically Mubarak's: Morsi visited China accompanied by some of the biggest business allies of Mubarak; the banking communities talk of deals already being made by high-ranking officials and their relatives, and borrowing from the IMF and the World Bank is suddenly not sinful. Meanwhile, the president is able to issue the wildest constitutional declarations but is unable to make the smallest step towards establishing minimum and maximum wages.’

(21) = Independent 06 Dec 2012 ‘Egyptian military halts Cairo clashes after seven are killed’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/egyptian-military-halts-cairo-clashes-after-seven-are-killed-8389573.html 6^th and 15^th paragraphs ‘Officials said seven people had been killed and 350 wounded in the violence, for which each side blamed the other. Six of the dead were Morsi supporters, the Muslim Brotherhood said… Rival factions used rocks, petrol bombs and guns in the clashes around the presidential palace.’

(22) = AP / Time World 10 Dec 2012 ‘Gunmen Attack Egyptian Opposition Protesters’, http://world.time.com/2012/12/10/egypts-military-takes-over-security-ahead-of-vote/ ; 9^th to 10^th paragraphs ‘Cracks in the opposition’s unity first appeared last weekend when one of its leading figures, veteran opposition politician Ayman Nour, accepted an invitation by Morsi to attend a “national dialogue” meeting. On Monday, another key opposition figure, El-Sayed Badawi of the Wafd party, met Morsi at the presidential palace. The opposition has said it would not talk to Morsi until he shelves the draft constitution and postpones the referendum.’

(23) = Human Rights Watch 10 Dec 2012 ‘Egypt: Morsy Law Invites Military Trials of Civilians’, http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/12/10/egypt-morsy-law-invites-military-trials-civilians

(24) = See (8) above

(25) = Al-Masry Al-Youhm 06 Dec 2012 ‘Al-Masry Al-Youm Reports On Brotherhood Torture Chambers’, http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2012/12/muslim-brotherhood-egypt-torture-chambers.html

(26) = Voice of America 08 Dec 2012 ‘Egyptian Islamist Parties Reject Referendum Delay’, http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/12/08/egyptian-islamist-parties-reject-referendum-delay-2/

Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza should be tried here for the crimes they're suspected of - we shouldn't deport even our worst enemies to be tortured

I completely agree that Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza's views are extreme and morally wrong - and that if they have encouraged people to carry out terrorist attacks targeting civilians or helped fund or organise them they should be charged, tried and jailed. None of that can justify deporting them to countries where they will most likely be tortured and convicted based on statements made by other people under torture though.

"Assurances" from the Jordanian government (basically a dictatorship under the King of Jordan) that they will not do either of these things to particular prisoners extradited to them from European countries including the UK have been proven worthless. This has been established by investigations by Human Rights Watch and by Amnesty International (1) - (2). They've also found that torture in Jordanian prisons is routine and brutal right up to present (3) - (4). That makes Home Secretary Theresa May making a great show of seeking of "assurances" on Qatada just a pantomime done for the sake of appearances.

The right wing media circus in the US could to lead to Hamza, if he is deported to America, being sent to Guantanamo in Cuba for torture, or the US airbase at Bagram in Afghanistan, or secret US prisons in Afghanistan, where prisoners are tortured and tried by 'military tribunal' kangaroo courts (5) - (10).

If Hamza and Qatada have encouraged, funded or helped organise terrorist attacks on civilians, as they are alleged to have done while in the UK, they should be given fair trials here, with a jury. If they're found guilty they can them be jailed for their crimes.

There are excuses given by the Home Office about the supposed difficulties of getting a conviction in court, but British Historian Professor Mark Curtis in his book 'Secret Affairs' (on British government dealings with radical Islamists) and investigative journalist Richard Norton-Taylor say the real reason this option has not being taken is that British intelligence and the Metropolitan Police's Special Branch had many mutually beneficial dealings with Hamza and Qatada throughout the 1990s which would be likely to come up during a court case here and embarrass them, the British government and possibly senior members of both main UK parties (11) - (12).

Another likely reason that neither have been charged and brought to trial here is that the Conservative party are keen to create an easily avoidable dispute with the European Court of Human Rights as part of their propaganda against the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. Neither prevents us trying or jailing either of these men. Neither have anything to do with the EU - they existed long before the EU, were always separate from it and the European Community and are based on the UN Declaration of Human Rights which was written in order to ensure that we never slipped back into the horrors of the Holocaust and the Second World War.

The right wing of the Conservative party also have an irrational hatred of anything European or foreign which is so extreme that they might as well be calling for the abolition of foreign countries and foreigners.

Those who promote extreme interpretations of Islam often call those who disagree with them "hypocrites". We are more likely to deny them more recruits by showing their claims false by upholding the principles we say we stand for, than by ignoring them when they become inconvenient and so seeming to prove the extremists right.

If we throw away our principles of opposing torture, demanding fair trials and holding people being innocent until proven guilty, the moment they apply to someone whose views the majority of us dislike, then we will really have allowed our enemies to destroy our way of life in a way that no terrorist attack could manage to.

Sources

(1) = Human Rights Watch 06 Oct 2011 'Diplomatic Assurances: Empty Promises Enabling Torture', http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/10/06/diplomatic-assurances-empty-promises-enabling-torture

(2) = Amnesty International 12 April 2010 'Europe must halt unreliable 'diplomatic assurances' that risk torture', http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/europe-must-halt-unreliable-diplomatic-assurances-risk-torture-2010-04-12

(3) = Human Rights Watch 08 Oct 2008 'Jordan: Torture in Prisons Routine and Widespread - Reforms Fail to Tackle Abuse, Impunity Persists', http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/10/08/jordan-torture-prisons-routine-and-widespread-0

(4) = Human Rights Watch World Report 2012 : Jordan , http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-jordan ; 'Perpetrators of torture enjoy near-total impunity. The redress process begins with a deficient complaint mechanism, continues with lackluster investigations and prosecutions, and ends in police court, where two of three judges are police-appointed police officers. '

(5) = Scotsman 27 May 2004,'Soldier left brain damaged after playing unruly prisoner at Guantánamo', http://www.scotsman.com/news/international/soldier-left-brain-damaged-after-playing-unruly-prisoner-at-guant-225-namo-1-532722

(6) = Independent 14 Oct 2006 - ‘Guantanamo guards 'admitted abusing inmates',

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/guantanamo-guards-admitted-abusing-inmates-419992.html

(7) = Human Rights Watch 01 Jun 2010 'The Bagram Detainee Review Boards: Better, But Still Falling Short' , http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/06/02/bagram-detainee-review-boards-better-still-falling-short

(8) = CBS News 13 Nov 2011 'Bagram: The other Guantanamo?' ,

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57323856/bagram-the-other-guantanamo/

(9) = BBC News 15 Apr 2010 'Afghans 'abused at secret prison' at Bagram airbase', http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8621973.stm

(10) = BBC News 11 May 2010 'Red Cross confirms 'second jail' at Bagram, Afghanistan',

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8674179.stm

(11) = guardian.co.uk Comment Is Free 14 Feb 2012 'Why is Abu Qatada not on trial?' , http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/14/abu-qatada-not-on-trial

(12) = Mark Curtis (2010) 'Secret Affairs : Britain's collusion with radical Islam' Serpent's Tail/Profile Books, London, 2010 , chapter 16 (pages 265 - 276 of paperback edition)

The British government continue to lie about their policy of intelligence service collusion in torture – and it doesn’t make us safer

Binyam Mohamed – British and American courts found he had been kidnapped and tortured with British and American intelligence agents being involved in his kidnapping and present at his torture in various countries by methods including cutting his genitals

British Foriegn Minister David Miliband MP's shameful defence of MI5 (or more accurately MI6) collusion in the kidnapping and torture of British citizen Binyam Mohamed continued today.

On Channel 4 New (UK) he dismissed the paragraph of the judge's ruling in the relevant court case which said that MI5 had deliberately suppressed or with-held information from Ministers and parliament, including the fact that MI5 (or more probably MI6) officers were present during Mohammed's torture - which took place in various countries he was taken to by the CIA and MI6 - Pakistan, Morocco, Afghanistan and the US occupied part of Cuba at Guantanamo Bay (1) – (3).

Interviewed on Channel 4 news he claimed that it was “absolutely untrue” that MI5 ever “suppressed information”, though “of course they are a secret organisation and rely on secrecy” (4). Now what is the difference between keeping information secret and "suppressing" it? If there's one that’s not just a matter of semantics or playing with words can he explain it to us please?

Can he also explain why his government tried to prevent the paragraph of the judge's ruling that criticised MI5 for suppressing information from being made public? Surely that's suppressing information - or maybe it's just keeping it secret - the nature of the distinction remains unclear to me.

Miliband and the government also argued during the court case that the details of Mohamed's torture under CIA and MI5 oversight - including cutting his gentitals with a razor, pouring acid or some form of stinging liquid on the cuts, beatings and sleep deprivation – should not be released to the British public by the court in case this led to the US government refusing to share intelligence in future. This attempt at suppressing the facts was despite the fact that these facts had already been made public during a court case in the US and were already available – so Miliband was just trying to stop facts already publicly available becoming widely known through media reports, because it would embarrass his government and MI6 (5).

The Times newspaper also reported that :

‘Lt Colonel Yvonne Bradley, Mr Mohamed's US military lawyer, who visited him in Guantanamo Bay last week, said that America wanted to save face. "What the US is doing right now is not so much about national security or intelligence - it's about being embarrassed," she said.’ (6).

The other trick constantly used is for MI5 officers to say things like ‘MI5 would never take British citizens abroad for torture’, which, as Mohamed’s lawyer, Clive Stafford-Smith, has pointed out is probably true – but only because the officers involved outside of the UK would almost certainly be MI6, who operate abroad – and not MI5, who operate only in the UK (and whose functions, apart from preventing terrorism and espionage by foreign agents, also include propaganda, disinformation and keeping what they’re doing secret) (7).

There is evidence not just from British and American court cases but from US investigations which shows a likely British government and intelligence policy of collusion in ‘extra-ordinary rendition’ (i.e kidnapping) and torture (8), (9).

No-one has presented a shred of evidence sufficient to persuade any court that Binyam Mohamed is involved with any terrorist group; and British intelligence colluded in his kidnapping and torture. Torture is both wrong and completely ineffective – especially when you kidnap people without getting any solid evidence they have any involvement in terrorism. We have a presumption of innocence for a reason – so you can’t have witch hunts and randomly accuse innocent people without evidence.

We’ve seen what happens in policing in the UK when some police think they “know” someone is guilty of being a serial killer, despite having no evidence. In the case of Colin Stagg – innocent of the murder of Rachel Nickell and her daughter was charged and tried based on psychological profiling and letters written to him by a policewoman sent to entrap him (despite him repeatedly telling her he did not like violence and had never killed anyone). A judge threw the case out the next year. The real murderer – Robert Napper – wasn’t identified and charged and tried till 2008. Luckily he had been sent to a Broadmoor prison’s psychiatric wing a few years after he murdered Nickell – otherwise the police involved would have been letting the real serial killer free to keep killing for years on end while they focused on Stagg based on a hunch not backed up by any evidence (10).

The same applies in counter-terrorism – if actions are based on suspicion and hunches rather than solid evidence that would stand up in court then our police and intelligence services will be wasting their time on people who aren’t any threat while those who are really a threat will be free to continue unopposed. Torture is not only completely wrong but useless for the same reason. Under torture people will tell you whatever you want to hear, whether it’s true or bullshit. So it will seem to confirm false theories and hunches rather than relying on systematically gathering solid evidence.

All this makes the bizarre columns defending torture and condemning Amnesty International for opposing it by Observer columnist Nick Cohen and others, who seem not even to know that most of the evidence had already been released in American courts, even harder to understand (11).

Apparently Nick sees supporting torture and supporting jailing people not proven to have any involvement of terrorism is a defence of freedom just so long as the victims have been accused of Islamic extremism (without evidence) by the intelligence services, or if you disagree with their views. If not being tortured and not being jailed without fair trial are rights Mr. Cohen reserves for people he agrees with he’s not much of a democrat and might as well be one of the ‘Islamo-fascists’ he constantly condemns , though Mr. Cohen is quick to condemn any Muslim accused of a crime without evidence. What would his attitude be if someone did that with any Jew accused of a crime, even if they were found innocent by a court? He would quite rightly accuse them of anti-semitism. So why are you so prejudiced against all Muslims Nick? Why do you assume any Muslim accused of anything is guilty, even when a court finds them innocent?

If your reply is that torture and kidnapping by British and US intelligence meant their case was thrown out, then isn't that a good reason to drop those methods in future, so that if they do have solid evidence of guilt, they can get a conviction?

(1) = guardian.co.uk 10 Feb 2010 ‘Binyam Mohamed: text of letter which reveals court's criticism of 'deliberately misleading' security service’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/10/binyam-mohamed-torture-letter

(2) = BBC News 10 Feb 2010 ‘Binyam Mohamed judgement manipulated, lawyers argue’,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8509155.stm

(3) = guardian.co.uk 16 Oct 2009 ‘Binyam Mohamed: Judges overrule attempt to suppress torture evidence’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/16/binyam-mohamed-torture-evidence-miliband

(4) = Channel 4 News (UK) 26 Feb 2010 ‘Binyam torture case: court lifts ban’,
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/binyam+torture+case+court+lifts+ban/3563327

(5) = Times Online 05 Feb 2009 ‘David Miliband denies claims of US threat over Binyam Mohamed's alleged torture’,
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5668500.ece

(6) = See (6) above

(7) = guardian.co.uk CommentIsFree 13 Feb 2010 ‘Step aside, Kim Howells’ by Clive-Stafford Smith,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/12/mi5-torture

(8) = Observer 20 Dec 2009 ‘Torture claims by British resident are given credence by American judge’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/20/torture-claims-binyam-mohamed

(9) = guardian.co.uk 10 Feb 2010 ‘Binyan Mohamed: timeline of torture case and the fight to keep it secret’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/10/binyam-mohamed-torture-timeline-guantanamo

(10) = Guardian 18 Dec 2009 ‘Rachel Nickell killing: Serial rapist Robert Napper pleads guilty’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/18/rachel-nickell-robert-napper-murder-guilty

(11) = Observer 14 Feb 2010 ‘We abhor torture – but that requires paying a price ; Spineless judges, third-rate politicians and Amnesty prefer an easy life to fighting for liberty’,
By Nick Cohen, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/14/nick-cohen-human-rights-binyam-mohamed