WAS KELIS RIGHT ABOUT BRITISH RACISM?

Racism in Britain is not 'disgusting' as the singer Kelis proclaimed this week, but for the first time in a decade it is on the rise.

 Things are not "disgusting" in Britain, as the American singer Kelis
pronounced this week, but we do seem to be moving towards a new normal.

 Let's start with the good stuff. Britain is one of the most liberal, most tolerant countries in the world. Given the challenges it faces from diverse, ever-changing communities in the major conurbations, it manages its affairs with a remarkable degree of harmony. We live, indigenous and non-indigenous, in relative proximity. Generally speaking, we don't much like extremism or extremists. For less good examples, look to bits of Europe that don't cope so well: look at France, look at Germany; look at Italy. No, don't look at Italy – well, not directly. The soul can only take so much horror.

But for all that, something is happening, and it isn't good. We're drifting back. Hard to gauge these things exactly, but look at the web postings, listen to the radio phone-ins, read the newspapers, cup an ear outside a playground. Talk to young black men or Muslims about their recent experiences with the police; go to Dale Farm and talk to the Travellers facing eviction; witness how sexual attention towards women frequently escalates into aggression and obscenities when young men are rebuffed.

Things are not "disgusting", as the American singer Kelis pronounced this week, but we do seem to be moving towards a new normal. Britain feels that bit harsher, a little bit meaner, less considerate; indeed, the opposite of everything the prime minister promises in his "big society". The inevitable consequence, you say, of a society facing unemployment, contraction, scarcity and recession. Perhaps. But I don't think we are here by accident. This is a course that was set.

A remarkable thing happened in 1999 in the aftermath of the death of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence. Pretty much against the advice of Tony Blair, Jack Straw set up the Macpherson inquiry. It was a judicial investigation that prodded and probed the workings of the Metropolitan police; but more importantly it also had a hard look at our institutions.

As it pulled away at the many layers, we saw we had become accustomed to levels of discriminatory behaviour that did us no credit. The police, as always, took the first hit, but their failings were merely the failings of our society in microcosm: the racism, the sexism; the distaste for, and often hostility to, difference; the arrogance that characterised encounters between those in the majority endowed with authority, and those of a different race and gender and social background who had none.

Macpherson made us look again at it all. And we were the better for it. But we didn't all feel better. Sections of the police hated Macpherson because they lost the ability to offend who they pleased, to stop who they wanted, and had to talk to the minorities they felt they should have been policing. By the time the ripples spread to the NHS, the civil service and private firms terrified of being exposed for being out of step in terms of equalities, Macpherson gained more enemies. Those who have power don't surrender it easily.

The "ludicrous Macpherson report of 1999", wrote Peter Hitchens in one of his many assaults. A "sub-marxist analysis of the institutions of contemporary Britain", railed the Express's Leo McKinstry. It's all a "McCarthyite witch hunt spawned by Stephen's death", said the Mail's Richard Littlejohn. Yes, it spawned "a kind of McCarthyism," added his colleague Melanie Phillips. We're too politically correct, says the much-quoted Campaign Against Political Correctness. We're wasting money, says the TaxPayers' Alliance. They articulate the backlash.

Over time, the kickback has worked. When it emerges that once again some school pupils, no doubt echoing their parents, throw words such as Jew and gay and Paki and Chink around like so much plasticine, the reaction from the Mail and the Express is to criticise the teachers who make a note of it. When the Dale Farm Travellers say they are being unfairly treated and refuse to move, the Sun suggests the council should "let the locals loose on the site". When community advisers exercise their policing function in Tottenham, as envisaged by Macpherson, and warn tensions are high after the shooting of Mark Duggan, those warnings go unheeded, for once again they are no longer seen as people worth listening to. Next stop, riot shields.

There is no longer political pressure for equality or even civility. This week, the home secretary, Theresa May, who has been ripping up equality regulations as fast as she can find them, trumpeted her decision to walk away from plans to help women rise in industry.

There was a healthier mindset for a decade after Macpherson, but there was never buy-in from the establishment – the politicians, the mandarins and the media moguls – and so those changes were never woven into the fabric. The right huffed and puffed and lobbied about political correctness gone mad. And they got what they wanted. This is the post-Macpherson world they wanted, and it's meaner and harsher and less equitable and more divisive. This is a creature of their design; they may as well celebrate it. And if just occasionally they have to suffer its ill-effects, they really shouldn't complain.

By: Hugh Muir

Hugh Muir is the Guardian's diary editor. He has also written extensively about race, social policy, policing and London government.

“YOU'RE NOT THAT EASY TO FORGET!”

Dame Bernice V. Lake QC

Anguillians were stunned last week by the untimely passing of two prominent nationals, the late Captain Cardigan “Cardi” Hodge, an outstanding pilot and businessman and the late Dame Bernice V. Lake QC, one of the region’s pre-eminent jurists and a distinguished scholar, especially in matters of Constitutional Law. The entire community is saddened by the loss of these exceptional Anguillians who were great ambassadors for our island in their several fields of endeavour and made us proud through their acclaim abroad. But my condolences go out especially to the families, close friends and colleagues of the deceased in this, their period of bereavement and sorrow. We cannot imagine their feelings of emptiness and distress over the loss of those they both loved and adored. They will be dearly missed. May their souls rest in peace!

It is not to diminish in any way the contribution of Captain Cardigan “Cardi” Hodge in the field of aviation and airline services to the region that I have chosen to dedicate the rest of my column today to the life and work of Dame Bernice V. Lake QC. It is well known that Captain “Cardi” frequently exceeded the call of duty to ensure that his customers reach their destinations within or outside of the Caribbean to fulfill their travel objectives whether for vacation, business or health emergencies. And there are those who will sing his praises and express their sincere gratitude for many, many years to come. He was highly respected and loved by many.


Captain Cardigan “Cardi” Hodge

However, Dame Bernice has so overwhelmed me by her contribution to the overarching issues of constitutional development and the protection of human rights in its broadest definition --- issues which affect the lives of all the peoples of our region and indeed all human kind --- that it would be irreverent not to extol her virtues in some manner during this sombre period. But even more so on a personal level, over the last five years my relationship with “Dame Bee” (as I affectionately called her --- with her permission) became respectfully cordial and in that sense any apology on my part for deciding to speak endearingly about her in my column, would be most disingenuous indeed.

I recall on another sombre occasion twenty-six years ago when Dame Bernice had the privilege of eulogizing her sister, the late Hon. Albena Lake-Hodge, she repeatedly use the phrase “we are just ordinary people”. While that “phrase” may describe her humble attitude in her most private life, I must say that there was nothing “ordinary” about Dame Bernice --- she was an extraordinary woman and many other superlatives may characterize her. Reflections on her life by those close and dear to her during the recent celebrations in her honour by the Anguilla Bar Association, perhaps for the first time in a public setting, exposed the more intimate aspects of Dame Bernice as a mother, a teacher, a disciplinarian, a homemaker, a gardener of exotic plants and orchids, a curator of various antiques, a seamstress, a designer, a baker, the list goes on. The obvious question to many persons, as it was to me --- is how did she find the time to be all of these things while pursuing a most stressful career as an advocate and a jurist? And again not an “ordinary advocate” --- she was one of the pre-eminent advocates in our region. The point I am making is that Dame Bernice found the time to identify with the preoccupations of “ordinary people” and never lost that attachment to the people whose causes she lived to defend and protect. And many of her close friends especially those she welcomed to her home were “ordinary people”. There was nothing pretentious about her. Dame Bernice knew and remembered her roots!

Inevitably, those who know the early period of my acquaintance with Dame Bernice, going back to the early eighties when we were on different sides of a political divide, would question the mutual friendship that we developed. Indeed, there seemed to be no love lost in that relationship and perhaps there may even have been the appearance of an entrenched hatred. But outside of the normal rancour of political campaigning there has never been any disrespect. In fact I can readily say that I was impressed by her tremendous intellect and her amazing clarity of mind in processing complex issues. And truthfully, in the arena of local politics her loyalty was never to individuals but rather to principles and policies consistent with her genuine belief in what was right in matters of national importance. In that regard, she did not support any Government because of personal or political association but rather on the basis of adherence to what she believed were sound policies and the existence of due respect for the rights of citizens. Her assessment of the handling of such issues determined where she would place her support during elections --- not party politics. Dame Bernice was not a creature of political expediency!

It was in the last Constitutional Reform Exercise beginning in 2006 when I began to explore, under her guidance, the concept of fundamental rights and freedoms more critically than I ever did as a practicing politician, when I came to appreciate and understand the driving force behind her approach to constitutional development and the protection of human rights. And it was only after I showed a genuine interest in understanding the linkage of these two issues to the overall relationship with our administering power that she brought me under her tutelage. Her tutelage was of the style that allowed me to question even the most central aspects of her philosophy --- but the outcome was inevitably my agreement with the premise and the reinforcement of her position. Dame Bernice was an excellent teacher!

During the period of public consultations for the last Constitutional Reform Exercise I prevailed on Dame Bernice to devise a presentation that would explain the important aspects of Constitutional Democracy and how they operate within a State. Ours was the awesome task of explaining to “the man on the street” the intricacies of the constitution and how it should function for the furtherance of the interest of all citizens. I was amazed when Dame Bernice developed a power point presentation, which illustrated in the most comprehensible form, a paradigm of Constitution Democracy complete with graphics. It is important to quote what she said: “I think of the State as a WHEEL. At the HUB are the citizens with their fundamental rights; the RIM of the WHEEL is your constitution; and within the WHEEL are the institutions of Government, which are the RADIAL SPOKES which link and connect the RIM to the HUB in a predetermined way so that the WHEEL keeps its circular form and runs smoothly.” She went on to explain: “the fundamental rights are the core values which guide the growth of society and the Constitution is the Supreme Law which keeps the State in social balance.” What followed was a clear outline of what constituted the various parts of the “symbolic wheel” and their function. There could not be a clearer illustration of a complex process than what Dame Bernice devised. Dame Bernice was a master at grass roots communication!

On June 5, 2008 Dame Bernice delivered the Walter G. Hodge Memorial Lecture on the topic: “Constitutional Democracy Governance in Twenty-First Century Anguilla: Illusion or Realizable Aspiration”. It was a comprehensive presentation that dealt with the history of regional constitutional evolution; the particular and peculiar circumstances of Anguilla; a historical account of our colonial relationship that shows the persistence of a common thread of adherence to the principle of self-determination and full internal self-government over a period over forty years; as well as the legal basis for the pursuit of that assertion. There is no question that that lecture should become the main document for making a strong case for full internal self government, which every constitutional exercise has endorsed over the past fourteen years. In fact Dame Bernice makes the point in her lecture that the existing Anguilla Act of 1980 under which “Anguilla is currently administered expressly contemplates Anguilla’s attainment of full internal self-government”. She then concludes: “the right to opt for constitutional advancement in the form of full internal self-government as a State in Association with another independent country is a right which Anguillians have never relinquished and is a position of entitlement from which they have never resiled. To give up that right would be to betray the principles and cause of the Revolution and to compromise the sterling contribution of our revolutionary heroes who fought so bravely in the quest for freedom.” It was through such arguments based on historical facts and supported by the relevant legislative provisions that Dame Bernice advised the past Government to pursue a constitutional status of full internal self-government. The present Constitutional Reform Committee would be well advised to consider this approach. Dame Bernice was an invaluable asset to the furtherance of constitutional evolution!

The circumstances of Anguilla during the period of her education caused Dame Bernice to travel to other parts of the OECS to learn and practice her profession. It is as a result of that reality that she spent a considerable period of her life in Antigua a country that embraced her as one of its own. She had chosen a profession, which at that time in the region was dominated by men. But it would appear that, that situation was more of a welcomed challenge than a deterrent, for a courageous young woman whose athletic background had prepared her to take competition in her stride. Her success in overcoming the early hurdles which attend most professionals in a new environment earned her tremendous respect and her capacity for effective work; long hours; and her tenacious defence of her clients interests soon propelled her to the top of her profession in Antigua. Her reputation spread among her colleagues in the OECS and the wider region and the rest is a matter of history. Dame Bernice firmly established herself as a force to be reckoned with as an advocate and as a jurist to be respected in scholastic publications, lectures and journals. Dame Bernice was a regional stalwart in the field of law!

But first and foremost Dame Bernice was a woman of exceptional strength of character who lived her belief in the inalienable rights of all humankind in every aspect of her life --- both as a private citizen and as a professional who could advance its practice and exercise within the community and region in which she lived. She never believed in paying lip service to these fundamental elements of natural justice and as a consequence her genuine activism was both respected and legendary across the Caribbean. Dame Bernice was a champion of social justice.

The softer side of Dame Bernice was the fortuitous preserve of those who had the opportunity to get to know her. But unfortunately many may have been too intimidated by her overwhelming presence in public life to venture across that threshold into familiarity and friendship --- a zone of relationship, which those who have been so privileged to enjoy, hold in the highest esteem. Dame Bernice was a caring, kind and dedicated friend.

It would be an impossible enterprise to capture all of the wonderful attributes and achievements of this great Anguillian Lady in even the most comprehensive account of her life and service. Neither could we expect to give adequate acclaim to the important aspects of her legacy in such an abbreviated presentation. One thing we are confident about is that the history of Anguilla and the OECS can never be complete without mention of her enormous contribution to the advancement of social justice in our region. Dame Bernice will be fondly remembered. And let me say on behalf of the many lives you touched during your short sojourn among us: “Dame Bee! You’re not that easy to forget!”

By: Victor F. Banks
Victor Banks is a former Finance, Economics, Commerce and Tourism Minister on Anguilla. He is presently the leader of the Oposition Anguilla United Front Party, writer and author of a weekly political article for the Anguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

POLICE IN PUERTO RICO ARE ACCUSED OF ABUSES IN JUSTICE DEPT. REPORT



The Puerto Rican police were criticized for their treatment of nonviolent demonstrators.

WASHINGTON — In a blistering condemnation of the second-largest police force in the United States, the Justice Department is accusing the Puerto Rico Police Department of a “profound” and “longstanding” pattern of civil rights violations and other illegal practices that have left it “broken in a number of critical and fundamental respects.”       

In a 116-page report that officials intend to make public Thursday, the civil rights division of the Justice Department accused the Puerto Rico Police Department of systematically “using force, including deadly force, when no force or lesser force was called for,” unnecessarily injuring hundreds of people and killing “numerous others.”

The report, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, says the 17,000-officer force routinely conducts illegal searches and seizures without warrants. It accuses the force of a pattern of attacking nonviolent protesters and journalists in a manner “designed to suppress the exercise of protected First Amendment rights.”

And it says investigators “uncovered troubling evidence” that law enforcement officers in Puerto Rico appear to routinely discriminate against people of Dominican descent and “fail to adequately police sex assault and domestic violence” cases — including spousal abuse by fellow officers.

“Unfortunately,” the report found, “far too many P.R.P.D. officers have broken their oath to uphold the rule of law, as they have been responsible for acts of crime and corruption and have routinely violated the constitutional rights of the residents of Puerto Rico.”

The report is likely to intensify a sense of distress among the nearly four million American citizens who live on Puerto Rico, where violent crime has spilled into well-to-do areas. While violent crime has plummeted in most of the mainland United States, the murder rate in Puerto Rico is soaring. In 2011, there have been 786 homicides — 117 more than at this point last year.

Rather than helping to solve the crime wave, the Puerto Rico Police Department is part of the problem, the report contends. In October, the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested 61 officers from the department in the largest police-corruption operation in bureau history. And the arrest of Puerto Rican police officers, the report says, is hardly rare.

From January 2005 to November 2010, it said, there were more than 1,709 such arrests for offenses “ranging from simple assault and theft to domestic violence, drug trafficking and murder.” During a comparable period, the New York Police Department, with a force about twice the size, had about 607 such arrests.

“The degree of police corruption and criminal misconduct in Puerto Rico is high and contributes to the public safety and civil rights crisis,” the report said. “More P.R.P.D. officers are involved in criminal activity than in any other major law enforcement agency in the country.”

A “finding” by the civil rights division of a pattern or practice of constitutional violations by a police department is a precursor to a lawsuit, which either goes to trial or, if the local authorities agree to changes, may be settled on the day it is filed. The division has 17 such investigations open, including in New Orleans, Newark and Seattle.

Its investigation of the Puerto Rico police, which began in July 2008, resulted in one of the most extensive such critiques the department has ever produced. It condemns nearly every aspect of the force — its hiring and training practices, the way it assigns and promotes officers, and its policies governing officer behavior and accountability for misconduct.

The report recommends 133 remedial measures that would amount to a sweeping intervention. It is likely to create a political headache for Puerto Rico’s governor, Luis G. Fortuño, a Republican who took office in 2009 and, as chief executive, oversees the department.

Mr. Fortuño has been criticized for his administration’s handling of a series of mostly nonviolent demonstrations by students and workers to protest higher university fees and government layoffs. Riot police hit protesters, bystanders and journalists with batons and used pepper spray and choke holds, in incidents that were videotaped and are discussed in the report.

Two months ago, Mr. Fortuño named a new police superintendent, Emilio Díaz Colón, a former National Guard adjutant general. During his confirmation, Mr. Díaz said he would not shy away from doing what was necessary to “convert the Puerto Rican police into an example of a disciplined, effective” force, but also said he did not plan any immediate major changes.

“We all recognize that there have been challenges at the Police Department that pre-date the governor’s administration,” Edward Zayas, a spokesman for Mr. Fortuño, said on Wednesday. “The governor has always acknowledged that the Puerto Rico Police Department needs reforms. However, he did not wait for any report from the D.O.J. in order to act.”

The Justice Department began the investigation in part due to complaints by the American Civil Liberties Union. In June, when President Obama visited the island, the A.C.L.U. sent him a letter contending that the police had “engaged in a level of brutality against U.S. citizens” with a degree of impunity that “would not be tolerated in the 50 states.”

While the report said Puerto Rican officials cooperated with the investigation, it was hindered by poor record-keeping. For example, the Puerto Rico Police Department reported 39 rapes last year — a figure the report portrays as unbelievable because nearly every other jurisdiction has far more rapes than murders.

The report focused on the “rampant” use of “unnecessary or gratuitous” force, a problem made worse by the use of tactical units — heavily armed officers who are poorly trained and steeped in “violent subcultures” — for ordinary police work. It says such units frequently “rely on intimidation, fear and extreme use of force to manage crowds and are often deployed to low-income and minority communities on routine patrols.”

The report also recounts many “illustrative incidents” and includes a nine-page appendix listing dozens more. One example it said exemplified “many of the deep-rooted deficiencies that continue to plague P.R.P.D.” was the killing of Cáceres Cruz in August 2007 by a tactical unit officer.

Mr. Cruz was directing traffic near a birthday party when three officers drove by and thought he had insulted them. They told Mr. Cruz he was under arrest and wrestled him to the ground, during which time one officer shot himself in the leg.The officer then repeatedly shot Mr. Cruz, who was lying on the ground, in his head and body before they drove off. An internal investigation cleared them of misconduct. But after a video of the incident surfaced in the news media, one officer was convicted of murder. It emerged that seven complaints had been filed against him, but had been largely ignored.

“The tragic events surrounding the Cáceres Cruz shooting served as a stark reminder of P.R.P.D.’s institutional dysfunction,” the report said.

By: Charlie Savage  and Lizette Alvarez 

Charles Savage is a Washington correspondent for The New York Times. He is known for his work on presidential power and other legal policy matters; and  Lizette Alvarez is a "How We Live Now" correspondent for the national desk of The New York Times, writing about domestic military matters and women's issues, as well as occasionally for the Thursday Styles section.

BEST BEFORE, STILL FINE AFTER

The long-awaited change to 'best before', 'use by' and 'sell by' labelling has finally arrived. What's the oldest thing you've ever eaten?

Photograph: Chris Whitehead/Getty Images

Today marks the arrival of government guidelines scrapping the sell-by date in an attempt to cut down on some of the £12bn worth of food that's wasted each year. Well done and hurrah. From now on, "use by" labels will refer to food that's unsafe to eat by a given date, while "best before" dates will show the product is no longer at its best.

We've debated this subject many times and I can say with confidence and approval that when it comes to deciding whether to eat or bin, Word of Mouthers are broadly of the "sniff it and see" constituency.

While we tend to be cynical about sellers' motives for putting short shelf lives on the likes of tinned food and pickles, a healthy degree of caution should be exercised with fresh food from a safety point of view. And when it comes to quality, flagrant disregard of "best before" enrages those producers who put so much care into making their food - if you've spent hours lovingly hand making fresh chocolates to be enjoyed at their best within a day or two, it must be more than a bit annoying to think of them deteriorating by the day at the back of someone's refrigerator.

But, as consumers, we make these judgments for ourselves and I must admit, not only does "sell by" barely register with me but I hardly pay attention to the "use by" date either, as I trust my own senses. I've binned fresh meat that was within its sell-by date but which had a lingering whiff. Then again, meat that's just out of the packet can have a smell that disappears when aired for a little while.

I have what might be described as a somewhat edgy approach to the whole subject, pushing far beyond recommended use by dates for most things. I'll cut the mould from cheese that isn't meant to have growth on the outside and consider smoked meats to be usable for as long as they languish in my fridge. Figuring it was preserved pretty nicely in its casing, the massive chorizo I brought back from Spain last autumn was used over many months, livening up numerous stews during last year's long, bleak winter. What's the oldest thing you've ever eaten?

By: Susan Smiillie

Susan Smillie is the editor of the Guardian and Observer's online food and drink pages, including Word of Mouth, guardian.co.uk's food blog

PRESS RELEASE: Dame Bernice Lake Q.C

The Valley - The Hon. Chief Minister of Anguilla, Mr. Hubert Hughes, his Ministerial Colleagues, and members of the Anguilla Public Service were deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Dame Bernice Lake Q.C. over the weekend. The Government of Anguilla extends condolence to the members of the Lake family who no doubt will mourn her loss greatly; as will the entire legal fraternity and the country at large.

Dame Bernice possessed an exceptional ability to defend her beliefs without fear or favor, was single minded in her protection of basic human rights, was outspoken on many matters regardless of the repercussions to her personally, and worked tirelessly in the development of Anguilla over many years.

With the depth and breadth of her legal knowledge, and enormous experience she gained working in the region over the last half century, it is no surprise that she figured greatly in the development of our Constitutions over the years. Her capacity to distill the elements of society into constitutional and legal language that stood the test of time was a testimony to her formidable intellect, and carefully honed cultural skills.

As one of Anguilla’s first legal scholars she made an entire people proud when she figured prominently in many cases over the years. Her successes in the fields of law and academia did not come easy, but may be attributed to a committed family structure and the tenacity that naturally comes from being Anguillian. While she made her home in other OECS countries over her career she never shied away from her roots as an Anguillian. In fact she celebrated it, and wore it as a badge of honour.

The country benefitted immensely from her contributions to society since she retired here some years ago. Not only could she be called on to lend advice on any matter that needed an objective opinion, but also provided this advice free of charge as in the case of the revision of our constitution.

Her voice could often be heard on the air waves on talk shows setting the record straight on many legal matters, or even opining on issues of the day. This drive to share her thoughts, wisdom and experience with the general public spoke of a deeper need to assist in steering this beloved island of ours in the right direction.

Dame Bernice will be dearly missed by her family, the legal fraternity, and the Government and People of Anguilla. May her soul rest in peace.

Written by: Merwyn F L. Rogers
PS Chief Minister's Office, September 13, 2011

REPEAL THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT? SLAVERY ARRESTS ANOTHER REASON TO THINK AGAIN

Slavery in modern day Britain? Sadly, it does not beggar belief. This morning we woke to terrible reports that 24 people appear to have been held in appalling and squalid conditions in Bedfordshire and forced to work for years with no pay. Police reports suggest that many of the victims are extremely vulnerable and on the margins of our society - easy prey for those who would exploit them. Some of them may have been imprisoned for as long as 15 years. 

It seems incredible that this can have gone on for so long with no-one noticing. Sadly the problem is not as unusual as we might like to think. In 2008 Liberty represented a young woman named Patience Asuquo who had been held as a slave and had managed to escape her abusive employer, only to face a disinterested police force that refused to investigate her allegations of abuse and assault. And we are currently representing another young woman in frighteningly similar circumstances who has complained that she was held in forced servitude for years and when she finally managed to escape following a particularly nasty assault, was met with a police force that thought the best way to deal with the situation was to simply caution the abusive employer and send her on her way. Only last month, in a separate case, a woman was convicted and sent to prison for holding another young woman in forced servitude in her London home for six months where she had been forced to endure exploitation and abuse.

Part of the problem with these cases is a lack of awareness and public and police indifference. Hardly surprising then that until April 2010 there was no such thing in English law as the criminal offence of holding someone in slavery or forced servitude. Thank goodness for the Human Rights Act (HRA). It is the HRA that has enabled these recent arrests and prosecutions to be brought. Following Patience’s case, and using Article 4 of the Human Rights Act (the right not to be held in slavery) Liberty and other organisations lobbied hard for the creation of a new serious criminal offence of holding someone in slavery or servitude. In October of 2009, an amendment was pushed through the House of Lords which created the offence of holding another person in slavery or servitude or requiring another person to perform forced or compulsory labour. That was then brought into English law through the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. A person convicted of this offence can expect to get a sentence of up to 14 years in prison.

It is this law that has been used today to arrest those suspected of holding those vulnerable men in modern day slavery. Liberty hopes that police forces will continue to actively investigate this and other cases like it. And that those who would repeal the Human Rights Act consider the appalling impact that repeal would have on these terrible and shocking cases.

By: Emma Norton

Legal Officer



THE COMMISSIN ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The Commission tasked with suggesting reforms to the structure of rights protection in the United Kingdom has sent a letter to the Government outlining its interim advice for reforming the European Court of Human Rights.

Drawing attention to the long delays experienced by litigants, and the heavy workload of the Court, the Commission suggests, amongst other things:

-             that the Government should seek to ensure that the European Court of Human Rights is called upon only to address those cases that raise serious questions affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention and serious issues of general importance;

-             the Government should seek to ensure the establishment of a new and effective screening mechanism that allows the Court to decline to deal with cases that do not raise a serious violation of the Convention;

-             the Government should seek to ensure that a programme of fundamental reform establishes agreement on appropriate objective and merit-based principles and rules, and adequate resources, for the selection of judicial candidates at the national level, and for the appointment process at the European level.

It has also sent a letter that surveys, more generally, the areas which it proposes to consider over the next month or so. The reaction to, and context of, these letters is discussed in a post on the UK Human Rights Blog.

The Commission’s early focus on the European Court of Human Rights is unsurprising. In its terms of reference, the Commission is required to advance proposals for reform that ‘incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights, [and] ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in UK law’. As both Mark Elliott and Roger Masterman have argued, this places a significant constraint on the latitude of the Commission. It requires that the rights contained in European Convention on Human Rights are protected and, moreover, that effect is given to the interpretation of these rights provided by the European Court of Human Rights.

The interim proposals of the Commission appear to have two objectives. First, and most explicitly, a desire to protect the Court by reducing the number of cases that it is required to hear. Second, and perhaps more interestingly, a slight widening of the scope given to national courts to place their own interpretation on the rights contained in the Convention by excluding cases that do not raise ‘serious’ violations – though the meaning of ‘serious’ is unclear.

In its discussion of the role of the European Court of Human Rights, the Commission should, perhaps, have also addressed the tricky question of the interaction of domestic law, Convention law, and European Union law. The coming into force of the EU Charter of Rights, discussed by Dorota Leczykiewicz last month, and the proposed accession of the European Union to the European Convention is likely to create a legal quagmire.

There are now three bills of rights – Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the EU Charter of Rights – and three courts competing, in some areas at least, for supremacy in rights jurisprudence – the UK Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Human Rights Act and the European Convention are closely related – the Human Rights Act incorporates the Convention into domestic law – but they are different legal documents, and may be accorded different interpretations over time. It is quite hard to see how this tangle of legal relationships will be worked through. Though I am a constitutional lawyer rather than a specialist in human rights law or European law, I thought I might have a try at teasing out some of the connections.

First, a British statute that contained an element of European Law could be challenged in the British courts using the Human Rights Act and (probably) under the EU Charter of Rights. These two documents contain different articulations of similar rights, and possess different legal force. The British court should consider decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on the Convention in interpreting both of these documents.

Secondly, a litigant might persuade a British court to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court of Justice would, presumably, use the European Convention to interpret the Charter, and then apply the Charter to the piece of European Law that lay behind the British statute, and to the British statute itself. The Court of Justice would also apply Convention rights directly to each of these instruments, as it regards Convention rights as part of the ‘general principles of European law’.

Thirdly, if the litigant was unhappy with the decision of the Court of Justice she could apply to the European Court of Human Rights for review of the decision. The European Court of Human Rights would assess the compatibility of European Law with Convention Law. It is unclear how the Court of Justice would respond to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, especially if the decision ran contrary to the economic rights contained in the European Treaties.

Fourthly, the litigant might also apply for review by the European Court of Human Rights of domestic law. The litigant could argue that the British courts’ interpretation of the Human Rights Act failed to protect her Convention rights, and/or that the British court’s adherence to the decision of the European Court of Justice on the application of the Charter, or the European Court of Justice’s interpretation of Convention rights, failed to protect her Convention rights.

I apologise for the complexity of the last few paragraphs – and I hope that specialists in human rights law and European law reading this blog will correct any errors I have made. The point of the discussion was to show how convoluted rights protection risks becoming in the United Kingdom. And, unless you are a practicing lawyer in need of work, this painful complexity is not something to be welcomed. There is a strong argument to be made for simplicity in constitutional arrangements: the basic structures of legislation and rights protection should be easy to understand and clear.

It could be that, despite its limited terms of reference, the Commission should think more broadly about the role that international courts should play in our constitution, and the number of different bills of rights we need. To steal a quip from another context, whilst one bill of rights shows caution, three suggests panic.

By: Nick Barber

Nick Barber is a Fellow of Trinity College Oxford

EVERY PARSON CHRISTEN HE OWN CHILE FUSS!”

Former Chief Minister of Anguilla,
the Hon. Osbourne B. Fleming:
"... I gonna speak the truth!"

It was refreshing to hear former Chief Minister, the Honourable Osbourne B. Fleming on “To the Point” last evening Monday, September 5, 2011. Mr. Fleming took pains to be calm and deliberate in his presentations and set the parameters for the interview very early in the session. The Host after a very short period of protestation, seemed uncharacteristically willing to cooperate and after a time could even have been considered very cordial indeed. During the “call-in” section of the programme, quite surprisingly, a number of the “usual callers” who would normally be extremely critical of guests who are not AUM supporters --- complimented Mr. Fleming on his performance. In fact, one of the callers seemed tearful and came pretty close to asking forgiveness. There are those who found this part of the programme to be quite amusing because many of the callers were pleading for cooperation from the very groups and individuals they had been maligning just a few months ago. Mr. Fleming used such occasions to score valuable political points without rancour or indecorum.

Mr. Fleming used his stature as a past Chief Minister to get his message across and did so with both the dignity and grace befitting that image. It was a soft touch. But it was an effective touch. He was able to make the entire interview an opportunity to clarify a considerable amount of misinformation, which has been rampant in the community during and since the last election and to educate on certain aspects of Government. The Host constrained by parameters within which he was unaccustomed to operate, had no choice but to “go with the flow”. In the end he also (the Host) was the recipient of compliments for a well-conducted interview. Of significance was his open criticism of Ministers of the AUM Government who he described as “not having a clue”

"I don't have a clue..."

One caller used the atmosphere of cooperation and patriotism, which Mr. Fleming cleverly devised, to suggest that I should be persuaded to stop writing my column in The Anguillian. Clearly showing that for many members and supporters of the Anguilla United Movement cooperation and patriotism means unconditional adherence to the policies and politics of the Chief Minister and his colleagues. In this regard, though Mr. Fleming was most effective, it is uncannily obvious that many of them do not and will not ever understand the point being made that this Government is using the wrong “style, approach and attitude” to deliver on their promise of economic recovery for the people of Anguilla. And I remain flattered that many of them continue to believe that my column stands in the way of the Government’s ability to function effectively. However, I am also disappointed that so many Anguillians have not yet grasped the importance of constructive criticism in the democratic process and of how the intolerance of leaders to criticism can lead to authoritarianism and dictatorship.

Mr. Fleming’s interview on “To the Point” stands in stark contrast to that of the Chief Minister on the same program some weeks ago. In fact, while Mr. Fleming may have been equally assertive in putting his points across he was never abusive or offensive. The Chief Minister, on the other hand, viciously attacked the British Government, the Governor, the Deputy Governor, Permanent Secretaries, Developers, the Opposition and other private citizens. The Host in recognition of this difference asked the obvious question (loosely quoted): “Under your tenure did you have problems with the British Government, the Governor, the Deputy Governor and other public servants?” To which Mr. Fleming responded that he did, but never allowed them to be a part of discussion in the public media. I can attest to the fact that as a Government we handled such issues professionally in full awareness of our various responsibilities under the constitution. Mr. Fleming said as much!

It was my intention this week to make a national address as the Leader of the Anguilla United Front in the face of the many concerns Anguillians have been expressing regarding the plight in which they now find themselves. However, in the wake of Mr. Fleming’s interview I have decided to postpone it. That address would have appeared in my column and aired on the various broadcast media. My reasons for doing so are quite simple. It would be superfluous to make such a presentation so quickly on the heels of what I consider an outstanding performance. And even though Mr. Fleming spoke in his private capacity he made a number of points, which the AUF associates itself with, yet would be unable to make effectively as a Party without appearing self-serving. I have therefore decided to write my usual column further encouraged by that caller who saw the tenor of the interview as a great opportunity to “silence the journalist”. My silence can only be achieved when the AUM acts like a responsible government; adheres to the principles of good governance; abandons the strategy of lies and deception; accepts that they too must abide by the principles of integrity, transparency and honesty; and operates in an atmosphere of mutual respect. I will never accept that Chief Minister be allowed to behave like a “dirt bike” with impunity while everyone else should fall in line.

While there are a number of issues that were common to both interviews, there is one that the Host asked of both the present and former Chief Minister, which I feel moved to expand upon. The Host asked them (loosely quoted): “What are the issues prohibiting the exemption of transfer fees under the Stamp Act granted to the Conch Bay Development Project during the previous administration?” As the former Minister for Economic Development who spearheaded this initiative I feel duty bound to clarify the issues surrounding this matter. Mr. Fleming in his interview deferred to me for a more in depth and informed explanation of the circumstances surrounding the concession. One point must be made, however, and that is that this amendment to the Stamp Act was not specific to the Conch Bay Development and although they were the first beneficiaries they were not the first local developers who requested such a concession. The concession shows that the AUF Government was concerned with the capacity of indigenous Anguillians to participate in our development and was prepared to do what was necessary to ensure that they have a competitive advantage in their own country. Let me explain!

 Anguilla former Minister of Finance,
Economic Development, Commerce
and Tourism, Hon. Victor F. Banks

Our Government in 2001 in the wake of the downturn in the global economy and exacerbated by the events of September 11, 2001 embarked on a deliberate program to restore fiscal stability in Anguilla. This program contained public sector projects including roads, seaport and airport development but also providing incentives for attracting significant investment in a major Golf Course, a Mega Yacht Marina and an Offshore Medical School. The response to our program was of such a magnitude that on November 30th 2005, we had to place a moratorium on foreign investment in large tourism accommodation projects. The purpose of the moratorium was to give Anguillian families the opportunity to participate in that area of tourism development. We felt that if foreign development in that sector continued at the pace it was going it could stifle and close out local investment.

We firmly believed that it was important that local Anguillians with the land resources be able to leverage their way into this sector without having to sell their land. And since expatriate companies owning tourism projects had the advantage of access to capital for financing such projects because of their international network, Anguillians would be at a disadvantage having land without available sources of capital to finance them. At least three Anguillian families took up the challenge but they immediately realized that to effectively carry out the development of these projects the land resources would have to be placed in a corporate entity owned by the family. Despite the fact that they would not be actually selling the land based on the Stamp Duty Act they would be required to pay transfer fees of five percent. Such a cost even before a developer is identified by a family which is “land-rich but cash-poor” could be a real impediment to realizing their development objectives”. In fact, it would effectively force them to sell their land outright rather use it as an empowering asset.

In recognition of this obstacle to Anguillian empowerment, our Government pledged to amend the legislation to facilitate the conveyance of such properties into corporate entities (companies) without the burden of stamp duty. On May 20th 2008, in the circumstances of assisting the Lake Family of the Tanglewood Estate in achieving such transfer of lands in a timely manner our Government through Executive Council agreed to temporary arrangements until suitable amendments could be made to the Stamp Act to address the general concern. Executive Council instructed the Attorney General to “craft a suitable amendment or amendments to grant of stamp duty (full or partial) on transactions designed to facilitate the conveyance of property from undivided family estates to corporate entities one hundred percent owned by the same families for tourism and other development purposes.”

In accordance with Executive Council’s request the Attorney General’s Chambers drafted the appropriate legislation, which, after the required period for publication in the Official Gazette was taken to the House of Assembly and passed on January 5, 2010. Governor W. Alistair Harrison gave his assent to the Bill on January 8, 2010. The Bill entitled the Stamp (Amendment) Act 2010 is very specific in its intention as follows: (1) Where beneficiaries who are relatives of each other have inherited real estate and that real estate is owned in common by the relatives who intend to use that real estate for the development of a project, the administrator or executor of the real estate may apply under subsection (2) to the Executive Council for the waiver of Stamp Duty. The Act goes into considerably detail to ensure that all conditions of the application are met and if Executive Council is satisfied that the application “enhances the economic development of Anguilla”, it may waive wholly or partially the payment of Stamp Duty. The penalty is equally strong “any person who fails to comply with subsections (5) or (6) commits an offence and is liable to summary conviction to imprisonment for a term of 2 years or to a fine or both. The conviction shall not preclude the payment of the waived stamp duty.

Former Speaker of the House, Hon. David Carty

Following the passage of the Act in the House of Assembly, the Ministry of Economic Development brought the specific waiver for Conch Bay Development Ltd for approval at the very last meeting of Executive Council under the past AUF Government. Executive Council approved the waiver of the stamp duty in full. The calculation of Stamp Duty for 361 acres based on a very high valuation of approximately US$800,000 per acre at 5% stamp duty would yield an estimated US$14,000,000 in revenue. It would, however, be prohibitive to most Anguillian landholders who are simple restructuring the ownership of the family estate into a 100% family owned entity. Government recognized that their desire to empower indigenous investors would be improbable without such support and felt that the revenue in question though waived in the short term could result in the creation of jobs, business opportunities and an increase in future revenue flows contemplated in the MOA. But Anguillians would then have the opportunity to retain ownership of their land while participating fully in their island’s development.

I have gone through this level of detail to make two important points. Firstly, that the AUF Government had a clear vision of how to empower Anguillians for participation in their own development meaningfully and secondly, that all the legal procedures for achieving that objective were followed. The questions being raised by the Host of “To the Point” suggests that the granting of the waiver is being held up by the present administration. Based on the Chief Minister’s comments it appears that even though he has expressed public support for the initiative he seems to be viewing it as a facility specific to the Lakes family rather than a general incentive to all qualified indigenous land owners who wish to restructure their holdings for developmental purposes.

Anguillians have tried white chicken chili, turkey chili,
chili con carne, chili without beans, vegetarian chili, what
was supposed to be Cliff Huxtable’s super spicy chili, and even a really
weird one that had green olives and raisins (which wasn’t too hot).
But boy Anguillians had never tasted chili like this one before...

In the face of the unfounded criticism that the previous Government gave away everything to foreign developers it would be important to highlight such concessions as well as the favourable MOA’s made to all indigenous developers. The AUF was certainly true to the credo that “charity begins at home!” Every nation, including our mother country makes concessions, which position their nationals at a competitive advantage. The AUM Government must now demonstrate that it is paying more than lip service to their call for national development. The Parliamentary Secretary negotiated an MOU for a foreign investor in three days yet for eighteen months the Government cannot sign off on a document already approved in Executive Council and passed in the House of Assembly. As the older folk used to say: “every parson christen he own chile fuss!”

Victor F. Banks
Victor Banks is a former Finance, Economics, Commerce and Tourism Minister on Anguilla. He is presently the leader of the Oposition Anguilla United Front Party, author and writer of a weekly political article for the Anguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

COURTS AND CONTROVERSY

The UK press may show more restraint in reporting of high-profile cases if contempt laws are vigorously enforced, says Brian Cathcart.

The next time there is a sensational murder — something on the scale of the Ipswich or Soham cases — you may notice something different about the media coverage. Reporters may show restraint of a kind that is not familiar. In fact, they might actually obey the law.

The Contempt of Court Act of 1981 prohibits all but the most straightforward reporting in a crime case from the moment “proceedings are active”, in other words once someone is arrested. The idea is to ensure that coverage does not interfere with the course of justice, for instance by prejudicing the eventual jury. But for years, when a big, competitive story came along, many editors and reporters in national media simply ignored the Act and continued to publish often grotesque allegations about a suspect after arrest and even sometimes after they were charged. Think Colin Stagg, Barry George, Karen Matthews and others — and Stagg and George were later shown to be innocent.

That may be about to change thanks to the actions of the attorney-general, Dominic Grieve. Not normally a man to cut the figure of a hero — a lean, bookish type, he was last seen filibustering awkwardly in the Commons when the government was under pressure over its links with the Murdochs — Grieve has done something genuinely brave. He has prosecuted the Daily Mirror and the Sun for contempt of court in the Chris Jefferies case, and he has won.

The consequences could be significant. Not only might future reporting of crime be more restrained, but we could even see fewer miscarriages of justice. I reported the first trial of Barry George for the murder of Jill Dando in 2002 and I am convinced that his wrongful conviction was partly due to the influence on the jury of the grossly prejudicial press reporting about him after his arrest. George spent seven years in jail before the conviction was overturned.

Chris Jefferies, you may remember, is the retired teacher in Bristol who was monstered by the tabloids before and after his arrest in January in connection with the Joanna Yeates murder, and who turned out to be totally innocent. (Another man confessed to the killing.) On the morning of 28 July, in what is becoming a familiar ritual in our courts, eight newspapers serially confessed to libelling Jefferies and agreed to pay him substantial damages.

On the afternoon of the same day, however, something much less familiar happened: the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, and two other judges found the Mirror and the Sun guilty of contempt of court. They upheld Grieve’s argument that, by publishing “exceptionally adverse and hostile” articles about Jefferies while he was in custody, the papers had breached section 2 (2) of the Act, which makes unlawful any publication about an individual who is under arrest “which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced”.

In a way, what is surprising here is not that a contempt prosecution happened and succeeded, but that it was necessary at all. The law is reasonably clear, after all, and is very well known to journalists. The problem has been that Grieve’s predecessors, most recently Baroness Scotland and Lord Goldsmith, failed to show the press that they would uphold it. The rarity of prosecutions, despite apparently flagrant breaches in high-profile cases, led editors to behave as though the Act was a dead letter and they could do what they liked.

Grieve therefore deserves credit for taking on the tabloids where his predecessors would not, and it is worth noting that he did so before the revelation that Milly Dowler’s phone had been hacked, and thus before these papers lost a lot of their bullying power. He didn’t kick them when they were down, in other words; he kicked them when they were still up.

Grieve has to share the credit, however, with the judges, who were placed in a tight corner by this case and who found an ingenious way out. For as long as the press has flouted the contempt law, judges have been finding excuses to try the victims anyway. When a trial begins and the defence claims it can’t be fair because their client has already been brutally convicted in the press, judges have developed a list of arguments to justifying carrying on regardless. Here is what they say. Jury members don’t remember the adverse reporting by the time the trial comes around (the “fade factor”), they know to concentrate on what is said in court (the “focus factor”) and they heed the instructions of judges to ignore extraneous matters. These arguments are entirely unsupported by evidence but they have had the merit, from the judges’ point of view, that important trials don’t have to be abandoned because of the excesses of the tabloids.

However, in the brief trial of the Sun and the Mirror, the judges found these arguments turned back on them. In effect the papers said: “If, when trials begin, you judges always insist that hostile reporting at the time of arrest doesn’t make a difference, then you can’t turn around now and say the opposite. It follows that whatever we wrote about Chris Jefferies at the time of his arrest, no matter how hostile, can’t now be described as prejudicial or even potentially prejudicial.”

It was a tricky problem for the judges and they simply side-stepped it, finding the Mirror and the Sun guilty on other, rather creative grounds. The Act speaks of publication “which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced”. The judges avoided saying that in the Jefferies case potential proceedings might have been prejudiced; instead they concluded that they could have been impeded.

What this means is that they decided Jefferies had been painted in such an appalling light by these papers that if he had been charged he would have found it more difficult to construct a defence. Witnesses in his support, for example, might have decided not to come forward, either because they feared association with this supposedly monstrous person or because they believed his conviction was a foregone conclusion.

Both papers were undoubtedly surprised by this ingenious judgement — and the attorney-general probably was too. The point about “impedence” had not been prominent in the case he put forward in court — it was fourth on a list of five arguments and was presented rather tersely. Indeed he felt the need to reassure the judges it was not just a “makeweight” in his case.

The Mirror was fined £50,000 for contempt and the Sun £18,000. They were refused permission to appeal, though according to Jefferies’s solicitor, Louis Charalambous, they are considering petitioning the Supreme Court. On the whole it seems unlikely that a considered finding by the Lord Chief Justice and two other judges will be overturned.

Where does this leave us? Contempt law is back on the editors’ radar at a time when, with Lord Leveson’s inquiry beginning its investigation of press standards, those editors must already be minding their Ps and Qs. It might be argued that the fines were small — papers pay much more in libel damages and generally go on to libel again — but Grieve has put down an important marker and is free to use the impedance argument again if he wishes. If papers don’t heed this warning, moreover, he has it in his power to crank things up, notably by citing not only the newspaper but also the editor in person in a future case. That might concentrate minds.

We will have to wait and see, but there is a strong chance that in future sensational criminal cases we will see a return to what used to happen, generally, 20 years ago and more. So long as no one is in custody, papers will remain free to report what they choose (consistent with the libel laws), but from the moment proceedings are active, in other words normally from the moment someone is arrested, they must show restraint. And the same law applies to online reporting, bloggers and tweeters.

It is, without doubt, a constraint on free expression, and an important one. But it is surely better than locking up innocent people because, in effect, journalists don’t like the look of them.

By: Brian Cathcart

Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University London and is a founder of Hacked Off. He tweets at @BrianCathcart