Latest news with #EuropeanConventiononHumanRights1950
The National
07-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Richard Murphy: Passing laws that destroy our freedoms is tyranny
On Tuesday, the UK Government effectively abandoned almost all of its planned cuts to disability benefits in England and Wales, due to pressure from many people who reminded Labour backbenchers that no MP was ever elected to make some of the least well-off in society even worse off. Hundreds of thousands, and maybe more, now have reason to be thankful that protest still creates change. Then, as if to prove sanity had not returned to the Labour Party, large numbers of its MPs trooped through the lobbies to contentiously vote in favour of declaring an activist organisation a terrorist threat – a move not all MPs or peers agreed with. A step such as this has never previously been seen in the UK. READ MORE: Details emerge of Scottish arm of new Corbyn project Almost certainly, the UK Government's action breaches the rights to freedom of expression and association under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights 1950, which the UK helped draft. It also seems to violate Articles 19 and 20 of the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights, of which the UK was a principal author. Bizarrely, on the day this action was approved in the Commons, Yvette Cooper wore a sash celebrating the Suffragette movement which won votes for women after a campaign in which people died. Acts we might now call terrorism took place and serious vandalism, including arson, were committed (contemporary news reports did call them terrorism). Cooper conveniently forgot all that. By the standards Cooper is now imposing, anyone who supported the Suffragettes at the time, even without taking part in direct action, might today face 14 years in prison. This new move against the freedom to campaign affects me directly. For the last 25 years, I have been a campaigner above all else. In the first decade of this century, when I spent much of my time exposing tax abuses in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, I became intensely unpopular in those places. Simply by blogging, I proved their tax systems did not comply with EU requirements. All of them were forced to change their laws. I faced what felt like a fabricated criminal investigation in Jersey at one point, which quietly disappeared after an election. I also received death threats and more mundane abuse. The then first minister of the Isle of Man suggested I was mathematically incompetent. My calculations showing the UK was providing his government with half its income to subsidise its tax haven activities were then accepted by the UK Government, which took that money back, saving the UK more than £200 million a year. I didn't even get a note of thanks. READ MORE: Devolved relations reset with Labour has 'failed', says SNP official I recount these stories to show I know campaigning comes at a cost. No-one should expect to voice opinions that upset others without anticipating some backlash. That's how we change things. That process is fundamental to democracy. And, of course, if during a protest someone breaks the law, they should expect prosecution for the crime committed. That's the price of taking action. But what no-one should expect is to face grossly disproportionate penalties simply for expressing a genuinely held opinion that does not incite violence or threaten human life. Yet such penalties are exactly what UK ministers are now creating. Ministers probably know convictions under their new law will be rare. Juries often refuse to convict when penalties are wildly inappropriate. People, unlike politicians, generally have a sense of justice. However, what the Government has done is a sign we are on a perilous path to more draconian measures. How long might it be before suggesting Scotland should be independent is labelled a terrorist threat because it implies the UK should cease to exist? How long, too, before expressing socialist views is treated the same way? After all, government literature already suggests such views can justify referral to the anti-terrorist Prevent programme. And might the day come when even questioning 'free market' capitalism is deemed so extreme that it should be outlawed? To suggest any of these things would once have seemed absurd, but everything has changed. The Labour Government's actions force us to reconsider the world we live in. We can no longer rely on our right to free speech. We can no longer rely on common sense. Nor can we trust international law or declarations of human rights to protect us. Now, tyranny is not represented by those who protest, even if they sometimes commit criminal damage (which I do not condone). Instead, it is undertaken by Cabinet ministers intent on passing laws that destroy our freedoms. I will continue to campaign. I will continue to protest. I will still raise my voice. I hope others will too. But people in Scotland have an opportunity denied to those of ethical conscience in England – to leave this desperate Union and recreate in Scotland a country where genuine freedoms exist. I truly hope that happens, and I will continue to say so.
Irish Examiner
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Why is it so difficult to discuss genocide?
Genocide. It's a difficult word. It's a triggering word. Even a dangerous word. One that is used frivolously and vexaciously in equal measure. It is a loaded word. Sometimes loaded with moral indignation and sanctimonious tartuffery. But it is a word that should be handled with great care and respect. Because it is a legal word. It carries legal weight and meaning with precise terms and conditions attached. To use it otherwise, is to do a great disservice to those who have suffered or are suffering from the hands of genocide and also to those who have fought to have it accepted into modern international legal practice. The International Criminal Court (ICC) as we know it today, first established by international agreement under the Rome Statute of 1998, holds the legal jurisdiction over genocide, amongst other international crimes. The statute mirrors many other international agreements and codes of practice which have established binding principles between countries, such as the Geneva Convention 1949, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. There are others. They address the most serious crimes of international concern that affects the human race, complementing national laws. However, they are founded on the same single principle of what it means to be human. Workers collect human remains after an Israeli strike on a home in Khan Younis killed nine of a doctor's 10 children while she was at work in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip, last month. Photo: Gaza Civil Defense via AP As fellow citizens of our planet, we, the homo sapiens have decided collectively what we will not allow or should not allow to happen to our fellows. For one reason only — that we are human. Unfortunately, these laws and code are only 'agreements' between parties, often tenuous and delicate depending on the government of the day in each country. They lack any real or meaningful power to uphold a decision by the ICC or equivalent, outside of the national laws. Compliance is key. Additionally, countries signed to such agreements, though not under investigation, must also comply with the directions of the ICC within the appropriate jurisdiction. However, countries do not have to agree to be governed by this or any other statute and, may depart from it ad hoc, as seen recently by Hungary. Proof of intention Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute govern the crimes of genocide, crimes against Humanity and the Laws of War respectively. Like many serious crimes, there is a separation between the act itself (actus reus) and the intention or guilty mind behind the act (mens rea). The Actus Reus is usually self-evident with much overlap between the individual Articles. Reasonable doubt about what happened is not often at issue. For criminal acts governed by Articles 7 and 8, the proof that they occurred is enough, subject to certain conditions. However, acts within the meaning of genocide require further proof of intent. Article 6 states: 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'. Motivation is irrelevant, as there is no justification for such intent. Once the act is proved, there follows the onus to prove intention or the purpose behind the atrocity. This is the most challenging part. Aggressors will attempt to justify the act, but as stated, there is no acceptable justification for such intent. Propaganda Instead, we typically see a greying or obfuscation of the facts and a blurring of the lines around truth. This is propaganda. Propaganda drives war and conflict, because it falsely justifies its continuation. So important is propaganda for the survival of a war effort, that any attempt to counter it, is typically met with aggression and labelling often with threatening overtures. This in turn silences people. Silenced out of fear. Fear and silence in turn sustain the propaganda, perpetuating it, akin to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thus, a 'new truth' evolves. Well-intentioned people are too often afraid to use the word 'genocide' with all its implications, out of fear of an aggressive backlash. They are likely to be labelled as 'against' the higher moral cause as professed by the propaganda machine. The war supporters will attempt to justify their acts, supported by institutions of power. Because it serves a cause, separate to, but requiring the genocide for completion. People and countries are fearful of being labelled as 'against' the aggressor's cause which in turn automatically associates them 'with' or at least 'sympathetic' towards an 'enemy'. It is simplified as a binary, albeit delinquent philosophy of 'either with us or against us'. Silence Reasonable people want to speak out in support of the truth. In support of humanity. Remaining silent, or silenced, is often easier, less risky and a path of lowest resistance, than to be labelled as something which they are not. Derogatory 'labels' often carry associations of enormous historical proportions. Governments too, often remain silent than to risk international condemnation. Thus, our collective conscience is silenced. Silenced by defamatory name-calling. But, this is of no concern to the perpetrators of the genocidal acts. Silence is the goal. Silence comes from fear, and fear is powerful. The same weaponisation of fear is seen throughout all crimes and taboos. Domestic violence, child abuse, institutional abuse, gang violence. Morgan McMonagle: 'As fellow citizens of our planet, we, the homo sapiens have decided collectively what we will not allow or should not allow to happen to our fellows. For one reason only — that we are human.'. Picture: Denis Minihane Silence is the weapon. If propaganda drives it, then fear and silence sustains it. Nourishes it. And truth is suppressed. Silence prevents advocacy. Advocacy for the facts and the truth. It stops us from upholding the values of what being human really means. Its values. Its morals. This in turn dehumanises a group of people and, subconsciously, our own moral compass too. Both the victims and the perpetrators are dehumanised, while we, the onlookers turn a blind eye and remain silent. As humanitarians, we carry the responsibility to advocate. We advocate for nothing but the truth. Real and meaningful advocacy is not about blame. It is about utilising our responsibility to speak out for the truth, regardless of the purpose or motivation of any other party in an armed conflict. Truth advocacy is the antidote to the fear and the silence. To deny truth is to deny justice. And to deny justice is to deny what it really means to be human. Morgan McMonagle is a trauma, vascular and humanitarian surgeon at University Hospital Waterford, Ireland and St Mary's Hospital & Imperial Healthcare London. He is fellowship trained in trauma surgery from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA and recently gave the prestigious George H. Clowes, Jr Trauma Lecture and Visiting Professorship at Boston University and Boston Medical Centre in May 2025, where he lectured on the ongoing issues surrounding current world conflicts. He has been on several humanitarian missions to conflict zones, including Ukraine, Lebanon and most recently Gaza, when the recent ceasefire was breached and Nasser Hospital targeted by a missile strike. He continues to advocate for the truth during war and conflict. He is also a law graduate from the Honourable Society of King's Inns, Dublin. Read More Famine in Gaza is hardening rhetoric in Israel
