Outside the law: Stories from Guantánamo

I have just booked seats to see the new documentary  “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” at the BFI next weekend. There will be a discussion afterwards with Andy Worthington and Polly Nash.

Statement from WLUML in support of Gita Sahgal

The Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML) international solidarity network expresses its solidarity with Gita Sahgal, a longstanding ally of the network who is active in various organisations, collectives, and movements committed to upholding universal human rights. As a feminist, anti-racist activist, filmmaker and researcher, Sahgal has devoted her career to exposing systematic discrimination and rights violations by state and non-state actors in Britain, South Asia and internationally. Much of this work has included rigorous research into transnational fundamentalist movements, and their intersections with human rights, especially those of women. In addition, Gita Sahgal is the Head of the Gender Unit at Amnesty International (AI).

WLUML has learned that she has repeatedly, and to no avail, raised internal inquiries into Amnesty International’s association with the organisation Cageprisoners, headed by Moazzam Begg, around the Counter Terror with Justice Campaign. British citizen Moazzam Begg was abducted in 2002 by American and Pakistani intelligence officers in Pakistan, to where he had fled from Afghanistan with his family soon after the US-led ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ bombing of the country began in retaliation for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Begg was held first in Bagram detention facility, Kandahar, and then detained in Guantánamo until he was released by the United States in 2005. Begg has never been charged with any terrorist-related offence or put on trial. In a book about his experiences, Enemy Combatant, co-authored with Victoria Brittain, he states that in 2001 he believed “the Taliban were better than anything Afghanistan has had in the past 25 years” and he is one of the current advocates of dialogue with the Taliban. Cageprisoners campaigns “to raise awareness of the plight of the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and other detainees held as part of the War on Terror”. Amnesty International’s Counter Terror with Justice Campaign calls for an end to human rights abuses at Guantánamo and other locations, and for those detained there to be brought to justice, in fair trials that respect due process. Gita Sahgal’s concern about a lack of transparency in AI’s partnerships led to Sahgal’s decision to approach the Sunday Times newspaper media about this issue. This resulted in an article by Richard Kerbaj published on 7 February 2010, entitled “Amnesty International is ‘damaged’ by Taliban link: An official at the human rights charity deplores its work with a ‘jihadist’” in which Kerbaj reports Sahgal’s suggestions that the charity has mistakenly allied itself with Begg and his “jihadi” group. The same day, Sahgal was suspended from her position as Head of the Gender Unit.
Gita Sahgal’s concerns are about Amnesty International’s association with fundamentalist groups that have claimed to support the Taliban and promote ideas of the Islamic Right, which are not supportive of women’s rights. Sahgal is well-placed to raise such issues, with a demonstrated commitment to exposing and addressing fundamentalisms – political movements of the extreme Right, often operating within religious, ethnic and/or cultural discourses – and assessing the implications of their agendas on women’s human rights, including as a founding member of Women Against Fundamentalisms (WAF) in the UK. Along with directing numerous films on the topics of women’s rights, conflict and violence against women, Sahgal has also written extensively on multiculturalism and religious fundamentalism, and is the co-editor of Refusing Holy Orders: Women and Fundamentalism in Britain(Virago, 1992; WLUML, 2001).

It is clear that Sahgal, like Amnesty International, is committed to promoting and upholding human rights. We agree, with Sahgal, that AI’s admirable and non-partisan support of the human rights of those who have faced unfair imprisonment, denial of due process, and torture is to be commended and supported. Nonetheless, if human rights are indeed universal and indivisible, then she has raised a crucial point in distinguishing between supporting specific human rights of an affected group, and providing a public platform for those who may not support the indivisible human rights of others.

The human rights of women and minorities are particularly abused by state and non-state actors who justify their political agendas by reference to religion. Those who challenge the structures, policies and practices that create and perpetuate such violations are frequently isolated and attacked. The WLUML network recognizes the bravery demonstrated by Gita Sahgal in raising the important issue of state and non-state collaboration with those groups who may not uphold the rights of all, even if they themselves are also the victims of human rights violations.
We call for civil society and governments alike to engage in a wider debate about partnerships with organisations that claim to support human rights but do not uphold the rights of all, including women and minorities. While WLUML deeply regrets the attempts of some media commentators and apologists for torture and war crimes to hijack this important debate to smear progressive movements, organisations and individuals, we as Human Rights organisations and activists, cannot ask for democracy, openness to criticism and transparency of other organisations and government, if we ourselves do not observe these basic rules.

Why I like fashion

I must confess that I was a fan of Alexander McQueen and was saddened by his untimely death. Indeed the fashion industry creates a distortion regarding a woman’s body, a perception of the ideal woman the emphasis being on the very slim while there’s outrage and controversy when there’s a size 14+ model on the catwalk. Fashion commodifies and objectifies which reflects the dominant hegemony of patriarchal capitalism.

Fashion for me is contradictory, it replicates conformity/non-conformity. Based on mass production, consumerism and profit. And a playground for the rich. So it reflects my own contradictions as I suspend my own politics when I have sat in the front of fashion shows marvelling at the clothes. Indeed I saw McQueen’s fashion as works of art, my pragmatism suspended (‘who the hell can wear that’?) and the clothes are modified for the high street.

I think my liking for fashion goes back to when I was kid where my mum was a dressmaker/seamstress. I would watch in awe as she would create a garment out of a piece of material and she always relied on her trusty 1950s Singer sewing machine only giving it up when the machine finally gave up the ghost. She tried to teach me to sew, how to cut a pattern, design your own pattern, develop knowledge of fabrics and so on… But I didn’t take any notice and wasn’t interested in doing that (one of my biggest regrets is not learning the techniques …along with not learning the piano and not going to art college when I left school). But I was imbued with an interest in fashion nevertheless. And having met a number of fashion designers over the years, and this sounds like an appalling sweeping statement, I have been struck by their shallowness yet at the same time by their creativity and imagination (and a leftie I know who studied fashion didn’t pursue it further due to the shallowness and individualism but maybe that reflects the commercialism and consumerism aspect of fashion as well as the creativity and inventiveness). Just don’t talk politics with them. Though I do recall one student putting together a collection based on Soviet garb, which was kinda surreal as she wanted to know what was the ‘fashion’ of Soviet society during the 20s and 30s specifically.

Anyway… I admit I got an almighty thrill modelling a student’s clothes/jewellery (yeah I know, whatever turns you on!) totally bedazzled by the camera and experience. It was a great experience and the photographer  kept making me laugh because he reminded me of the David Hemmings character  in the film Blowup. And my vanity (ha!) knew no bounds when I stood in awe watching her work projected on a wall in the college during the final year exhibition … though I did cringe a tad when confronted with my image bouncing off a wall (Oh gawd, that’s me!). And those images of my brief encounter with the world of student fashion are tucked away in somebody’s portfolio……

Why evidence is everything

I think Sunny makes a lot of very good and pertinent points in his post about the Amnesty, Gita Sahgal and Moazzam Begg situation. I was troubled about this right from the start Why did Gita go to a Murdoch paper in the first place? Did she write a position paper documenting hard evidence about her concerns regarding Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners? Why didn’t she use the internal mechanisms inside Amnesty to air her views?

From what I have seen so far this doesn’t seemed to have happened. Again I want to reiterate what I have said before  that I have heard Gita speak usually on a WAF platform (and have supported WAF since its creation in ’89), have immense respect and admiration for her and the work she has done. And that’s what saddens and disappoints me because I think she is wrong on this, and surely she should have aired her grievances through the proper channels with backed-up evidence?

Instead the right-wing press have seized the moment aided and abetted by progressives. Maybe I sound too strong but actually I am angry about this as you can’t make serious allegations without hard evidence because you end up mirroring the evidence gathering techniques of Tony Blair and George Bush.

And I expected so much better. This is undoubtedly a smear and witch hunt against Amnesty and Moazzam Begg. Everything Gita Sahgal said about defending Moazzam Begg’s human rights etc. has fallen into a void as the right-wing press’s agenda isn’t about championing universal human rights it is about wielding their own cynical right-wing ideology who are apologists for torture.

Rebuttal evidence was a prerequiste to these allegations. I have seen nothing to change my mind. Unfortunately when evidence is not forthcoming the whole thing degenerates as there’s nothing firm to base the allegations on. And it has spiralled out of control, whipped up by the right-wing press. It is shockingly shameful….

 See Kevin’s post as well.

From Pickled Politics: Moazzam Begg’s statement

Below is from Sunny via Pickled Politics

Exclusive: I’ve managed to get a statement by Moazzam Begg on why he pulled out of the Amnesty event tomorrow. I’ll have more on this tomorrow.

* * * * *
It has been my pleasure to have worked closely with Amnesty since my return from Guantanamo on highlighting the cases and campaigning against the human rights abuses that have occured in the name of fighting terrorism since the outset of the ‘War on Terror.’ The relationship I have with Amnesty goes back to the years when I was incarcerated in US custody and my father was receiving immense moral and practical support from the organisation – something both he and I will never forget.

It is very unfortunate that this relationship is now being severely tested by both internal and external forces that would like nothing better than to see that work damaged, or even terminated. Since my return I have spoken about and written my views more times than I can remember. My goals for doing this have been to expose the reality of detention without trial, torture, cruelty and dehumanisation and at the same time, develop a nuanced approach to fostering understanding between communities that are increasingly becoming polarised through the language of education, understanding, acceptance and reconciliation.

I do not claim to have all the answers to every question on human rights; five years ago I could not even answer if I was going to live or face execution. But, I truly cannot understand why this is all happening now, since nothing that has been said in the media is new at all – no new and sensational revealtions, no new contraversial comments, at least not by or about me.

I have just returned from a pan-European tour asking governments to give sanctuary to cleared Guantanamo prisoners who are unable to return to their homes so I find it odd that this argument is occuring now, especially at time when revelations are being made that UK intelligence was fully aware that Binyam Mohamed was being abused. This is something I have said about my own case since my return too – and, I believe, the same will also be revealed about Shaker Aamer, on whose behalf I hope most people tonight will campaign.

I apologise for not attending this evening’s events but I have decided to abstain from taking part only so that the focus is not about my personal beliefs or Amnesty’s internal issues but, that the lives of men who have suffered human rights violations for so many years, as discussed in Outside the Law, are are not overshadowed.

If people are interested in knowing my views regarding all the controversies discussed in the national press last week they be can seen on www.cageprisoners.com.

I wish this evening’s event and Amnesty UK and Andy Worthington every success.
Moazzam Begg

Flowers

February 15 2003

Hat tip: Kevin

I must confess that it gave me goose bumps remembering that day in February 2003 where around 2 million people marched in central London against the impending attack on Iraq. The lies and damned lies that Tony Blair and the NL machine spouted in defence of going to war based on a dodgy dossier of deceit.

I was there on the 15^th February 2003. I was late due to a class I was taking. I remember rushing out of college I looked up and saw one of those copter things hovering in the sky and knew I wasn’t far from the demo.

I was struck how small it seemed, little did I know the section I was in was just a section. I stopped marching along, stood on the pavement and watched the demo go by, again as I was late I hadn’t seen the sheer numbers, and I just stood there in amazement for what seemed a long time witnessing hordes of people file past. It was one bloody massive demonstration.

My partner who was a steward on the demo rang me to tell me he had never seen so many people (and he is veteran of demos going back from the late 1970s). What sticks in my head is him marvelling how people keep coming along. As I marched towards Hyde Park, a group of people asked me what I was protesting about and I said against war in Iraq. They nodded their head in agreement, stepped off the pavement and followed the march. It was a similar experience I had in Florence, Italy in October 2002 during the European Social Forum which ended with a massive demo in the centre of Florence, people were handing us bottles of water, cheering us from the pavements and we marched through Antonio Gramsci Way (that’s what it translated as) and people waved red flags and anti-war banners from their windows. The message was simple; ‘Don’t attack Iraq’!

I’ll always be proud that I was historically part of that mass movement against war in Iraq. Millions marched that day globally against the deceit, lies and the realities of the destruction of war. Yes, Blair and the rest of the neoliberal warmongering neocons got their way but at what cost? An unjust and illegal war will always be part of Blair’s legacy and it massively damaged the LP as a whole. The Chilcot Inquiry may be a farce but again it exposed the shameful conceit, deceit, lies and arrogance of Tony Blair.

Help build the ‘We Are Many’ archive of stories and pictures that show how all the small events built up to the largest protest march ever – see www.wearemany.tv and follow @15Feb2003 on Twitter.

My own personal miserable music meme

And I am feeling kinda upbeat as well today…..god dammit!

But……As a terminal and cynical miserablist and more so on a day like this (so commodified and commercialised) I was pleased to see misery likes company and comrade Phil has tagged me for this miserable music meme. Right up my street comrade, you know me so well…spending my teenage years holed up in my bedroom nursing depressing and despondent thoughts …  I thought I would combine angsty spurned rejected suicidal teenage misery with shattered hearts (and today’s the day to celebrate that)…and music sometimes helps heal a shattered heart …amongst other things…

Yeah baby! So here goes…..1980s, 1990s and 2000s….

The first one from the 1980s…and I am spoilt for choice. Joy Division – ‘Love Will Tear Us Apart’, The The – ‘That Uncertain Smile’, The Smiths – ‘Please Please Let Me Get What I Want’, Soft Cell, ‘Where the Heart is’…..

So here’s Fine Young Cannibals – Funny How Love Is

And I do love You Oughta Know by Alanis Morissette …

And all the commotion the song generated when played on the radio stations back in ’95 because she said the word, ‘fuck’!! Fortunately I have found an uncensored version!!

Basement Jaxx featuring Lisa Kekaula – Good Luck.

Here’s an extra one.

I love this song and it’s one of the best theme tunes to grace the television… as part of one of the best serial dramas ever… The Sopranos.

Alabama 3 – Woke Up This Morning

Anyone else up to be tagged?!

Censorship in the name of neutrality

Clare Carolin, a senior tutor at the Royal College of Art (my old workplace) has rightly attacked the decision by the École Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts to remove Ko Siu Lan’s piece of political and satirical installation art.

A British curator has accused France’s most prestigious art school of “unambiguous censorship” after a work satirising one of Nicolas Sarkozy’s campaign slogans was taken down hours after going on display.

Clare Carolin, a senior tutor at the Royal College of Art in London, who was working on the ill-fated project at the Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Beaux-Arts, condemned the decision to remove the work, which was deemed “too explosive”.

An installation of four banners by the Chinese artist Ko Siu Lan on the exterior of the Beaux-Arts building in central Paris featured the words “earn”, “less”, “work” and “more” as a play on Sarkozy’s phrase “Work more to earn more”.

This does indeed smack of censorship. Ko Siu Lan’s installation art expresses a political statement and also a comment on sound-bites in regards to just how shallow and manipulative they come across. And it is rather a bizarre statement from the Beaux-Arts when they cite ‘public service neutrality’ as their arguments for removing the installation. Art, surely, is about expressing opinion, ideas, satire, politics and going beyond the boundaries of so-called neutrality? And also surely the Beaux-Arts should be embracing freedom of ideas and expression through the medium of art? Not, it seems, capitulating to the ministry of education because of the ‘politically sensitive nature’ of the installation. Ko Siu Lan has hit a raw nerve and incurred the wrath of the French political establishment. She is the one who is being censored for daring to expose and highlight the sheer absurdity of shallow, meaningless soundbites and right-wing rhetoric.

Being universal

Following the logic of the British government if you criticise the Western powers for torturing people you need to show that you are not compromising the “war on terror”. In other words torture is sometimes OK. If you wish to give a voice to the victims of torture and the international lawlessness that the War on Terror slogan represents you must make sure that they are fully signed up to the full range of liberal values and have been so signed up at all times in their past.

Nick Cohen in his article today is right to the extent that torture should not be argued on the basis of lack of efficacy. He criticises the Court of Appeal in addressing these arguments. To be fair to the Court of Appeal though a judge is in the position of being obliged to deal with the arguments put by both sides in the case. If one side argues that disclosure of evidence will cause loss of life then that argument will need to be dealt with in the judgement. A newspaper columnist can of course just say whatever is on his/her mind.

Regarding the spat over Moazzam Begg and Anmesty the anti-terror warriors make mischief with the idea of the universality of human rights. Ironically their discourse becomes rather Stalinist, couched in terms of denouncements including a requirement that people must denounce things on demand. To be opposed to the oppression of women is perfectly proper. To require that a person denounces the oppression of women and every other form of oppression at all junctures and especially when required by those arguing that you are not a valid person to listen to is actually extremely oppressive. Also, it is extremely patronising when on the one hand it is argued that you defend universal human rights yet at the same time argued you don’t want to work with them on issues that they (Moazzam Begg, for example) have direct experiences of. This is not about the defence of universal human rights for all it is about picking and choosing, which is ultimately divisive and unequal.

The traditional idea that you listen to people you profoundly disagree with with respect and that they listen to you with respect seems to have been lost. In principle this is better, in practice is is vastly better. It sets an example ( something hugely powerful in altering human behaviour) and it allows people to think through ideas and absorb them into their own thinking.  Using human rights the way that the concept has been used over the last nine years as a weapon to de-legitimise your opponent and to justify your own transgressions pollutes the idea that human beings have a basic right to freedom and security. Anyone outside of the West hearing lectures on their human rights shortcomings will simply assume that they are hearing the overtures to airstrikes and the imperial jackboot.