Blinkered Justice

BP, EDF and images of London 2012

2012-08-08T23:50:00.000+01:00

Whilst we celebrate the talent and dedication of all the athletes at London 2012, let us not forget that there are major multinational companies profiting from their association with London 2012.

They abuse the human rights of their workers and their customers (Adidas, G4S), they pollute the local environment to the detriment of the physical and economic health of local communities (Rio Tinto, BP), and they choose not to accept responsibility for the crimes that they have committed (Dow).

Produced by five organisations, London Late, offers a sense of dry realism beyond the corporate bluster. Grab a copy if you can, or download and read from the link above.

Micro drones and a techriminal justice system

2012-08-07T03:02:00.001+01:00

Wormwood Scrubs, Holloway and Strangeways (now Manchester). Here they go. Is it really so strange to think that these institutions may become extinct?

According to The Guardian, The US Defence Advanced Research Project Agency's 'Nano Hummingbird', as seen above, has inspired the MoD's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) “to stimulate new lines of thought”. DSTL sent out research proposals last year for micro and nano unmanned aircraft systems that “operate inside buildings and within deep urban canyons”.

Whilst the priorities still seem militaristic, almost 5 years ago, The Telegraph reported that insect sized drones had been seen at anti-war protests in Washington and New York. A similar sighting was reported in 2004.

We know that the US Defence Department has been funding research projects to create “cyborg moths”. These moths can be controlled remotely via computer chips that were implanted into moth pupae. In 2006, Flight were given exclusive access to CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where they saw a model of a drone that had been on display since 2003 in its museum.

The UK police have been using drone technology for some time, with the first arrest using a drone reported over 2 years ago. But it is the use of micro drones and what they offer in terms of surveillance that is interesting UK police forces; freedom of information requests have recently been submitted to the police forces of Greater Manchester and West Midlands. It will be worth keeping an eye on their replies to the two requests numbered 3.

As G4S expand their criminal justice remit from prisons to police stations, it is worth bearing in mind what impact this might have on a future UK criminal justice system. Given their financial and political muscle (and an inability to provide sufficient security staff), it may prove too attractive a proposition not to look at drones as a long-term solution for keeping an eye on suspects. They already use drone technology in Madagascar.

Drone fly...or is it? (c) SidPix

If micro drones are to become a norm in the surveillance of suspects, will they also become a norm in the monitoring of detainees? And if the act of guarding a prisoner can be done remotely by a micro drones, then need this take place within what we now see as a prison setting? Will we see an expansion of house arrests and a gradual phasing out of state Victorian prisons, with private homes becoming public detention centres, ?

Speculation on my part? In the first chapter of 1984, George Orwell wrote,

“In the far distance a helicopter skimmed down between the roofs, hovered for an instant like a bluebottle, and dashed away again with a curving flight”. "It was the police patrol, snooping into people's windows..."

The technology was barely nascent at the time of his words. Right now, the technology is in place. And it will continue to improve. With public sector cuts and a rolling back of the state, the political and economic will is certainly in place.

But perhaps most importantly for the criminal justice system, we currently associate drones with terrorism. And without wishing to sound all 'Team America', terrorists are bad people – for a wider discussion of terrorism, feel free to start here.

If we accept, as we currently do, that those on the receiving end of military drones are criminals, then we are only a step away from assuming anyone in a drone's sight is a criminal. Charged, tried and sentenced by the state and its partners, this is a criminal justice system which presumes guilt over innocence. The technology may well have its benefits, but a techriminal justice system reliant on micro drones is a real concern.

Good night. Don't let the bed bugs...

BP and EDF? London 2012 sustainability partners? How?

2012-07-30T22:25:00.000+01:00

This article was published on The Ecologist last week.

Oil spill in Gulf of Mexico April 29th view (c) NASA Goddard Photo and Video

Unlike other commercial partners, LOCOG was solely responsible for selecting the likes of BP and EDF. Chosen between July 2007 and November 2009, as part of the finalising of the sustainability plan, each of these companies had prior (and present); see BP and the Texas City refinery disaster and EDF appropriating Ecotricity's green Union flag, and so might seem unlikely sustainability bedfellows.

The 2012 Olympics' sustainability plan is based around 5 themes; climate change, waste, biodiversity, inclusion and healthy living. Add in The Olympic and Paralympic Values of respect, excellence, friendship, courage, determination, inspiration and equality, and I would venture this choice of sustainability partners might seem even more unexpected. So I contacted LOCOG for an interview. After lengthy deliberation, they declined this request, rejected a further invitation to respond to written questions, and instead sent me the following statement:

“Without the private investment by our sponsors, the staging of the Games simply wouldn’t be possible. Our sustainability strategy and policies were clearly set out before our sponsors signed up and we work with companies to comply with those standards. Some companies have chosen to connect themselves with that element of our programme as a Sustainability Partner”.

“By working in partnership with all our stakeholders, from NGO’s such as WWF and BioRegional to our commercial sponsors, we are setting new standards and continuously improving our sustainability performance".

Zzzzzzz...oh, thanks LOCOG.

The Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 (CSL) oversee the provision of sustainability for London 2012, yet was not involved in selecting the sustainability partners. In an interview, CSL's Chair, Shaun McCarthy explained, “assurance bodies, by their nature, can not be involved in management decisions. It would be a fundamental conflict of interests”. He added, “our concern is about setting the standards and requirements for delivery of the sustainability standards of the programme, and then the process by which those standards are delivered, and we would comment on those”.

But how can an organisation overseeing sustainability - in this instance CSL - set standards without being involved in the process? And what happens when sustainability partners fail to deliver sustainability? What sanctions might they face?

Shaun McCarthy told me there aren’t really any sanctions, other than CSL being able to “embarrass them publicly” because of the nature of CSL’s work. He admits that since LOCOG is by its nature a temporary organisation, there can not be any kind of sanction around repeat business with companies losing out in future bids. He continued, “the other thing that is difficult is a sponsor that's putting in cash and value in kind, or a sponsor that's just contributing value in kind in terms of brand recognition, well, what do you do, because actually the cash is flowing the other way”.

Carrying a torch (c) comedy_nose

Yet CSL is not completely toothless. When EDF failed to deliver their low carbon torch, CSL made a point of embarrassing them. Their latest report, 'In sight of the finishing line,' notes “The promise of a low-carbon torch was made in 2007 so the excuse of “we ran out of time” is not acceptable”.

Is it even a genuine excuse? EDF are not shy of duplicity (see above). An independent organisation with clout might have considered EDF's history during the selection process for sustainability partners.

The same report goes on to say “The Commission is disappointed that LOCOG and EDF Energy have failed in this objective as whilst the carbon contribution of this initiative may have been relatively small, the power of the message across the globe would have been highly significant”.

I would ask why should the power of the message be more significant than the carbon reduction, no matter how small?

Elsewhere, CSL has written “The Commission is disappointed that there will not be the widespread use of real-time energy monitoring and display as this could have supplemented their (EDF's) Games-time sustainability messaging through providing public confidence in the sustainability of the Games”.

Taken together, these statements appear to me to indicate that real sustainability is less important than the public perception of sustainability.

This matters. BP are responsible for providing the fuel for the fleet of official London 2012 vehicles. The company has been advertising its alleged use of sustainable fuel under the banner “Providing advanced biofuels for London 2012”. But as the UK Tar Sands Network point out, “A closer look at BP's claims here reveals over 99% of the fleet will in fact be using convention fossil fuel. Furthermore, of BP's three advanced biofuel projects, two should really be considered 'first generation' rather than advanced”.

Given the reality of the fuel used, and that first generation biofuels have a bad reputation for driving climate change, BP seem to be greenwashing their sustainability commitment. And CSL and LOCOG appear to be letting them get away with it - no mention is made of BP's predominant use of fossil fuel or first generation fuels in 'In sight of the finishing line'. It will be interesting to see what CSL have to say about this in their next annual report due next month.

To be fair, CSL's position is difficult. They receive 30% of their funding through LOCOG, and so are part funded by the companies they are supposed to be keeping an eye on. The scope for providing independent sustainability assurance is therefore somewhat compromised. Shaun McCarthy says: “I think the IOC does have responsibility to pick up some of these issues that can't be dealt with by a temporary organisation”. This sounds like a reasonable idea, but could also be susceptible to the same financial (corporate) ambitions.

We accept that there is a need for corporate finance in funding the Games, but this should not detract from delivering sustainability. Just how BP and EDF were chosen as sustainability partners remains a mystery. The choice of future sustainability partners should not be considered from a financial angle alone. A company's sustainability history should be paramount when selecting future partners.

A global organisation, endorsed by, but independent of, the IOC, with a remit to oversee sustainability from start to finish, might be the best solution for future sustainable Games.

A lesson in education from girl soldiers

2012-06-21T07:30:00.000+01:00

Below is a piece I wrote for another forum. It takes in child soldiers, poverty, inequality, the Millennium Development Goals, and how a reconstituted idea of education might tackle such issues.

Nelson Mandela (c) South Africa The Good News

“I was never an important person in my family but since I started the training and started working on friends’ hair at home and now making a little money to help my family, everyone now calls me ‘Aunty Mamy’; they listen to me now”.

This is how a 15 year old girl, and former child soldier from Liberia, has put her views on earning a living. For her, and others like her, her identity - and feelings of respect, independence and self-esteem - hinges on her earning power.

Education helps many children achieve their potential across the world. But for child soldiers, education may serve as a reminder to what has gone on before, defining who they are, “Teachers are very judgemental of us on the basis of what we were involved in” .

Nelson Mandela stated that “education is the most powerful weapon we can use to change the world”. Mandela was fighting an ideological war against apartheid and its institutionalised, racist educational system, when he made this statement; it is of its place and time. Rather than seeing education as a linear constant, taught in a top-down fashion, we need to look beyond Mandela's words to understand what education might mean, and for whom.

Nations such as Sierra Leone do not go war because of a lack of education. The Truth and Reconciliation Committee for Sierra Leone found that “it was years of bad governance, endemic corruption and the denial of basic human rights that created the deplorable conditions that made conflict inevitable”. Although this omits other factors, such as the unequal globalised economic playing field in which it was operating, Sierra Leone used to have a strong, well-run educational system. It was not for want of education that Sierra Leone became one of the poorest countries.

Key to Graca Machel’s landmark 1996 UN report “The impact of armed conflict on children” was education. It was envisaged as a primary component of the U.N.’s Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) programmes in the reconstruction of post-conflict nations.

Whilst the International Labour Office (ILO) report that many Liberian girl soldiers were happy to go back to school after disarmament and demobilisation, they were ill-prepared for what they encountered at the end of it – a lack of opportunities and jobs (sound familiar?). Consequently, girl soldiers resort to relying on a man to support them, reinforcing stereotypical patriarchal views of women as dependant on men.

Older Liberian students (c) USAID

"I was living with my commander [female] after the war. Then I got involved with this exfighter. I wanted to go to disarm but I became pregnant. I wanted to be with him so I didn’t go anymore. Now I’m living with him. I’m not going to school because I’m pregnant".

Having a child alters girls soldiers' perception of themselves simply because being a mum is socially significant. In a battle between their multiple identities (girl v. soldier v. mum v. member of community etc.), many girls choose motherhood ahead of education because education does not afford them the same sense of self-worth, or equality with others.

"Most of my friends don’t know that I was fighting. I like to keep it that way. People don’t like ex-fighters. After the war I went living with my aunt, only she knows, but for the rest I don’t want them to know. If they know and something bad happens they will point at me, saying I did it".

Stigmatisation, and a fear of stigmatisation, has been a major problem for DDR programmes. Just 4.2% of girl soldiers accessed DDR packages in Sierra Leone. But why should girls return to education when it offers little economic security and further gender insecurity?

If Western-structured education is failing children in DDR programmes globally, failing children of our former colonies, and yes, even failing our children in the UK, then perhaps we need to consider whether we are delivering the right type of education.

Michael Wessels, a psychologist and professor at Columbia University says:

“We don’t always do a very good job of listening to young people,”...“One of the questions that comes up in regard to girls is: Have we taken adequate time to understand what the girls’ view of reintegration is?”...

...“The goal is to put the power in the hands of girls; to have them go through a process wherein they organize themselves, define what reintegration means to them; ask what’s missing, and then design small actions and steps”...

This perspective places the emphasis on a bottom-up approach, by taking into account how a reintegration programme affects those it is supposed to help. As these girls' experiences are uniquely individual, future DDR programmes should reflect this diversity. In consultation with those running these programmes, girls can then use their own definitions of successful reintegration.

Given its central role in reintegration, education might benefit from a similar re-think. Let us listen to the children we teach, and find out what they think about their educational systems. Let us understand how their lives outside of the classroom affects their learning, so that a future education takes on board the fact that we are all different. Children can then measure and define their own educational progress, alongside their teachers.

Education may be the most powerful weapon we can use to change the world. We just have to harness its power, and tailor it so that everyone benefits from it. We can still meet the Millennium Development Goals for poverty and gender inequality, as long we learn from the lessons of girl soldiers.

The honest politician's guide to crime control

2012-06-08T13:06:00.000+01:00

To lead us gently into the weekend, here is another offering from Criminonymous.

The truth is that almost all adults have, at some time in their lives

Committed criminal acts

And it is those who have not who are abnormal

Almost all the acts which are defined as criminal in our society

Have at some time in some society been tolerated

And even socially approved

The line between legitimate and illegitimate means of acquiring property

Is both arbitrary and difficult to define precisely

There are wide differences between states

In regard to what sexual behaviour is criminal

And considerable variation in the same state

At different historical periods

There is no evidence

That the bulk of criminal behaviour

Is the result of some pathological, mental or somatic condition

Which distinguishes criminals in general

From non-criminals

Gacaca courts: truth and reconciliation in Rwanda

2012-06-05T18:07:00.000+01:00

My Neighbor My Killer: Official Trailer from Gacaca Films on Vimeo.

My Neighbor My Killer documents the use of localised Gacaca courts to deliver (restorative) justice to victims of the Rwandan genocide. In use from 2001 to the present day, the film charts the anger, sadness, fears, truths and untruths of its victims and accused, in the hope of securing a reconciled Rwanda.

Umbro's (ab)use of Paul Gascoigne

2012-05-31T13:30:00.001+01:00

Has anyone seen this Umbro advertisement featuring Paul Gascoigne? Published on YouTube, it is called 'Gazza: Pride and Passion from one of the Faces of England'.

From a footballing perspective, I can understand why Umbro selected Gascoigne to launch their campaign. A gifted footballer, who, in my opinion, was the star of Italia '90, Gascoigne is a sporting icon who personified passion and pride in an England shirt.

Yet from a human perspective, Umbro's use of Gascoigne is less understandable. Italia '90 also illustrated his personal frailties. His reaction to the booking that meant that he would have missed the World Cup Final is there for all to see (below). Understandable in the circumstances?...Maybe.

Add in Gary Lineker's appreciation of Gascoigne's mental fragility at that moment – Lineker says that Gascoigne had “basically lost the plot” - presumably borne of personal experience, and we have a vulnerable human being.

At the time, Gascoigne was synonymous with being the happy go-lucky, cheeky chappy. He was 'Gazza'. He gurned for the cameras. He wore fake breasts. His public identity was borne out of football, manufactured by the media and loved by the public.

Whilst George Best had to contend with similar issues in the public spotlight, the advent of SkySports and 24/7 media coverage meant that Gascoigne was the first modern-day 'celebrity' footballer. With a lack of people around him to provide him with adequate emotional support, it seems that Gascoigne became addicted to 'Gazzamania'.

We know of Gascoigne's difficulties since. His long-term addictions to drink and drugs and his battles with mental illnesses reveal Gascoigne to be in constant need of something to make his life meaningful and worthwhile.

And the something that went a long way to making Gascoigne's life fulfilled is football. It is football that is his biggest addiction; not just the physical act of playing, but what playing meant for his identity and self-esteem that is equally, if not more, important.

As Euro 2012 approaches, Umbro want as many England football fans to go out and buy their new top. Pride and passion, the epitome of Gascoigne in an England shirt is supposed to attract fans, who themselves identify with those traits, into buying the product.

But the 30-second video above is a manipulated edit of a 5-minute “interview” Gascoigne did with Umbro (see below). In this video, Gascoigne laments what he sees as a lack of pride in some of today's England team.

Hold on Umbro, I thought that this was THE selling-point, yet your 'Face' suggests that some England players lack this quality. If pride is something that Gascoigne had but other current England players do not, then why should we then buy into this idea and buy a new England shirt?

So how are Umbro really marketing the new England top?

The evidence suggests that Umbro are selling us 'Gazza'. The advertisement refers to Gascoigne as 'Gazza'. 'Gazza' models the new Umbro top, tongue out for added cheekiness as per his playing days.

In his 5-minute interview with Umbro, Gascoigne talks of his love of learning to play football as a child in a park. After telling us that he drives by this park occasionally, he says “God, I'm going to start crying”, before continuing briefly, and with more tears welling in his eyes, he feels that he has to apologise.

This is the 'Gazza' of Italia '90 all over again. His love of, and need for, football and what it means to Gascoigne and his identity is so deeply ingrained, that his hurt is palpable.

We, the public are partly responsible for wanting to see the 'Gazza' that we helped create. But we need more of 'Gazza' the footballer, whereas 'Gazza' the identity needs us. Gascoigne tried to kick 'Gazza' a few years ago when reinventing himself as G8, but there is little to suggest that he, or we, really took this on board.

Umbro's use of 'Gazza' is that of a dealer providing a fix for a client's addiction. Their advertisement preys upon this addiction by marketing their product through his fragility and vulnerability. I would urge England fans to buy their tops from other manufacturers until such time as Umbro withdraw their 'Gazza' advertisements.

Additionally, according to Rule 4.4 of the Advertising Codes:

Advertisements must not include material that is likely to condone or encourage behaviour that prejudices health and safety.

In my opinion, this advertisement condones exploitative marketing by encouraging Gascoigne's addiction to football and 'Gazza'. If you feel that Umbro's advertisement exploits Gascoigne, you can complain to the Advertising Standards Agency here.

Regardless of how much Umbro paid Gascoigne, given his well-known history of addiction and mental health issues, Umbro have a responsibility to the man, not a right. In this regard, they have failed.

Murdoch and NewsCorp support an uncapped immigration policy for the UK

2012-05-28T18:54:00.000+01:00

Rupert Murdoch (c) World Economic Forum

….as long as it suits them of course. But still.

Researching emails between Fred Michel and Jeremy Hunt's office for my earlier post, I came across the following correspondence entitled 'Immigration cap - meeting' between Michel and Giles Wilkes, special adviser to business secretary, Vince Cable. On 10^th October 2010, Michel wrote to Wilkes:

...”I am writing to see if we could meet up to discuss the reform plans on the immigration cap. As you can imagine, it is a policy area which will have a major impact on News Corporation”.

Wilkes responded sympathetically to this request, given the “major impact this might have on News International”. He added that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) were trying to get views on this matter from businesses across the board, so that they could feed them into government policy.

On 12^th October, Wilkes told Michel that he could not meet him later that week, but that he was interested in finding out News Internationals thoughts on an immigration cap. Michel responds:

...”I will send you our first thoughts and hope we can be helpful on this debate. We are looking at it from a mobility viewpoint but also ability to hire talents for a global company etc. We also have some relevant expertise in-house on this”.

Correspondence between the pair is rejoined on 21^st October, when Michel gave Wilkes a heads-up of the speech that Rupert Murdoch was giving on global mobility at the inaugaral Margaret Thatcher lecture later that night. And then it all went a little off piste, after Wilkes asked Michel, “Out of interest, are his editors in the audience as a rule”? “Cheeky!”, retorted Michel.

Cheeky (c) Johan Larsson

Wilkes apologised, stating that he had no intention of being cheeky, and explained:

“But as I am sure you are aware, there is a strong anti-immigration feeling in the UK, and this is seen in some quarters as coming from the popular press. It would be interesting if the same sentiments that RM is expressing in the speech were to be amplified in your highly respected newspapers”.

Fair point, Mr Wilkes. In his speech, Murdoch states:

“In short, Britain needs companies robust enough to compete in this global market – whether in finance or pharmaceuticals, transport or telecommunications, retail or entertainment. And we need to attract the brightest talent, regardless of background and ethnicity.

In other words, Britain should be a magnet for the best students and best workers from around the world”.

Was it reported in Murdoch's media? Nothing appears online, so it would appear that Murdoch and NewsCorp preferred to keep this quiet in the UK. Strange. Or is it?

Over the last couple of years, the Murdochs have expanded their operations in India. NewsCorp operate through Star India Pvt Ltd, and they own stakes in a number of other industries in India, including the Tata Group and Harper Collins. For the Murdochs, India represents the future, and the future looks promising.

Coincidentally, Indian citizens need visas to work and study in the UK. Will NewsCorp be sponsoring student applications from their commercial partners to oil the wheels of commerce? Are NewsCorp already thinking ahead in terms of their future workforce – will they insource their future employees? Pure speculation on my part, but NewsCorp is a business that plans ahead strategically when it comes to expansion.

The government is already struggling to curb abuse of student visas. It would seem quite disingenuous then for the UK government to consider what might be best for the likes of NewsCorp.

But there again, who really holds the power when it comes to shaping public opinion and policy? It will be interesting to see what steps the government takes towards meeting their commitment of reducing net immigration.

One last thing. Feel free to circulate this piece more widely so that NewsCorp subscribers (including readers of The Sun, Times etc.) and shareholders are aware of NewsCorp's liberal immigration stance.

Leveson Inquiry: Jeremy Hunt's impartiality and NewsCorp's BSkyB bid

2012-05-28T01:25:00.000+01:00

Jeremy Hunt (c) Surian Soosay

Following Adam Smith's and Fred Michel's statements at the Leveson Inquiry on Thursday and Friday, media speculation has focused on the impartiality of the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt - I will do my best not to do a Naughtie.

Prior to his quasi-judicial appointment on 22^nd December 2010, the media, including the BBC, refer to a memo that Hunt sent to the Prime Minister, David Cameron on 19 November 2010. Hunt was concerned that the UK media “would suffer for years” if the BSKyB deal failed to go through.

Yetthe media have missed other equally telling comments from this memo:

James Murdoch is pretty furious at Vince's referral to Ofcom. He doesn't think that he will get a fair hearing from Ofcom. I am privately concerned about this because NewsCorp are very litigious and we couldend up in the wrong place in terms of media policy”.

Just why would Murdoch not think that he will get a fair hearing from Ofcom? Evidence suggests that he did, and that the deal would have gone through. That Hunt was “privately concerned” about this referral suggests that he shared Murdoch's disquiet. Impartial?

Interestingly, the above is an edited version of an earlier round-up which argues NewsCorp's case as follows:

Those people who are arguing that the Murdochs will have too much influence are in my view confusing the revenues Sky gets (around £8 bn) which are much higher than – say – the BBC's £4 bn with the influence Sky has editorially which is much less because a) most of the channels watched on Sky belong to other people over which it exerts no editorial control; and b) where it does (e.g. Sky news), it has less than 5% market share and is bound by strict rules over political impartiality. (stress as per original draft)

Whilst Hunt decided to omit this information from his final memo, it alerts us to the information that he/his office had to hand. Evidence for the BSkyB bid.

Evidence which came directly from Fred Michel. On 7^thOctober 2010, texts between Michel and Hunt reveal that Hunt was happy to receive NewsCorp's briefing on plurality from Michel, which he then emailed to AdamSmith, then Hunt's special adviser.

The Three Amigos/Parties to Unite over BSkyB Bid Call (c) Surian Soosay

Returning from the weekend, Smith emailed Michel with Hunt's view of the arguments for the BskyB takeover, "Jeremy's response to this - “persuasive”. Impartial?

Counsel to the Inquiry, Robert Jay QC, put this to Smith:

...”But aren't these pretty clear indicators of what Mr Hunt's view was, at least on the materials which were being provided as to the quality of the bid, and its desirability”?

To which, Smith replied:

“Well, I think it chimes with what he said about he didn't think there was a particular problem, but he wouldn't second guess the regulators. I don't think that is any different meaning”.

Let us remember at this point that Hunt and his department had nothing to do with this particular decision. This still lay with then business secretary, Vince Cable, who was later removed for declaring war on Murdoch.

Why were Hunt, and his office, even in receipt of these particular NewsCorp briefings, let alone reading and commenting on it? Leveson queried Smith on this issue:

“What has this got to do with you? I mean, I'm just intrigued to know why you should be involved in this material. This was being dealt with by another department. I can't believe you didn't have more than enough to do. So what has this to do with you”?

Smith replied:

“Well, it was a big issue in the media sector and I think Mr Michel had offered to send something through to me and I would always receive anything that anybody wanted to send through to me”.

For Leveson, who failed to follow this up any further, Hunt, and his office, just wanted to know where people stood. Yet this completely neglects the amount of work, as Leveson mentions, that Hunt and his team were putting in to a bid that had nothing to do with them.Especially at a time when Hunt would have been busy reorganising his department following the comprehensive spending review. Is Smith's explanation credibile?

On 16^thNovember 2010, Michel texted Hunt, “Thanks for the call with James today. Greatly appreciated. Will work with Adam to make sure we can send you helpful arguments”...

Helpful arguments? For whom? About what?

“The helpful arguments are relating to the BSkyB bid, aren't they”,asked Robert Jay QC of Fred Michel, who responded, “I don't know. I can't remember.”

Son of a Murdoch (c) Surian Soosay

Anything else it might have been for? Unlikely, given that we know that just a couple of days later Hunt was telling Cameron that Murdoch was furious about Cable referring the bid to Ofcom.

Neither Leveson nor Jay questioned Smith about these “helpful arguments”, despite (Adam) Smith's name appearing in the text. Why not?

What went on before Hunt was appointed quasi-judge and jury illustrates an unhealthily close relationship with NewsCorp. More investigative questioning may have revealed further details, but it may be that Hunt will face more searching questions on Thursday.

Just as importantly, let us not forget that it was Cameron who appointed Hunt. His choices of personnel and champions, from AndyCoulson to EmmaHarrison, have been ill-advised.

Cameron knew that Hunt held meetings with NewsCorp in the U.S. in August 2009. Speculation has mounted that talks of the BSkyB bid first emerged during this trip, but Hunt claims that no such discussions took place“to the best of his recognition” - is that a bit of legalese? Either way, within a week of this visit, The Sun (one of Murdoch's newspapers) had declared its support for Cameron for the 2010 election.

Cameron also knew from Hunt's memo to him of 19^thNovember that he was worried about the prospect of a failed BSkyBbid. Just what questions did Cameron ask of Hunt and his connections, and contact, with NewsCorp before appointing him?

In fact, was it even in Cameron's interests to ask?

Overburdened (once every forty years)

2012-05-14T17:21:00.000+01:00

Salmonella (c) NIAID

The following article was published on openDemocracy by Steve Tombs and David Whyte under a creative commons licence.

Tacked on at the end of the very first paragraph of yesterday’s Queen’s Speech^↑ was a government promise to "limit state inspection of businesses.”

Innocuous as it sounds, this phrase contains a promise that profoundly threatens the health and wellbeing of all of us. And yet it passed by virtually unreported, under the radar of all of the major news bulletins.    

We have come to expect – and take for granted - the guarantee that our workplaces, our environment and safety of our food comply to a minimum standard of protection. And yet, this is not how business representatives or the government see it. Since the election of the Coalition, we have been subjected to a constant barrage of mythology about those protections being a “burden” on business. Recall that Cameron’s New Years priorities for 2012 were the Olympics, the Queen’s Jubilee, and to “kill off the health and safety culture for good” - to rid British business of an “albatross”^↑that was “costing them billions of pounds a year”.

Yesterday’s promise to limit inspections is the latest stage in the Coalition’s promised major shake up of business inspection, following Nick Clegg’s longstanding promise^↑to question if regulators are still necessary. All of the apocryphal stories of ‘elf and safety goan mad’ (many of them originating in a mixture of government and Daily Mail populism rather than fact) have had the drip drip effect of creating an illusion that we are “over-regulated”.

Yet when it comes to the most fundamental protections of our health and our lives, the figures simply don’t stack up. Indeed, the figures are so stark that they make us question both the integrity and the sanity of the Coalition.  

Take the main sources of regulatory protection from business activities: workplace health and safety, environmental protection and food safety. In the past ten years, inspections by the Environment Agency have fallen by 60%. In the Health and Safety Executive annual inspections of businesses by its biggest section have declined by more than 2/3rds. The average business can now expect a visit less than once every forty years.

In the same period, food safety inspections by local authorities have fallen by 31%.  T he effect on the way that the worst offending businesses are punished for risking our lives has been equally dramatic. Prosecutions in the Environment Agency have fallen 27% since their peak in 2005; in the past decade years, prosecutions for health and safety offences have halved and prosecutions for food safety and food standards violations have fallen by 33%. 

I n comparison to other OECD countries, our workplace safety record continues to race to the bottom. When the Coalition took power, Britain was 20th out of 30 OECD countries rated for safe workplaces, and we are continuing to slip down this league table.   

This is hardly a picture of an over-regulated business sector. It is yet another measure of the Coalition’s ability to look like a rabbit caught in the headlights of this recession. As part of a craven to business, knee-jerk, attempt to deregulate us out of recession, this proposal threatens irreversible damage to a quickly deteriorating safety net of social protection.

Steve Tombs is Professor of Sociology, Liverpool John Moores University; David Whyte is Reader in Sociology, University of Liverpool. They are authors of Regulatory Surrender (Institute of Employment Rights^↑, 2010)

The Rochdale child sex gang and attributing blame

2012-05-10T17:18:00.001+01:00

In need of affection and attention? (c) Stew Dean

The Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson wrote the following introduction for her article entitled, 'Asian sex gang: young girls betrayed by our fear of racism':

Nine white men are found guilty of grooming young Asian girls, aged between 13 and 15, whom they picked up on the streets of London. The girls were lured with free fish and chips before being raped or pimped as prostitutes. One Asian girl from a children's home was used for sex by 20 men in one night. Police insist the crimes were not "racially motivated".

Imagine if that story were true. Would you really believe that race was not a hateful factor in those crimes?...

Yes, I would Allison.

My first thoughts were that this is another case of the powerful seeking to control the vulnerable.

In their more balanced article, 'Child sex grooming, the Asian question, The Independent, have posited that it may be a cultural issue but that the evidence suggesting as much is inconclusive. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre acknowledges this.

Might we otherwise perceive this as being males using their power to control and abuse females?

Recent evidence suggests that 10% of women have been raped and 35% have been sexually assaulted. Yet females rarely take their attacker to court because of our extremely low conviction rates. Just look at the recent Ched Evans rape case and the abuse that the victim suffered following his guilty verdict. These are symptomatic of the inequalities that women face in the name of security and protection.

Do the crimes committed in Rochdale not reflect these inequalities? Might it be a gender issue rather than a race issue?

Or might it be the way that we 'treat' our children?

Ella Cockbain and Helen Brayley from the Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science at University College London suggest that affection, attention and excitement are often enough for girls to succumb to their future abusers. Is this what they lack from parents and society at large?

The mainstream media regularly demonise our children as criminals in waiting. On the street, mainly. Which is where the girls in this case were groomed. But why are they on the street?

Over 18s, no hoodies (c) C Ford

UNICEF UK have studied children's happiness in the UK. They found that children miss the love of parents, who, as well as working the longest hours in Europe may also be working more than one job to provide for their children. They also concluded that there are too few leisure facilities available for children. Affection, attention and excitement.

UNICEF UK has called on the UK government to address these problems. I have not read, seen, or heard anything that might suggest that these issues have been resolved.

What happened to these girls was abhorrent. It may well be a cultural problem, but if we truly want to protect our girls in the future, we should not jump to rash conclusions without a full consideration of other factors.

Whilst paedophilia is defined differently, in that paedophiles groom pre-pubescent children, the victims are the same; children. On the street or online, grooming is grooming.

We do not attribute paedophile rings with being white and European. We look beyond such a simplification. We should so in this case.

Because then we might see that these girls were not solely betrayed by our fear of racism, but also because of a range of other factors.

Bad person

2012-05-09T17:30:00.000+01:00

In this latest piece, Criminonymous posits that any definition of 'crime' is contingent upon time and place. None of us are wholly innocent. Does imprisonment, and its associated sanctions, work?

There are people who break into other people’s homes

People who trespass on private land because they want to roam

A drunken person might steal a phone and a garden gnome

And then there’s couples whose love is a crime and a sin

People whose political views are deemed worthy of prison

People who transgress to achieve an end they were taught was legitimate

What you consider deviant depends on what you see as normal

What you see as bad depends on your experience of sorrow

The norms we adhere to shift like the continents

Our priorities change, but no one keeps on top of it

We all want safety, irrespective of our stance

But the people in the jails are mostly there by chance

We don’t fight crime; we define crime

We respond when we can, but for the majority of offences

There’s no such thing as a plan

That can effectively stem all the illicit demand

We blame cops too for the culture in which they live

Like with any gang culture, recruits may be of a certain creed

But to reintegrate, our forgiveness is what they need

Police are as manipulated as everyone else

All mental health is suspect in and of itself

People are fragile

Liable to influence by their surroundings, like the hopeless in prison

The futile stockpiling of our brothers and sisters

And when they’re out, these erstwhile exiles

No longer fit the profile of a worthwhile punt

They must be imbeciles; their values must be totally different

Can’t reconcile employment with debilitating criminal illness

Forgetting that crimes are committed by almost all of us

What if everyone was charged the first time they tried drugs?

Everyone who shoplifted, downloaded a song, sped or littered?

Caught or not, it’s the overwhelming majority

That’s the sheer insanity of the us-and-them mentality

Our primal hostility masked as higher morality

Assumptions of purity are no more than an illusion

We prescribe division like our laws were the words of a god

And to break them is to trash our religion

But if you put everyone corrupt in jail, who will be left to lock us all in?

It’s a war of attrition that we’re never going to win

Growth without prosperity

2012-05-04T14:00:00.003+01:00

Leading you into the long weekend, I am delighted to host another piece of political poetry from Criminonymous. If you prefer your "shotgun duels over fossil fuels" on paper as I do, read on.

A never ending focus on these manmade lines

Designed for our safety, but designed to confine

Does any of this actually mean anything?

Does having dual nationality prepare me for more eventualities?

What is beyond our control does not enlighten the person

I’m a no-name global citizen with a purpose

And understandably, while I focus on my love and on my family

I still elevate wider humanity, see

That’s what matters to me

Progress as a process requires harnessing our energy

We’ve had growth without prosperity

And now we have neither

Disappeared in the ether

Take a step back and find Mother Earth needs a breather

You think it’s easy to please her

But her beauty is intrinsically bound to deceive you

Into thinking she’s unlimited, clearly she’s exhibited

The signs that she can take no more of these derivatives

Unlimited subsidies will be beyond prohibited

When people realise all of the damage they cause

A series of flaws

A flaming ball of wreckage like the track at Le Mans

But the problem with the debate is not the intransigence

It’s that so many issues are at the same resonance

Irrespective of anything, oil isn’t infinite

We can’t keep forever increasing our own use of it

Soon so expensive that it will only be available

To tax exiles in St Lucia and those in Monaco

The conflation of climate change with other things we know

Ensures our response to other issues is also slow

But that’s not what is best for me or you

I don’t want to wait until there’s shotgun duels over fossil fuels

Although some would say it’s already started

With ever-more dangerous tools

While a minority monopolise the writing of rules

And my heart goes out to all of those affected who are fatherless

Those in Fallujah, cancerous and powerless

The person in jail who made one mistake last year

The whistleblower executed in oil-rich Nigeria

The millions of families who have been foreclosed illegally

It’s all crime in the way that it speaks to me

Believe me, when you come to pick your battles

Energy and food security alone will be a handful

But we also need political stability

Replace profit maximisation with relaxation and common decency

In the future, we will take back our liberties

You may doubt me, but it’s as simple as that

Everything we’ve lost, we will recover tit-for-tat

My delivery may be poor, but the words still have meaning

Read them back to yourself if you don’t think that you believe me

If global warming is only happening in our minds

Then how come in the Arctic you’ve found new places to mine?

Ecocide sentencing event: tar sands

2012-05-02T17:00:00.000+01:00

According to Eradicating Ecocide, ecocide is the damage, destruction and loss of ecosystems. At present, nobody is held accountable under international law for the destruction, wilful or not, of the Earth's ecosystems.

Concerned at this continuing degradation, Polly Higgins, a barrister and international environmental lawyer, advocates that the international justice system should hold individuals to account for the damage that they do. A minor amendment to the Rome Statute could see ecocide become the fifth crime against peace.

In September 2011, the UK Supreme Court in London staged a mock trial (embedded above) to assess the viability of ecocide. With eminent barristers, Michael Mansfield QC and Chris Parker QC acting for the Prosecution and Defence respectively, two fictional CEOs were charged with the destruction of wildlife and the surrounding habitat, following an oil spill which could have been averted. A jury found both defendants guilty of crimes against the Earth.

Sentencing of both defendants took place at the end of March. Click on the video below to find out how justice might apply in future cases of ecocide.

Charles Taylor: justice done or justice seen to be done?

2012-04-30T15:00:00.000+01:00

Wallace Johnson Statue, Freetown, Sierra Leone (c) Mark Gee

As we celebrate the guilty verdict handed down to Charles Taylor for the crimes that he helped perpetuate, we appear to have gotten carried away with the man and what it means for human rights. We seem to have lost focus of his victims whether justice has been served to those who were most affected by his crimes.

I have checked the online versions of mainstream papers based in Sierra Leone (Awareness Times, Awoko, Exclusive Press and Sierra Leone Daily Mail), and in Liberia (The 1847 Post, In Profile Daily, The Inquirer and Daily Observer). Although far from a perfect means of gathering evidence - basic internet coverage that only a small percentage of population have access to/can afford – I was hoping to understand whether local Sierra Leoneans and Liberians feel that justice has been served.

Other than stating, “Thousands of survivors of Sierra Leone’s brutal civil war celebrated after learning of the conviction”, the Sierra Leone Daily Mail only covers the reactions of Special Court of Sierra Leone (SCSL) officials, the US government, and non-government organisations (NGOs). None of the other online resources in Sierra Leone have any news on the Taylor verdict. I also understand that there has been little coverage of the Taylor verdict in the printed press in Sierra Leone.

In Liberia, all of the news outlets mentioned above have covered the verdict in some way. As well as publishing articles in the lead up to the Taylor verdict, the Liberian press have covered official and NGOs responses in more detail. The Inquirer has dedicated most coverage to public reaction. Of a local BBC phone-in, they report:

Reverend Jasper Nd'ganblor said, “...our concern is the peace that has been so far attained in the region whether it will hold and if it will help us sustain the peace it will be in the right direction...Liberia has gone through so much and that of Sierra Leone and we want the diplomatic tie to continue to abide instead of seeing each other as enemies.”

Julliet, women's advocate in Sierra Leone added her feelings by saying, “This verdict is with mixed feelings...Impunity needs to be addressed; justice needs to be given to whom it is due. This man pronounced war on Sierra Leone. He said we will taste the bitterness of war and we tasted it; the women tasted it. The women died; the women suffered and I am not happy at all.”

A local vox pops found:

Mr. Varney Konneh of Monrovia said, “I hope Sierra Leoneans are happy; they wanted justice and now they have justice. I just hope they will be at peace; Liberians will remember this day, because of Sierra Leoneans; Liberians are grieving over the situation.”

“Justice has been done; there is nothing we can do about it and Sierra Leoneans are rejoicing because they think it is the right thing to do but let them know that what comes around goes around,” one Mr. Jallah said.

“I am so happy that Taylor will not be set free, I suffered in this country when Taylor was in power. My daughter was raped by Taylor's so-called ATU soldiers; today he has been punished for all the wrongs he did to us,” Madam Yvonnie Smith said.

Wheelchair merchant, Monrovia, Liberia (c) whiteafrican

Other regional media outlets, such as Africa Review note:

Motorists honked in the streets of Freetown, in apparent jubilation for the verdict, but next door in Liberia, tension was high....The ruling has also reportedly heightened tension between Sierra Leone and Liberia.

Whilst the Global Post states that reactions in Liberia were mixed:

Taylor's war-crimes conviction is a watershed moment, said Aaron Weah, program associate at the International Center for Transitional Justice. "The verdict signals hope for Liberians who were victims of the civil war here that, five to six years from now, they too will get justice," said Weah.

So why might reaction in Sierra Leone be so muted?

There may well be a number of reasons for this, but it is noteworthy that their own (show) trials of Foday Sankoh, commander of the RUF, Sam Bockarie, leader of the RUF, Johnny Paul Koroma, leader of the AFRC, and Sam Hinga Norman, head of the CDF, have never taken place. Sankoh, Bockarie and Norman have all died, whilst Koroma has eluded capture and may be dead.

Eight other indictees, representing the armed forces of the rebels (RUF, AFRC) and government of Sierra Leone (CDF), have since been found guilty of war crimes atrocities. These verdicts gathered a lot less attention in the West, despite the fact that the AFRC case made legal history by ruling on the recruitment of child soldiers and forced marriage in an armed conflict for the first time.

Perhaps the most pertinent of the UK articles on the Taylor verdict and its implications for justice, is this one written by Mwangi Kimenyi and John Mbaku. In “Why wasn't it Africa that found Charles Taylor guilty?, Kimenyi and Mbaku lament the lack of institutional capacities within African justice systems to deal with human rights abuses.

In her blog post for the Overseas Development Initiative, Lisa Denney writes:

The Special Court will undoubtedly have an impact on the post-conflict landscape in Sierra Leone and, of course, sets important precedents in international law and holding political leaders to account. But its short-term nature, limited scope and overwhelming ‘foreignness’ means its will have less effect on most Sierra Leoneans than reform of the country’s legal systems (both formal and informal) – which will remain long after the white four wheel drives and international staff have departed...Indeed, most Sierra Leoneans have had to resolve grievances with community members from the civil war through informal mechanisms, without the judges, robes and new court rooms that international formal legal processes have attracted.

The future of Sierra Leone? (c) Mark Gee

So has justice been done or been seen to be done?

As of today, it is extremely difficult to assess whether Sierra Leoneans and Liberians feel that justice has been done. Whilst some may see justice as having been done, others are unhappy that Taylor has not been tried for the crimes that he committed in Liberia. More worryingly, the verdict appears to have heightened tensions between Liberia and Sierra Leone.

What is more apparent is that justice has been seen to be done, in terms of the Western media's ready acceptance of governments' and NGOs' views of the Taylor trial. Taylor himself has become the sole focus of the international community's war crimes narrative, and more important than other judicial advances (e.g. forced marriage in armed conflict).

Additionally, the SCSL cost a lot of money. As such, donor countries would want to see some form of return to justify the money spent on their international legal project.

Headlines of an historic verdict may well secure future funding for future localised, international justice projects, but it masks an important issue; international justice should reflect local victims' sense of retribution and redress.

Does Charles Taylor's guilty verdict signal the end of impunity?

2012-04-27T16:53:00.002+01:00

No.

Although that is not what the UK media would have us believe today. The likes of The Independent and The Telegraph have written lead articles suggesting that all leaders can be held accountable for their crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Independent froths:

Of even greater significance, however, is the milestone the case marks in the effort to ensure that even the most powerful individuals may be held to account under international law. As the first conviction of a former head of state since the Nuremberg trials, Taylor's sentence sends the clear signal that even those in the highest positions are not untouchable.

So who might these most powerful individuals be? If we are talking about leaders of nation states, then we should look immediately at the the leaders of the United Nations Security Council; the Presidents of the USA, France and Russia, the Prime Minister of the UK, and the Premier of China.

Yet three of these leaders would face no sanction under international criminal law because they are not party to the Rome Statute that governs the ICC. The USA, Russia and China have not ratified the statute, and so are immune to any charges brought against their elites.

The likes of Presidents Bush, Putin, and Hu will never face criminal sanctions for their roles (aiding and abetting) war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Tibet to name but a few. Whilst the UK is a party to the ICC, how likely is it that we will see former Prime Minister Tony Blair, and his Ministers, such as Jack Straw, brought to justice for their complicities in Iraqi and Libyan abuses?

The Independent conclude:

But so comparatively new, and awesomely complex, an endeavour as the establishment of international criminal procedures was never going to be easy. For all the criticisms and caveats, the most important point is still that the so-called Big Men who have held sway in Africa – and in the Balkans and the Middle East – for so many decades have witnessed an hour of reckoning at last. No longer can they rest easy in the comfortable assumption they may do as they please, however atrocious, without fear of the consequences. Position and power place no warlord above the law. With the conviction of Taylor, the days of impunity are over.

We see the court, and perhaps the court sees itself, as being responsible for prosecuting those easily identified as “monsters” or “bogey men”; we change the language from “leaders” or “heads of state” to “warlords” or “dictators”. They come from places that are understood as being “troublesome” or “failed states”. Just as with our domestic criminal justice systems, our eyes averted from the crimes of the powerful.

This is a thorny issue for Africa, as the ICC predominantly prosecute African leaders without taking any action against more powerful Western leaders. Afua Hirsch's blog, and the comments on it, further demonstrate the distrust with which this Westernised legal structure is perceived.

Unlike our domestic criminal justice systems, which have the power to hold public officials to account (regardless of how often they pursue a charge), the ICC has no authority to hold the more powerful state officials to account at the international level. As long as the more powerful countries are able to elude the long arm of the law, any justice can not be free from political interference.

Consequently, it does not signal the end of impunity.

Desistance and recidivism: the Sky News and Jordanian government model

2012-04-24T18:33:00.000+01:00

It seems that Sky News and the Jordanian government have alerted us to new strategies in the fight against recidivism and desistance. It is so brilliant and simple, and I wonder why the criminal justice system has not adopted it wholesale before now.

No need to ponder whether community-based punishments or prison programmes are best at reducing re-offending rates. The answer is simple; listen to those who are guilty of former crimes (i.e. phone hacking, torture) say they will not commit these, or other, crimes again, and accept it.

Well, that is more or less what Head of News at Sky News, John Ryley told the Leveson inquiry yesterday (above). He thinks "it is highly unlikely in the future that Sky will consider breaking the law". When pressed further on his lack of overt support for the law, he added that he was "pretty much ruling it out". Now imagine if someone who burgled houses for a living responded in a similar manner in a court of law.

Whilst I note that Ofcom have started an investigation into Sky's admission of two counts of email hacking, let us not forget that this is a criminal, not civil, offence. Sky News have fallen foul of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Using honesty as a tool to divert any guilt, Ryley admits that he was not as aware of these Acts as he should have been. Given that he will have been aware of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire's criminal activities, surely Ryley, obviously not an unintelligent man, could have then made the fairly obvious connection between phone hacking and email hacking.

Falun Gong practitioner tortured by guards in a labour camp in China
(c) Asdf12345

Similarly, the UK government has accepted that the government of Jordan will not use evidence obtained through torture in any case against Abu Qatada. Yet Jordan regularly tortures and detains people based on evidence gained through torture. The latest Human Rights Watch report states:

Perpetrators of torture enjoy near-total impunity. The redress process begins with a deficient complaint mechanism, continues with lackluster investigations and prosecutions, and ends in police court, where two of three judges are police-appointed police officers.

Would the UK government accept similar reassurances from China if it was returning a an illegal immigrant Falun Gong practitioner? Regardless of the innocence or guilt of the fictional Falun Gong practitioner, if the UK is truly a civilised society and a respected guardian of global human rights, we should not be returning anyone to face a trial overseas where torture and abuse of human rights is so intrinsically linked to justice.

We try and detain illegal immigrants for crimes committed in the UK. We have the means to try Qatada here. We choose not to.

Here we are now, integrate us: England's integration strategy

2012-04-11T11:06:00.000+01:00

Currently on a short break. I will return in full next week, but will try and tweet in the next few days. Found this little piece which I had prepared a few weeks ago hidden under the cyber carpet. Hope you all well.

Eric Pickles delivering keynote address at Flag Institute 2011
(c) Charles Ashburner [CC-BY-SA-3.0]

A few weeks ago, Eric Pickles, the Minister for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) unveiled the government's integration strategy, which plan to help create an harmonious England, free of discord and hatred.

The idea is that in an integrated society, everyone can play a full part in the every day workings of life nationally and locally. The UK government believes that there are 5 key themes on which an integrated society can be built: social mobility, participation, responsibility, common ground, and tackling extremism and intolerance.

Despite using several of these same themes, multiculturalism is seen to have failed, with the sense that we now live in a more divided society. The 2011 summer riots, and the perceived threat from Islamic extremists inform this strategy, with risk, fear and security pervading its discourse. As such, the government considers that something needs be done:

We should be robustly promoting British values such as democracy, rule of law, equality of opportunity and treatment, freedom of speech and the rights of all men and women to live free from persecution of any kind. It is these values which make it possible for people to live and work together, to bridge boundaries between communities and to play a full role in society. When this is underpinned both by opportunities to succeed, and a strong sense of personal and social responsibility to the society which has made success possible, the result is a strong society.

The use of “British values” in this context is used to represent a nation that is civilised, Christian and white. The same values that informed a colonial Empire, raiding Africa and Asia for her resources. Why is it that “British values” are different to, or better than, other nation's values?

The strategy is predominantly aimed at a young, male, disadvantaged Muslim/White audience. In a society that has “welcomed” migrants from all over the world, English identity, and values, may well have changed, through personal and professional partnerships, and through other cultural influences, such as music, film and food.

Disability protest poster (c) Byzantine_K

As evidence that their targeted audience is the right one, DCLG refer to their own, commissioned reports, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission's Triennual Review (2010). “How fair is Britain” notes that women and the disabled experience social exclusion, certainly in the guise of a lack of being able to participate and intolerance. Yet, there is nothing for them in this integration strategy.

Is this because the UK government considers that both groups have integrated? If so, why would the government consider that its key factors might work for its target audience, when women and the disabled still feel excluded?

It is in the shift from 'the national' to 'the local', that the government believes that cultural nirvana can be attained. DCLG notes that local communities have long come together to address civil problems, and it is drawing on this social capital to resolve our divided society. However, it accepts that it has to provide a national framework to make it work, utilising the production of civic leadership on integration, with locally-led partnerships driving it forward thanks to cross-Whitehall liaison and assistance.

Even in this basic approach, there are anomalies. For example, whilst the government talk of civic leadership and creating “the space for an open and honest debate”, it recently closed the door to a number of health-industry leaders' involvement in discussions on the localisation of health services. This undermines participation.

Although each of the 5 factors mentioned above appear distinct from each other, they overlap and intertwine, just as ideas of the local and national do.

DCLG propose encouraging young people to develop their sense of responsibility and self-management, through volunteering and a National Citizens Service. Deemed to be participating in their local communities, DCLG will ensure that “people can trust public bodies”, such as those who can enable them to find work locally. Yet when these public bodies face charges of fraud and corruption, it is difficult to see how this might work. More so, when the state fails to rescind its central contract.

In terms of localities leading the way in economic regeneration, and thereby creating social mobility and tackling extremism, DCLG have failed to explain how this might come about. Whilst speaking English is assumed to enable social mobility and a sense of common ground, it ignores those migrant businesses, such as Chinese restaurants, that use the same language and cultural references. Their chefs may not speak English, and depending on your understanding of local, few would argue they have not integrated into their local areas.

Chinatown, London - local integrated community? (c) Aurelien Guichard

The additional language requirement for people to be able to speak English before they settle here is surely a bid to appease a supposed silent majority who baulk at immigrants not speaking English. In any case, it is difficult to see how this might happen, given that the rules for entry into England also concern the rest of the UK.

So how does 'local' England integrate with their (inter)national partners overseas? Within the EU, and the UK, it has not adopted the Euro, and it has not come on board with Schengen. We veto EU moves to regulate the financial markets that helped cause the recent crises. Cynics might argue that the UK has sought to take without giving, seeing its own rights and responsibilities in an international arena quite differently to how it views its “problem people” acting out theirs.

To close, DCLG make the following point in their strategy:

People come together through day-to-day activities, not 'integration projects' which too often feel irrelevant and prove unsustainable.

Quite.

Drunk and disorderly: last orders for cheap booze

2012-03-27T15:23:00.002+01:00

Everyone take a drink (c) Dani Lurie

So we have marked the beginning of the end of cheap booze. According to the BBC, the government's stated aim is to “turn the tide” against binge drinking, which it is hoped will lead to a reduction in problems that the police and NHS face.

I am not going to deny that excessive drinking can be very harmful to the drinker and to those in the vicinity of the drinker, but I am concerned that the UK government is dealing with a serious issue in a one-dimensional, simplistic manner that lacks substance.

So, join me with my tin of kolstrel as I have a look at The Government's Alcohol Strategy (hereafter, referred to as The Strategy). It's a very dry document, so I have another tin ready to go. It's ok, it's only 1.7%.

Claiming that beer is cheaper than water, the Prime Minister sees raising the minimum price per unit of alcohol to 40p. as an opportunity to reduce crime and increase the life expectancy of drinkers. Decent enough notions, but what evidence is there to support this theory?

In his foreward to The Strategy, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, discusses the scourge of violence caused by binge drinking, and giving more powers to those serving behind bars and pubs to stop serving those who are drunk. I hope that this going to apply to the House of Commons bars too.

The Prime Minister says that he wishes to get to the root cause of the problem...which apparently is that the price of some alcohol is too low. Are cheap prices what caused Eric Joyce to lash out?

Prime Minister David Cameron (c) World
Economic Forum/Photo by Remy Steinegger

The Strategy introduces the issues thus:

Over the last decade we have seen a culture grow where it has become acceptable to be excessively drunk in public and cause nuisance and harm to ourselves and others.

The majority of people who drink do so in an entirely responsible way...

There is no such data to support the claim that public drinking has become “acceptable”. Nor anything to suggest that the situation has gotten worse over the last decade. The opposite in fact.

Using Home Office figures, The Institute of Alcohol Studies 2010 factsheet points to a decreasing number of drunkenness offenders. There may well be several reasons for the fall in convictions, but according to the government, it has decreased.

As for the second statement, what is an “entirely responsible way” of drinking? Drinking 2/3 units every night? And who are the majority that do this?

A couple of weeks ago, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) released the General Lifestyle Survey 2010. In terms of drinking, it makes the following key observations:

Over half (54 per cent) of adults drank alcohol at least once a week
Adults aged 45 and over were three times as likely as those aged under 45 to drink almost every day
Average weekly alcohol consumption decreased from 14.3 units per adult in 2005 to 11.5 units per adult in 2010
One in six adults drank heavily on at least one day in the week before interview

If drinking is on the decrease, with the much maligned 16-24 year old age group binge drinking less than they were in 2005, then surely this has nothing to do with the price of alcohol. In terms of weekly alcohol consumption and household socio-economic class, the ONS report:

...Using the three-category classification, average weekly consumption in 2010 was highest, at 12.9 units, in the managerial and professional group and, at 10.5 units, was lowest among those in routine and manual worker households. This difference is particularly pronounced for women where the managerial and professional group average 9.2 units and the routine and manual group average 6.2 units a week.

Interesting. Will a lower minimum unit price reduce the risk that this group of people will not add to NHS costs?

Yes, but what about the violence, I hear you ask. Well, this group may not spend as much time out and about in the town centres, which are frequently portrayed in the media as being full of young people fighting, tottering, lying down etc, but whenever I go into my city centre, I do not see this. Certainly not on every street corner as the media and TV would have us believe.

The Strategy claims:

A combination of irresponsibility, ignorance and poor habits – whether by individuals, parents or businesses – led to almost 1 million alcohol-related violent crimes and 1.2 million alcohol-related hospital admissions in 2010/11 alone.

Yet, there are no definitive statistics for alcohol-related violence in the government's crime statistics for 2010/11. I am presuming, because it is not clear, that this statement is based on the number of violent crimes committed, and victims' beliefs that the perpetrator had been drinking. There is nothing to suggest that perpetrators had been drinking to excess.

Furthermore, a search for the term alcohol reveals that the word appears just once, in the non-reporting of driving under the influence of alcohol, and the word drink appears in terms of causing death by drink-driving. As such, the above statement lacks veracity.

Tellingly, the strategy continues thus:

We estimate that in a community of 100,000 people, each year:

• 2,000 people will be admitted to hospital with an alcohol-related condition;

• 1,000 people will be a victim of alcohol-related violent crime;

• Over 400 11-15 year olds will be drinking weekly;

The key word is estimate. They do not know. Yet, these figures are used as the justification for reducing the availability of cheap alcohol.

19th Century painting of girl drinking and
boy drinking (c) Albert Roosenboom

Neither the ONS figures, nor this NHS study that found a continuing downward trend in the drinking habits of children aged 11-15, have adequately been factored into the research and publication of The Strategy.

Despite allegedly being concerned about the effects of alcohol on children aged 11-15, the government see no reason to ban alcohol advertising. Banned in France, the government has not seen any evidence to suggest that an outright advertising ban would help – an odd stance, given that much of this document lacks evidence. Even odder, when a quick google finds a study by the charity Alcohol Concern that concludes that under-18s want more protection from alcohol advertising.

So who is this strategy designed for? Ostensibly, it is meant to be for all of us, but it is particularly clear in the chapter 'Supporting individuals to change' that raising the price of alcohol is designed to affect the drinking habits of young people under the age of 25. The assumption is that it is this group that drink too much, and that it is this group that are largely responsible for violence.

But this focus ignores another major problem. An estimated 25% of women and 16% of men are its victims. Domestic violence.

In their 2010 factsheet, Civitas note “360,000 incidents of domestic violence - a third - are linked to alcohol misuse”. These figures were taken from the 2008/9 British Crime Survey (BCS) survey. According to the latest BCS survey, this number has increased to 392,000, although it is worth noting that these figures fluctuate year on year, because of the ever changing definitions of domestic violence and the changeable methodologies used by disparate police forces to capture this data.

Furthermore, as the BCS notes, these figures are unlikely to be a true representation of the problem, because many victims choose not to report such instances because of who the perpetrators are, and what the cultural, economic and physical consequences might be. Domestic violence is not about the relative cheapness of alcohol, it is about power and control. Along with other evidence, targeting young people only in The Strategy is negligent.

The Strategy hints at the social issues that lead to people drink excessively. However, it does not delve deeper into the issue:

The Chief Medical Officer for England’s 2009 guidance that young people under 15 should not drink alcohol at all is based on the fact that young people who start drinking alcohol at an early age drink more frequently and more than those who start drinking later; as a result, they are more likely to develop alcohol problems in adolescence and adulthood.

Just as it is claimed above that beer is cheaper than water, so it is said that wine is cheaper than water in the EU. So what about children in France and Italy who are allowed to drink wine with their meals from a young age?

The problem that we have in the UK appears to be cultural rather than financial. Amongst the reasons given for drinking, people drink to relax and to escape the day's stresses and strains, and they drink to fit in socially with their peers. I am presuming that these reasons are still pertinent when considering why people drink excessively; they feel a need to escape and to fit in.

A midnight modern conversation (c) William Hogarth, 1765

Raising the minimum price for alcohol will not address the root cause of the problem, as the Prime Minister hopes. Those who enjoy a drink will simply juggle their available finances to ensure that they can continue to drink either at home, or out with friends.

The question that the government should be attempting to resolve in their alcohol strategy is why the British public feel the need to drink as we do. In fact, fitting in and escaping may belie deeper rooted problems within UK society; that we are less happy and not as confident as we outwardly portray in this mass consumerist, x-factor land.

Civitas state:

A Portman Group report concluded that ‘there is no evidence that alcohol is a major factor in crime and no general link between alcohol and crime has been found’.
Similarly, a Home Office report also stated that ‘there is no evidence that various types of crime are actually caused by alcohol consumption’.

Violence is a way of taking control of a person and/or of a situation. Some of the rationality of resorting to violence may well be taken away when people drink to excess, but it is difficult to link the two in a simple, linear manner as the government are attempting to do in The Strategy.

Raising the minimum price for alcohol will not resolve the underlying issues that makes many of us feel the need to escape and fit in, whether it be through drink, drugs, or anything else that makes us feel like we conform to society's norms.

Cheers.

Plan B - ill manors music video: a criminological review

2012-03-20T17:30:00.000+00:00

Plan B - ill Manors. from Rokkit on Vimeo.

A couple of days ago, The Guardian reported on Plan B's TEDx speech and how the UK state has failed to look after its children from deprived backgrounds. Based on his own experiences, he recounts the problems with society at large as he sees it.

He talks of a "folk deviling" of young men and women from deprived areas, and the derogatory association with the word "chav". For him, this word is akin to a racist or homphobic slur, but the media and the public at large use it to categorise these young men and women often and openly. Often depicted in the media as benefits claimants, unemployed, and petty criminals, this term only marginalises these young people more.

Plan B seeks to highlight deprivation and disadvantage as issues that led to the UK riots in 2011. They are not inborn, and are not characteristics specific to a person. They stem from state indifference to the social and economic inequalities that exist in different areas. Especially in a society such as the UK, which champions consumerism over its people.

Plan B's lyrics, delivered with passion and fire, highlight many of these issues. He concludes:

We’ve had it with you politicians

you bloody rich kids never listen

There’s no such thing as broken Britain

we’re just bloody broke in Britain

What needs fixing is the system

not shop windows down in Brixton

Riots on the television

you can’t put us all in prison!

The video commences by showing Plan B as a Conductor, lording it over a seemingly burning, riot-torn, London. This depicts a shift in power from those that have to those that have not. Stereotypically, the act of conducting, and by association, classical music, is seen as something that is the preserve of the more wealthy. See also A Clockwork Orange.

Artistic Urban Graffiti under the A73 (c) Robert Murray

However, the main focus of the video is on the disenfranchised. What do we see? They wear hoodies, they cover their faces, they smash windows, they loot. In other words, all the stereotypes that they are associated with.

Think you know how life on a council estate is

from everything you’ve ever read about it or heard

Well it’s all true, so stay where you’re safest

there’s no need to step foot out the ‘burbs

Truth is here, we’re all disturbed

we cheat and lie its so absurd

Feed the fear that’s what we’ve learned

Fuel the fire

Let it burn.

These images may well have been there to reinforce these lyrics. Indeed, there is another part of the video that covers violence; it shows a symmetry between some "hoodies" kicking someone laid on the floor whilst a girl films it before joining in, and John Prescott and a policeman punching members of the public, also caught on film.

However, I feel that the video has missed an opportunity. It could have captured the disadvantage that people living in these areas face. Equally, it could have told a different story about the challenges that young people in these areas face, being that they are the predominant victims of violent crime.

Besides, violence is not all that there is in these communities. There is family, there is art (see above), there is laughter. Whilst I understand the need to frame the video within ideas of anger and alienation, the representations are too one-dimensional and not as human as they might have been.

It is not me that the video has to convince of the issues that the more excluded face. It is the people who read, listen and watch the mainstream media which already portrays them in a negative light, that I am afraid will pick up on this video as evidence of who "chavs" are and what they do.

It's criminal (sorry) that this was an opportunity missed.

The reckoning: the battle for the international criminal court

2012-03-15T11:48:00.000+00:00

The Reckoning trailer from Skylight Pictures on Vimeo.

As some redress to my latest post, I am attaching a trailer for the documentary, The Reckoning, which follows the travails of the international criminal court (ICC) towards the end of the last decade.

There are some harrowing images contained in the trailer, so please be aware of this before clicking.

The fallacy of international criminal justice

2012-03-14T15:37:00.000+00:00

Former child soldiers in DRC (c) L Rose

Following the commotion of the Kony 2012 campaign, much of the UK media seem oddly unconcerned that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has found Thomas Lubanga, a major protagonist in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), guilty of using child soldiers.

Next month, Charles Taylor is due to find out whether he is guilty of the charges brought against him. Taylor's case has been heard at the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) in The Hague. Like cases held at the ICC, this case has taken place in a geographical space far removed from the sphere where crimes were carried out, and where the victims continue to live.

I was in Sierra Leone when Taylor was first arrested and transferred to Freetown. I have also attended and reported on one of the trials (Sam Hinga Norman) held at SCSL. My own perspective is that at the local level, justice meted out in this way does not work.

Many in Freetown expressed their public support for Norman. Despite the fact that there is a strong relationship, and a lot of goodwill, between Sierra Leone and the UK, even though the UK was instrumental in pursuing charges against all accused of war crimes, people argued that Norman was a hero.

For them, still shell-shocked at the brutalities waged during the previous decade, he had helped save (the soul of) Sierra Leone. In other words, they believed that Norman was a bringer of justice. That Western powers prosecuted him only divided the notions of Western and African justice.

The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society produced a series of essays on international justice and Africa written between 2008-2010. In his essay, 'International Criminal Justice and Non-Western Cultures', Tim Kelsall alerts us to the following anthropological quirks:

...It is difficult for most of us to imagine how unnerving international trials must be for many African witnesses, who find themselves miles from home, in a courtroom of extraordinary grandeur, confronted with robed judges and lawyers who speak a foreign language, and who subject them to highly unusual communicative practices including frequently hostile cross-examination. It is no wonder that getting clear testimony in such circumstances has often proved difficult (Cryer 2007), a problem compounded in contexts, not uncommon in Africa, where secrecy is prized as a high social ideal...

A project of the Open Society Justice Initiative, The Trial of Charles Taylor defendant offers further evidence of the problems that the international justice system faces, judging by the comments in several recent posts:

What do these ppl care about SL ppl anyways? Look at the volume of ignorance they’ve shown for human rights in other countries! (TJ, 09/03/2012)

We were told Iraq had WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION……who has been brought to JUSTICE for such MASS KILLINGS??? (Noko4, 10/03/2012)

It is regrettable to be aware of the fact that Mr Taylor was charge for the Sierra Leon civil war that kill thousands and cause thousands to lost body parts that was carry out by the sierra Leoners themselves and Mr Taylor was never charge for the brutal killing of Liberians and the destruction that were carry out by Mr Taylor and his forces in Liberia...Liberia need justice we do not want Taylor back in Liberia. (Samuel King, 03/03/2012)

The final comment reveals a paradox. On the one hand, the site is supposed to engage and include Sierra Leoneans in a discussion of the war as another means of achieving justice, yet it is Liberian voices that dominate, lamenting their own lack of access to international justice.

Add to that, the fact that the vast majority of Sierra Leoneans do not have access to the web, and those that do receive a cumbersome service, and it is not a surprise that many of those posting comments seem to live elsewhere (mainly the U.S.A.).

A daily news chalkboard in Liberia (c) Lt. Col. Terry VandenDolder

Although attempts have been made to reach out to those most affected, the international justice system still relies too heavily on Westernised ideas. In his analysis of the success and failures of the SCSL, Alpha Seesay recognises that Sierra Leonean victims were too far removed from the process; as well as bring geographically distant, the court had problems streaming the trial and it made no funds available for an outreach programme.

The ICC has been criticised as imperialist by various African governments. Several comments on The Trial of Charles Taylor defendant also refer to the iniquitous manner in which indictments and prosecutions only seem applicable to African leaders.

Whilst some locals may see the the ICC, and the reasons behind it, as a force for good, they are also frustrated at a lack of transparency as to whose justice is sought and why it does not include everyone. In places like Liberia, where traditional media outlets reach more people in more meaningful ways than the internet, potentially, this can do serious damage to an international justice system regardless of any outreach programme.

The U.S.A., the world's foremost human rights advocate, is not a member of the ICC. Most significantly, it threatens military action against the ICC if any of its citizens are brought before the court. This incompatible approach to human rights undermines the international criminal justice system.

Just as Okechukwu Oko posits in 'The Limits of Prosecutions', I believe that whilst prosecuting some African leaders might bring about some accountability, any form of international justice system needs to take into account the social, political and cultural norms that prevail across Africa. This should apply equally to leaders from the Americas, Asia or Eastern Europe.

Without doing so, the current international criminal justice system will fail to deliver justice to those affected by war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Which way home

2012-03-13T11:00:00.000+00:00

Above you will find a trailer for a documentary called “Which way home”.

The documentary follows several children who are trying to make their way to the USA from various Latin American countries. “Which way home” does a fantastic job of telling the personal stories of each of the children involved in these migrations. All have different reasons for trying to get to the USA (e.g. joining family) and all encounter a range of dangers and harms along their journeys.

Whilst the documentary is set on the American continent, it could be set anywhere. It is as much a story of disadvantage, migration and the harms caused by having borders and boundaries.

Given the number of deaths, abuse and other related harms that children, and adults, suffer as a result of trying to seek refuge in more developed countries, are borders and boundaries truly worth maintaining?

Europe has questioned it. Whilst far from perfect, at least the borders between the Schengen nation states are a lot of more fluid, allowing for a less harmful passage for those joining family and finding work.

I am not pretending that I expect the world's states to subscribe to this type of Sen-globalism, and open up their borders to all any time soon. But given that these “imagined communities”, that pass for nation states, have only been in existence for a short space of time, perhaps we need to reconsider whether borders are worth the human, and economic, costs.

If you like what you see from the trailer, you can watch video clips from the documentary online here. I hope that you find it as engaging and as thought-provoking as I did.

The Invisible War: justice for victims of conflict-related sexual violence?

2012-03-09T15:54:00.001+00:00

Following yesterday's post, I feel that it appropriate to highlight the sexual abuse suffered by American service women. Hence, the above trailer for the documentary, The Invisible War.

Whilst it showcases an often unheard side of conflict-related sexual violence, it demonstrates that it is not confined to (African) borders and boundaries. Furthermore, their testimonies, and the low percentage of prosecutions and convictions, demonstrate that these women are subject to the same physical and mental hold that men around the world use to control women's place in society. And at home.

Because conflict-related sexual violence should also be considered in terms of domestic violence. Homes too can be conflict-zones, with partners, spouses and families at war with one another. As many women, and girls, are sexually abused at home by family members, the notion that this environment is always safe is a false one.

The prevailing focus on the reasons for rape and sexual abuse need to change. It is not specific to the way a woman dresses, what she drinks, or what type of person she is. It is about the rapist(s), and his/their power to control the victim(s) within their gendered, cultural and institutional norms.

Justice for victims of conflict-related sexual violence?

2012-03-08T20:18:00.001+00:00

Meeting for rape victims in the DRC (c) L Werchick/USAID

It feels a little discomforting to be writing this on International Women's Day. It should be a day to celebrate. The fact that we have a specific day to 'celebrate' women acknowledges an international failing; women are not treated equally.

Women and girls are predominantly the victims of sexual abuse – although men and boys are also victims.

A couple of weeks ago, the UN produced its annual report on conflict-related sexual violence. According to the report:

Conflict-related sexual violence refers to incidents or patterns (for the purposes of listing in accordance with Security Council resolution 1960 (2010)) of sexual violence, that is rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity against women, men or children.

The report covers the period from December 2010 to November 2011, and details the abuses suffered at the hands of government and militia groups in conflict zones including Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Libya to name a few. It documents the (mass) rapes suffered by women, girls and boys, and refers to practices used by these armies including forced pregnancies.

Because of the social stigma attached to rape in many societies around the world, women and girls have little choice but to stay with their abusers. To return to their communities, which often does not support the armies that abused these victims, is not a viable alternative, as they are shunned by family, friends and neighbours. More so, when they are expecting a rapist's child.

In most cases, the UN is seeking judicial redress for the victims. It has had some success at the local levels, notably in courts such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) that paved the way for defining rape as an act of genocide, following the case of Akeyesu.

Nevertheless, on a personal level, studies have highlighted the powerlessness that local victims have felt in shaping and sharing their testimonies. On a social level, many do not want testify for fear of having to identify themselves as rape victims, which their family, friends and neighbours may have hitherto been unaware of.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) also offers victims the chance for justice beyond the local level. Although castigated at first for not pursuing sexual violence charges in the case of Thomas Lubanga, supporters of the ICC claim that it has made strides following charges of rape as a war crime, and as a crime against humanity, that it brought against Jean-Pierre Bemba.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Institute for War and Peace Reporting write that prosecutors struggle to obtain the evidence that they need for a court of law to secure a conviction.

In a recent cross-examination by the defence in the Bemba case, a rape victim was asked why she had no medical certificate confirming that she had been raped.

“In our country if you want to see a Doctor at hospital you always need money. When I was raped I had no money. I couldn't go see a Doctor”, she replied.

This is a significant problem. In countries where females have less financial power, they are further dis-empowered by a judicial system that wants them to prove their abuse.

The International Criminal Court, The Hague (c) Vincent van Zeijst

Equally significant is the fact the ICC have not acted to bring any criminal charges against UN peacekeepers who have been accused of sexual violence. The ICC is supposed to operate independently of the UN. Therefore, it should have the means to investigate and prosecute those UN soldiers guilty of these war crimes, but there is little to suggest why it has not done/can not do so.

The UN's strategy for dealing with these soldiers is based around prevention, enforcement and remedial action. The statistics might well indicate that the message is getting through to UN peacekeepers, but this is difficult to verify causally.

It could just as easily be explained by women choosing not to step forward to report cases of sexual violence since they know that peacekeepers will not be brought to justice locally or internationally.

This impunity damages the credibility of the ICC, and that of their other locally established forms of criminal justice.

The UN also state:

...“The general breakdown in law and order, the absence of justice, continuing conflict, entrenched discriminatory attitudes and practices and the prevailing culture of impunity in these situations allowed for these crimes to be committed not only with appalling consequences for the victims, but with a force that destroys the fabric of society as a whole”.

“In all these situations, cases of conflict-related sexual violence remain largely unreported owing to several factors, such as social stigma, fear of reprisals, insecurity, a lack of available response services and the perceived futility of reporting as a result of weak administration of justice, apathy and political pressure”...

Both this quotation, and my discussion above, indicate that the problems are cultural and institutional. Both within the geo-spatial boundaries where the acts take place, and within the spaces that are supposed to protect the victims.

The UN propose the following initiatives to address conflict-related sexual violence:

Training on conflict-related sexual violence
Development of early warning indicators
Addressing conflict-related sexual violence in ceasefire and peace agreements
Comprehensive strategies to combat sexual violence
Programmatic and funding challenges and opportunities

All well and fine, but there is little substance to these proposals. Nothing that might serve to suggest that the UN are seeking to uproot the “entrenched discriminatory attitudes”, which is key to altering normative views of rape. Especially if the legal process is only going to be accessed by the few who can, and want, to use it.

Education (not the top-down approach) is going to be vital to altering social norms of sexual violence. To educate, we need to hear more from the victims and more from the rapists; because it is they that transgress the laws whilst operating within their gendered norms.

Nor am I confining this to the international conflict-related zones discussed here. Because in the West, we have constructed sexual violence in a certain way with regards to domestic conflict-related spaces, and realised justice through criminal mechanisms that operate with a similar impunity.