text:
‘I won’t stop’: Kazakh man seeks justice for family caught in China’s Xinjiang crackdown · Global Voices
Chris Rickleton

Akikat Kaliolla's parents Kaliolla Tursynuli and Venera Mukatai. Photo provided by Akikat Kaliolla and used with permission.
In March 2018, Akikat Kalliola, a Chinese-born naturalised citizen of Kazakhstan, abruptly lost contact with four family members living in China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR).
Later, he discovered from friends and acquaintances in Emin County, XUAR, that his mother, father and two brothers had all fallen victim to the Communist Party of China's “re-education” drive in the region.
Chinese authorities have justified the existence of what they term “vocational centres” inhabited by mainly Muslim minorities as necessary for the preservation of “harmony” in Xinjiang, and as part of a broader campaign to combat “separatism” and “splitism.”
Chinese authorities have said that the inhabitants of the centres, often called “re-education camps” in international media, participate on a voluntary basis.
A United Nations panel of experts reached a different conclusion last year. It said that over a million mostly Muslim minorities — chiefly Uyghurs but also Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and Hui — were being held in the centres against their will.
Reporting by international wire services such as Reuters has shown that the facilities are fortified like prisons, while a report by AFP showed they are equipped like prisons as well. Publicly available documents indicate that the local authorities overseeing such centres have purchased large quantities of police batons, cattle prods, handcuffs, and pepper spray, the report said.
XUAR became a police state after Chen Quanguo, a hardline communist official, took office there as regional Communist Party Secretary in 2016. This has left the region subject to even greater controls than other regions of China.
In addition to installing the notorious centres, Chen has overseen massive increases in state surveillance, a strong clampdown on the Muslim faith shared by a majority of the region's residents and stifling limitations on freedom of movement.
The last of these impositions has particularly impacted XUAR's 1.5 million Kazakhs, many of whom have family ties to neighbouring Kazakhstan.
Akikat Kaliolla, who moved to Kazakhstan where his wife was a citizen before Chen took up office, received some good news earlier this year. Three of his four family members — his two younger brothers and his mother — were released from internment and contacted him on January 27.
Throughout last year he had fretted that his parents were not well enough to withstand detention. At various points during that time he also heard rumours that his brothers had been executed.
But his relief was offset by a devastating revelation just a few days before they called. During a visit to the Chinese consulate in Almaty, Kazakhstan, Akikat's wife was told that her 70-year-old father-in-law had been sentenced to 20 years in jail for “impeding state affairs.”
Akikat has so far refused to accept the claim of the consulate.
He fears — even worse — that his father died of poor health in arbitrary detention, and that the consulate's reference to a sentence is nothing more than a cover-up.
In the above video, he tells his mother that he “will not stop petitioning” on their cases until all four of them are safe and well.
His mother's unusual suggestion during the call that they speak in “the national language”, Chinese, rather than their native language, Kazakh indicates that the trio are possibly under house arrest and being closely monitored.
In interviews with foreign media, Akikat speaks about his father's strident advocacy for Kazakhs that had been arbitrarily arrested in large numbers in Emin county. He sees this as the probable reason his family was targeted.
“Some Kazakhs were cowards. We don't say anything about what is happening to our neighbours until it happens to us,” he told me last year. “My father isn't like that. He stuck up for people.”

author: Chris Rickleton


text:
Japanese PM staff ‘restrict’ reporter from pressers for ‘spreading misinformation’ about environmental harm · Global Voices
Nevin Thompson

Government infill project at Henoko Bay in Okinawa. Questions about the use of environmentally harmful red soil in the project led to demands that a journalist be shut out of press conferences. Image widely shared on social media.
A decision by Japanese government officials to  “restrict” questions from an unnamed reporter during press conferences has provoked protests by other journalists.
The controversy has re-raised longstanding questions about the environmental impact of a controversial new base for US Marines being constructed in the southwestern prefecture of Okinawa.
At the start of 2019, officials from the Cabinet Office (the government ministry that coordinates the operations of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo) directed the press club covering the Cabinet Office to “restrict” a certain reporter from asking questions during daily press conferences covering the Japanese prime minister. The Cabinet Office also accused the reporter of “spreading misinformation” about the environmental impact of infill.
The unnamed reporter in question is most likely Mochizuki Isoko, a journalist with the Tokyo Shimbun daily newspaper, who is known for asking difficult questions.
In Japan, news outlets typically get access to politicians and government officials through press clubs, which regulate the activities of members, and can even exclude reporters or news outlets. In turn, sources, such as government departments, can deny or limit press clubs with access. But it's unusual to ban or restrict the activities of journalists from media outlets like Tokyo Shimbun, a prominent daily known for its watchdog approach to government activities.
Mochizuki apparently angered the Cabinet Office during a news conference on December 26, when she asked about the risks of environmental contamination at a controversial construction site in Okinawa.
In order to build a long-planned base for US Marines permanently stationed in Okinawa, sand and rock infill is being used to build an artificial island in a bay off of Henoko, a township about 65 km north of Naha, Okinawa.
The construction project is destroying and literally paving over existing tropical coral habitat in the bay. It has been reported that the construction project is using inexpensive red soil infill, instead of the gravel that was budgeted in the project and paid for by the government, in an effort to cut corners. There are also suspicions that construction contractors including Ryuku Cement are pocketing the difference.
The use of red soil as infill for marine construction projects is specifically prohibited by Okinawan law, even though the Henoko project has the direct support of the central government in Tokyo. The iron-rich red soil contaminates the surrounding seawater and is deadly to native corals. Local activists such as the Osprey Fuan Club say the infill also will likely contaminate nearby surviving coral colonies.
酷すぎる。 pic.twitter.com/VddTBdh8e5
— 平和への道＠彡トシピコ彡 (@toshipiko1) December 21, 2018
Outrageous.
The preservation of coral habitat displaced or destroyed by the Henoko project has been a contentious and potentially embarrassing issue for the government for the past few months, with Prime Minister Abe even claiming corals would somehow be moved away from the infill site to be transplanted in a new location.
When Mochizuki asked a series of pointed questions about the possible harms of the project at a December 26 press conference, it struck a nerve with media relations staff at the Cabinet Office.
Shortly thereafter, in their letter to the press club, the Cabinet Office strongly denied that red soil was being used as infill, and then also asserted that if it was used, its presence did not contravene Okinawan prefectural laws.
The Cabinet Office did not name Mochizuki, but instead stated that a “certain reporter” (特定の記者), had asked “inappropriate questions” (“正確でない質問に起因するやりとり”) that would “spread misinformation” to both members of the press club and to the general public (“内外の幅広い層の視聴者に誤った事実認識を拡散”). The Office said this could “impair” the significance of information presented during press interactions with the Cabinet Office itself (“記者会見の意義が損なわれる”).
The Cabinet Office then demanded that this unnamed reporter be “restricted” by the press club from asking questions at press events, for supposedly spreading misinformation about infill used in the Henoko project.
The reporter is widely believed to be Mochizuki Isoko, given that she had raised the controversial topic of red soil infill at the December 26 presser.
The letter from the Cabinet Office to the press club came to light more than a month later, on February 1, when it was published by Sentaku, a weekly news magazine. The Sentaku story swiftly generated a firestorm of debate.
An opposition lawmaker commented that “it's totally obvious to anyone that it's red soil” that is being used as infill at the Henoko site. After reading about the news in Sentaku, the Federation of Japanese Newspaper Unions (commonly known as the 新聞労連, Shimbun Roren) also publicly pushed back against the Cabinet Office, generating even more discussion.
On February 5, the Federation lodged an official complaint with the Cabinet Office.
For the rest of the week, trending hashtags on Twitter included “Tokyo Shimbun reporter restricted from asking questions” (#京新聞記者の質問制限), “towards a country where we can freely ask questions” (#質問できる国へ) and “we have the right to know” (#知る権利).
When questioned about its letter to the press club, the Cabinet Office denied that it was trying to shut down Mochizuki or any other reporter:
本件申し入れは、記者の質問の権利に何らかの条件や制限を設けること等を意図していない
(There is no intent) to place any conditions or restrictions on the right of reporters to ask questions.
At a February 7 news conference, a Cabinet Office spokesperson also denied that the unnamed reporter was Mochizuki, after Mochizuki herself — undeterred by previous requests — asked the spokesperson about the intention behind the Cabinet Office's original letter. She described the letter as “a form of psychological pressure on me and my company.”
As a reporter, Mochizuki has long endured adversarial treatment from government officials that could be described as deliberate bullying.
A Harbour Online article from early December notes that Mochizuki typically only receives 2-3 second replies from government officials during press conferences, less than the 22-second replies and explanations her colleagues at Tokyo Shimbun receive, and far less than the 81-second replies reporters at Asahi Shimbun receive on average.
東京新聞・望月衣塑子記者について、昨年末に寄稿した記事。
菅官房長官と内閣府･上村秀紀室長の振る舞いの妥当性を｢時間｣と｢質疑内容｣に着目して検証しました。#質問できる国へ https://t.co/xG5wnBAH3b
— 犬飼淳 / Jun Inukai (@jun21101016) February 6, 2019
In regards to Mochizuki Isako from Tokyo Shimbun, here's an article published in December 2018. In terms of how (the Chief Cabinet Secretary and the Communications Director) behave, here's a look at how much time is spent answering her questions.
#towards a country where we can freely ask questions

source: news-globalvoices

license: Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

author: Nevin Thompson


text:
Nigerian governor warns foreign governments: Interfere in our elections and ‘go back in body bags’ · Global Voices
Nwachukwu Egbunike

Malam Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai, Governor of Kaduna State [Image shared in the Gallery of Kaduna State website]
On February 6, 2019, Nasir Ahmad el-Rufai, governor of Kaduna State in northwest Nigeria, issued threats to foreign actors who dared to intervene in next week's upcoming national elections, while speaking on TV. Reuters reports that he said:
We are waiting for the person who will come and intervene. They will go back in body bags because nobody will come to Nigeria and tell us how to run our country. We have got that independence and we are trying to run our country as decently as possible.
Here is El-Rufai on live television issuing the infamous threat of violence:
“When the gods want to kill a man, they make him run man first”
Elrufai has Gone Berserk. It's embarrassing that a public officer will be inciting and preaching violence simply because of fear of imminent defeat of himself and Buhari. pic.twitter.com/DHuyZGt2TE
— Oke Umurhohwo (@Stalyf) February 6, 2019
Following the suspension of Nigeria's chief justice and the appointment of acting chief justice of Nigeria on January 25, the United States, United Kingdom and European Union expressed their displeasure on the executive branch's decision without the support of the legislative branch. The three governments have consistently called for a free, transparent, credible and peaceful elections in Nigeria.
The UK stands alongside @USEmbassyAbuja and @EUinNigeria in supporting a free, fair, credible, transparent and peaceful election process. #NigeriaDecides2019 https://t.co/zw7SLEqSwc
— UK in Nigeria?? (@UKinNigeria) February 5, 2019
However, their condemnation of President Muhammadu Buhari's unconstitutional CJN suspension was regarded by the Nigerian government as an “unfair interference in matters that are wholly internal.”
El-Rufai is a close ally of the incumbent President Buhari and both belong to the ruling party, All Progressive Congress. His “body bag” comments were in defense of the Nigerian government's warning to the governments of the United States, United Kingdom and the European Union.
The European Union Observer Mission to Nigeria's 2019 elections has noted that El-Rufai's threat will not stop its scheduled observation of the February 16 and March 2 elections in Nigeria. The EU team reiterated their principle of non-interference and that they were invited by Nigeria's electoral umpire, the Independent Electoral Commission.
We are aware of the comments by the Governor of #Kaduna about non-interference by foreigners during a talk show on #NigeriaDecides2019 on 5/2/19. The #EU only deploys an election observation mission when it is invited to do so by the authorities of a country.
— EUEOMNigeria2019 (@EUEOMNigeria19) February 6, 2019
The Peoples Democratic Party said it might pull out of the peace accord signed by all the political parties in Nigeria if “no action was  taken over the governor’s comment.” PDP's spokesman Kola Ologbondiyan further called “on the international community to immediately impose a travel ban on el-Rufai for this inciting comment against peaceful elections in our country.”
Nigerian Twitter also buzzed with reactions to the extreme comment:
Lunatic patriot!
Yup! A lunatic patriot. I am a patriot but have no real desire to wish people leave this country in body bags sha. Blood thirsty midget!
— February Girl ? (@Imagervet) February 7, 2019
Just apologize, stop digging in …
Can someone please tell Nasir El Rufai @elrufai to shut up! Just FREAKING shut up! You made a mistake. Apologise and move on! Stop digging yourself further in.
What the hell is the Venezuelan option?!
What intelligence do you have?
Intelligence that can't find Boko Haram? pic.twitter.com/GVXywmScaH
— Aisha Yesufu (@AishaYesufu) February 6, 2019
False comparison with the Venezuelan condition …
El-Rufai has thrown in a false equivalence with the Venezuelan situation to justify his reckless words and ignorant folks are parroting it.
— Mark Amaza (@amasonic) February 7, 2019
Like Buhari, like El-Rufai …
A History of Violence@elrufai’s recent threat to the International Community might be disturbing, but it is also reminiscent of a similar pre-election threat made by @MBuhari:
“If what happened in 2011 should again happen in 2015, the dog & the baboon would be soaked in blood” pic.twitter.com/kWHWARqHDE
— Ose El Sudenih (@Papadonkee) February 7, 2019
A dangerous mindset that should be condemned by all …
Time after time, @elrufai continues to betray a dangerous mindset. This vile and abhorrent language should be condemned by all. https://t.co/KWw15Rwigp
— Adekunle Adefioye (@kunleadefioye) February 6, 2019
El-Rufai tried to recant his comment, claiming he was misunderstood and that he never outright called for violence. Rather, it was a warning about the consequences of undue interference by foreign governments in Nigeria's internal affairs. Hence, his remarks should be understood in the context of defending “Nigeria’s dignity in the wake of those who would traduce their country and reduce it to the status of a colony in their vain quest for power.”
Both El-Rufai and the government labeled independent observations of events leading up to the 2019 Nigerian elections by the U.S., U.K. and E.U. as foreign interference.
However, the Nigerian government invited all elections observers — both local and foreign —and they were cleared by the INEC. These countries have been involved in monitoring elections in the country since the return to democratic rule in 1999. For instance, the report of elections observers during the 2007 elections led to INEC structural improvements and, consequently, the credibility of the 2011 elections.
Similarly, in 2015, international observers were involved during Nigerian elections. U.S. President Barack Obama had recorded a public video in which he spoke to Nigerians to “stand together in rejecting violence and extremism and instead show their support for a more peaceful, secure, and prosperous future”. The then-chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court warned that those who promote violence in those elections were to be tried by the ICC.
Therefore, these calls for peaceful elections in Nigeria are nothing new. President Buhari, just after assuming office, acknowledged that the intervention of “United States and some European countries made the general elections in Nigeria to be free and fair.”

author: Nwachukwu Egbunike


text:
Why Bahrain’s ‘torture prince’ can still visit the U.K. despite calls for his arrest · Global Voices
Elia J. Ayoub

Screenshot from video ‘Sheikh Nasser Bin Hamad al-Khalifa’, YouTube. Source.
In recent months, the United Kingdom's relationship with its Gulf allies leapt into the spotlight with a unique espionage tale amidst a British media landscape otherwise dominated by Brexit.
In November 2018, 31-year-old British academic Matthew Hedges returned to the U.K. after spending seven months in a United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) jail, mostly in solitary confinement, on espionage charges. Hedges’ story, which initially received relatively little attention, made it to the front pages after the U.A.E., a U.K. ally, announced it was accusing Hedges of being a spy for MI6. Hedges and the U.K. government deny the accusation.
Hedges’ story calls attention to the U.K.'s long and complicated history of impunity when it comes to allegations of torture committed by its allies in the Gulf states, and reminds us of some of the reasons Bahrain's “torture prince,” Prince Nasser bin Hamad, still has the privilege and pleasure of meandering through the U.K. despite clear evidence of abuse during Bahrain's 2011 uprising.
Hedges suffered abuses during his imprisonment in the U.A.E. that seemed to have surprised the U.K. government, but less surprising was the U.K. government's tepid response to his torture — in addition to solitary confinement for 23 hours every day, Hedges was drugged by his jailers — despite the fact that the U.A.E. is one of the U.K.'s main allies in the MENA region.
Hedges’ wife Daniela Tejada, who had spent the entirety of the seven months campaigning for her husband's release, accused the U.K. government of ignoring her constant requests for aid.
The U.K.'s response to the Hedges story revealed yet another example of the leniency afforded by the U.K. to Gulf Arab governments. And activists can't help but remember how and why Bahrain's notorious “torture prince” can still walk free.
Long before the U.K. government allegedly ignored the torture of one of its citizens at the hands of an ally, it faced a legal challenge at home for its role in protecting a notorious member of the kingdom of Bahrain: the king's son, Prince Nasser bin Hamad.
Nicknamed the “torture prince” by dissidents for taking part in the torture of activists who participated in the 2011 Bahraini revolution, he once tweeted: “If it was up to me, I’d give them all life [in prison].” Indeed, bin Hamad, aged 24 at the beginning of Bahrain's uprising in 2011, was among those in Bahrain's ruling establishment calling for the brutal repression of protesters.
As the head of Bahrain's Olympic Committee, bin Hamad created a special commission to “identify and punish more than 150 members of the sporting community” who took part in the 2011 protests, according to Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB). He publicly called for “a wall to fall on [protesters’] heads … even if they are an athlete … Bahrain is an island and there is nowhere to escape.”
Rather than face prosecution in Bahrain, his father promoted the young prince to the commander of Bahrain's Royal Guard on June 19, 2011.
The Prince's relationship with the U.K. goes back to 2006 when he graduated from the country's elite Sandhurst Military Academy at the age of 19.
من #الأرشيف : دورات عسكرية لسمو الشيخ #ناصر_بن_حمد آل خليفة في بريطانيا وكندا – يوليو عام ٢٠٠٦#Canada || #UK pic.twitter.com/ttMJV9ocye
— H.H.Sh Nasser bin Hamad (@NBH_MO) April 2, 2018
From the Archives: Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa participating in military training in the UK and Canada – July 2006.
Given such a prestigious background, the “torture prince” may have never thought that visiting the U.K. could lead him to trouble. But soon after he allegedly tortured Bahraini protesters, another protester, known only as ‘FF’, made it to the U.K. and successfully applied for asylum.
This meant that the U.K. recognized FF's legitimate claims, including FF's fears of retaliation should he or she be forced to return to Bahrain. FF, ADHRB notes, also “alleges that Sheikh Nasser was involved in torture.”
A year later, however, the U.K. government opted to grant the “torture prince” immunity when FF called for his arrest during his July visit to the 2012 London Olympics as the head of Bahrain’s Olympic Committee. Instead, bin Hamad was spotted in the VIP section in one of London's stadiums that day:
is it true alleged torturer nasser bin hamad is being allowed to go to olympics #london2012? #bahrain #uk
— Maryam Alkhawaja (@MARYAMALKHAWAJA) July 20, 2012
The story doesn't end there, however. In October 2014, the High Court in London ruled that bin Hamad was not immune from prosecution over torture claims, reviving hopes that he could be arrested.
As the Guardian reported, the dossier was then passed on to the war crimes team of the Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism command. The latter subsequently announced that “on the basis of the dossier submitted to it, the police are not investigating.”
Part of the reason why the Metropolitan police decided not to investigate was simply that key witnesses are still in Bahraini prisons and therefore can't be interviewed. Incidentally, bin Hamad's representatives made a similar argument, arguing that FF's allegations “have not been tested in a British court and that there have never been any proceedings against him.”
In other words, bin Hamad's representatives argued that FF's allegations could not be tested in British courts without acknowledging that the reason is that key witnesses could not be present in any court or answer any questions by British police.
And so, just a few months later, in March of 2015, bin Hamad uploaded a video of himself jogging across London's Hyde Park, renewing calls for his arrest. In fact, he's regularly traveled to the U.K. since the accusations, including to enjoy the yearly Royal Windsor Horse Show in the company of Queen Elizabeth II with his father, the King of Bahrain.
This blatant case of impunity has renewed questions as to whether the U.K. is living up to its international obligations, notably the U.N. Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment 1987, which says that states must criminalize torture and pursue public officials of other nations when they are present in the state's territory.”
The U.K. signed it on March 15, 1985, and ratified it on December 8, 1988. Upon signing the convention against torture, however, the U.K. also added:
The United Kingdom reserves the right to formulate, upon ratifying the Convention, any reservations or interpretative declarations which it might consider necessary.

author: Elia J. Ayoub


text:
In Bangladesh, vigilante justice leads to the death of three alleged rapists by self-proclaimed ‘Hercules’ · Global Voices
Rezwan

A statue of the Greek God Hercules. Image via Pizabay. Public Domain.
In Bangladesh, a vigilante made headlines when at least three suspected rapists were found murdered with a note hanging around their necks “confessing” to their crimes.
While many in social media across Bangladesh and neighboring India have been praising “Hercules“, the vigilante's chosen name, some fear that these killings are part of the extra-judicial killings by security forces that have taken place in the country before.
Third one. #Bangladesh #rapesuspectmurdered #hercules #note Another rape suspect murder, note signed by ‘Hercules’ | Dhaka Tribune https://t.co/Vb8DbCowXn
— Anista (@Anista83921960) February 2, 2019
In the second week of January, police found the body of 39-year-old Ripon, a key suspect in the gang-rape and murder of a female garments worker in the outskirts of the capital, Dhaka. He had a bullet wound in the head and had a note tied around his neck which read (in Bangla), “I am the prime suspect accused in a rape case”.
On 24 January 2019, police recovered the body of Sajal Jomaddar in the Jhalakathi district in south-western Bangladesh. Jomaddar was also shot and his body was dumped in a paddy field with a note that read, “I am in this state because I raped a madrasa student”.
On February 1, 2019, 20-year-old Rakib Hossain was found dead near a brickfield at Angaria village, in Rajapur Upazila, Jhalkathi district. The note in misspelled Bangla read, “I am Rakib. I am the rapist of a madrasa girl of Bhandaria, Pirojpur. This is the consequence of a rapist. Be aware rapists…Hercules.”
The female madrasa student in question was allegedly gang-raped by two men on January 14 when she was on the way to her grandparents’ house. Her father filed a case with Bhandaria Police Station accusing Sajal and Rakib but the police did nothing.
Local police are still investigating, and so far, there are no leads which point to the identity of Hercules.
Meanwhile, on social media, the vigilante has been receiving quite a following:
https://t.co/9wowqQ8GlX
A real life Punisher in Modern day Bangladesh. #Bangladesh #Hercules #ThePunisher
— Turyal Azam Khan (@turyalazamkhan) February 2, 2019
The “Hercules” of Bangladesh..
An applause for this Incognito. ?? https://t.co/Gl5hpZI5bn
— Duranta Dev (@Duranta_Dev) February 1, 2019
In Bangladesh we are ablle to say that Someone are not corrupted It's a remarkable revenge for rapists after this matter No one decide to rape as because Hercules, he is alive..! Be careful…. https://t.co/6tfSoVN0yD
— Abdullah AL Noman (@Abdulla19001077) February 1, 2019
We have a vigilanti in Bangladesh named Hercules who are killing rapists and laminating their crimes and putting their bodies out and hanging the laminated card signs on their face…. I am kind of happy. Because no rapists deserve to live. https://t.co/sYSxCeRHtL
— Nazida Syed (@Nazida88) February 3, 2019
The vigilante received praise even from neighboring India, where rape and injustice are also rampant.
Kasturi from Mumbai wrote:
Hey #Hercules from Bangladesh, whoever you are, you are a Hero. May the legend be a myth, but you certainely are saving lives and giving us hope. Thank you. Shall everyone accused of rape recieve death. #Bangladesh
— Kasturi?? (@Kasturi_Subhash) February 3, 2019
Maanas Bajpai tweeted:
All hail South Asia's probably first vigilante crime fighter ‘Hercules’ who is killing rapists in Bangladesh !! ????#Hercules
— Maanas Bajpai (@MaanasBajpai) February 3, 2019
Explorer tweeted:
Kudos to a person in Bangladesh known as HERCULES who finds rapists and kills them. Appeal Bangladesh police to provide him all assistance in his noble work and also to youths in India too to punish rapists if our law can't.
— EXPLORER (@EXPLORE03771925) February 5, 2019
However, there are people who questioned these killings. Expatriate Bangladeshi Kawser Jamal wrote on Facebook:
I am sorry Hercules I can’t agree with your judgment.
I respect that you are trying to be a savior of our sisters and daughters very nice respect for that but when you are taking the law in your hand you are making a mockery of my country. [..]
Let’s respect the law. The person who got raped is our daughter and the person who raped is also our son of the soil. Let’s fix our houses and home.
According to Human Rights organization Ain-o-Salish Kendra, a total of 732 women and 444 children were raped in 2018. Women's rights group Bangladesh Mahila Parishad claims that in January 2019 alone a total of 298 females, including girls and children, had been subjected to torture and violence — including 79 rape incidents. However, these are only known cases. The number of cases settled outside the courts and rape incident that aren't reported is thought to be exponentially higher.
Although Bangladeshi law stipulates tough punishments for rapists, cases are complicated by antiquated definitions of rape in the laws and the slow judicial system. The process for victims to get justice for the rape victims in the existing legal system in Bangladesh means further humiliation and unending hassles. Shakhawat Liton writes in an op-ed in the Daily Star:
As if losing her honour was not enough, everything seems to work against her — from recording her statement at police stations mostly manned by male officers to the insensitive two-finger test, violating her privacy to a draconian provision in the Evidence Act of 1872 that allows the rape accused to question her character.
The definition of rape in the existing century-old law is yet to be updated.
A new form of vigilantism continues in Bangladesh. Sadly justice remains elusive.https://t.co/Q4GjoMBgu2
— Asheque Haque (@Ashequeh) February 1, 2019
The family of two of the victims said that plain-clothed people picked up the men before they were found dead. This fits a pattern of extrajudicial killing, abduction and enforced disappearance that has gone on in the country throughout 2018, with a record 466 crossfire deaths (due to extra-judicial killing by law enforcement) and deaths in police custody. Also worth noting is the fact that this incident happened in two places that are quite far from each other, so it would be hard for a lone vigilante to cover that distance.
The local police have denied such involvement, but that did not stop people suspecting that they might have had a hand in it. Daud Dastagir comments in an article in the daily Prothom Alo:
আমি মোটামুটি নিশ্চিত এটা পুলিশের কর্ম
I am fairly certain that it is the work of the police.
Recently, in a statement to BBC, the Bangladeshi government reiterated that “the government maintains a ‘zero tolerance’ policy to any form of extra-judicial activities by the law enforcement agencies” and “there is no provision or scope in the law of the land for the so-called ‘extra-judicial killings'”.
While people can rejoice or question the vigilante, without updating the law, fixing the judicial process and enforcing rule of law, justice for rape victims remains elusive. Commenter Zubayer Rahman at Prothom Alo has this to tell everyone:
“হারকিউলিস” কারা এবং কোথা থেকে এলো খোঁজার আগে খুঁজে দেখুন কেন তাদের কে আসতে হলো।
Don't just try to find who is or are the Hercules and where they are from. Try to find why they had to come.

author: Rezwan


text:
‘Serene and committed.’ This legendary Afghan educator’s legacy will burn brightly through generations · Global Voices
Maisam Iltaf

Dr. Mohamamd Sharif Fayez. Used with permission of the American University of Afghanistan.
A few weeks ago, on a bracingly cold day in Kabul, a horde of freshman students packed into a large auditorium for their orientation at Afghanistan’s leading private university, the American University of Afghanistan (AUAF).
“Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome,” the emcee roared, clearing his throat, “Dr. Mohammad Sharif Fayez, the founder of the American University of Afghanistan!”
Even as Dr. Fayez inched slowly towards the stage, betraying his physical frailty, he commanded the complete attention of the young audience.
When he spoke, it was in a voice that was measured and tender.
“Before beginning my speech, I would like to ask you a question. What is Academic Freedom?”
A deep silence engulfed the auditorium richly adorned with traditional hand-crafted wall hangings. Uncertain whispers rose and fell, allowing the pause to grow pregnant.
“Academic freedom,” Dr. Fayez continued, “is freedom of inquiry in an academic environment that you [students] should have the freedom to communicate ideas or facts without the fear of being targeted for repression. That you are free to express your opinion without fear from institutional censorship or discipline. That you are free to question your professor whenever you think otherwise.”
Dr. Mohammad Sharif Fayez, a relentless educator, academic figure, and poet, who was the former Minister of Higher Education and founder of AUAF, was pronounced dead at 73 on February 8. He is survived by his wife and two children.
The news of Dr. Fayez's death brought with it a wave of grief and mourning for a statesman whose contribution to the gains made in Afghan education since 2001 is probably impossible to overestimate.
Born in 1946, Dr. Fayez hailed from Seyoshan village in the western province of Herat. After graduating from Avicenna High School in Kabul, Dr. Fayez received an MA in English Literature from the Northern Colorado University, and a Ph.D. in American and Comparative Literature from the University of Arizona in 1978.
His acclaimed doctoral dissertation epitomised his life's work bridging Eastern and Western cultures of learning. In it he demonstrated the influence of Rumi, a Persian poet of the 13 century, on the 19 century American writer Walt Whitman.
In a 96-page memoir published in 2014 (An Undesirable Element: An Afghan Memoir) Dr. Fayez wrote about the turbulence of his return to Afghanistan following his studies abroad. Less than a year after he took up a teaching job at Kabul University, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, forcing him to join thousands of others fleeing to Iran.
Once there, his arrival coincided with the onset of the Islamic Revolution under the leadership of Grand Ayatollah Rohullah Khomeini. After five years of scrapping for survival, he gratefully an offer from his Arizona alma mater to serve as a visiting scholar.
During these most difficult times — the Afghan-Soviet war of the late 1980s, the Afghan civil war of the early 1990s, and the Taliban government in the  1990s — Dr. Fayez emerged as one of the most prominent voices of resistance among the Afghan diaspora. He authored hundreds of articles and advocated tirelessly for human rights in his homeland.
When the Taliban was unseated by a US-led invasion in 2001, Dr. Fayez became the new government's first Minister of Higher Education.
Reviled by conservatives and championed by progressives, he quickly went about overhauling an education system that had been reduced to a shell by decades of war and the extreme conservatism of the Taliban.
His reforms restored co-education to the country and saw six new universities established, including the flagship American University of Afghanistan (AUAF). Few politicians of the era can claim achievements comparable in scale.
Following the tragic news of his passing politicians, scholars, activists, writers and students rushed to honour Dr. Fayez and his extraordinary legacy.
President Ashraf Ghani described Dr. Fayez as “a brilliant professor, who played a significant role in enlightening the society and adorning the young generation of science and knowledge.”
AUAF President Dr. Kenneth Holland mourned the loss of “one of the university's greatest friends”, whose vision would “live on through one of his precious children, the American University of Afghanistan.”
Dr. Rangin Dadfar Spanta, a close friend of Dr. Fayez and a former National Security Advisor, wrote in a statement that the academic's “writing was powerful and his love for Persian appreciable. He was one of the [great] Jami scholars of our country. This is a huge loss for Afghanistan, a country too poor when it comes to such figures.”
Spanta was among a number of diaspora Afghans Dr. Fayez enthusiastically implored to return to the country to help with his higher education revamp.
“He brought me back to Afghanistan to teach at Kabul University…I stayed, and yet he left us all alone. I am deeply saddened,” Dr. Spanta said in his statement.
Despite their young age, many of Dr. Fayez's students at the AUAF have already gone on to take leadership roles in Afghan government and civil society, becoming amplifiers of his progressive vision.
Sayed Madadi, who Dr. Fayez taught English Literature at AUAF, is now the incumbent Director General of Afghanistan's Civil Service Institute in Kabul.
Madadi wrote on Facebook: “Sharif Fayez was one of the best people of this country — a serene, deep, and committed man who worked hard in silence. He used to think more and speak less. He loved and valued questioning.”
My own encounters with Dr. Fayez on campus were fleeting but unforgettable. On one occasion he engaged me outside his office as he was hurrying to a meeting.
“What do you want to do later, in your career?” he asked during the brief exchange.
I told him that I was fascinated by political science, and wanted to continue studying it.
“Great, then you should. I see you doing something great, not settling for anything small,” he replied warmly, before continuing along his path.
They were a few kind words — the sort he had probably told plenty of others — but charged with enough inspiration to last for generations.

author: Maisam Iltaf


text:
Bulgaria’s parliament and an educational institute named top privacy violators in ‘Big Brother Awards’ · Global Voices
Filip Stojanovski

Alexander Kashumov, Head of the  Legal Team of NGO Access to Information Programme speaking at Bulgarian Big Brother Award in Sofia, 3 Feb 2019. Photo: Irina Aleksova / Internet Society – Bulgaria, CC-BY.
After a six-year hiatus, leading Bulgarian digital rights organizations have revived their country's version of the Big Brother Awards, an “anti-awards” ceremony designed to shame those who violate people's rights to privacy and data protection.
Originated by the international human rights organization Privacy International in 1998, the Big Brother Awards have been adopted by multiple civic society organizations in Europe and beyond. The event is intended to increase awareness about serious issues related to misuse of personal data and the harms that this can bring to individuals and society at large.
At a February 3, 2019 ceremony in Sofia, the 2018 awardees were announced: Bulgaria's parliament and Center for Education and Qualification of Pedagogical Specialists Ltd., a well-known educational institute, were the big winners.
Internet Society-Bulgaria (ISOC-Bulgaria) and Access to Information Program in Bulgaria issued a call for nominations of either governmental bodies, companies or individuals that have violated citizens’ privacy and abused personal data. Members of the public were able to submit suggestions up until the January 24 deadline.
“Our goal is to show the public the problems, and raise awareness about them”, said a representative of Internet Society of Bulgaria.
With companies and private institutions collecting, storing and processing enormous amounts of personal data (often illegally) in the pursuit of more efficient marketing and greater social control, the event committee received many nominations. ISOC-Bulgaria solicited suggestions from the public, inviting anyone to submit nominations via blog comments (which could be posted anonymously) or Facebook. These were evaluated by a jury of unpaid well-known public figures, including lawyers, academics, consultants, journalists, and civil right activists.
The jury subsequently presented two awards: one to the state institution and the other to the private organization that had excelled at violating citizens’ privacy.
The National Assembly (parliament) building of Bulgaria. Public Domain photo via Wikipedia.
Competition was stiff, with government institutions like the National Security Agency, the State Prosecutors Office, and the Anti-Corruption Commission being nominated, but eventually, the 2018 Big Brother Award for a state organization went to the National Assembly of Bulgaria, for its adoption of a personal data law.
In addition to setting new standards intended to protect citizens’ data against misuse by companies and institutions, the law sets specific rules for journalists and their reporting, when it touches upon the lives and activities of individuals. The law sets limitations around the impact that disclosing data will have on the personal life of the subject, the circumstances in which personal data becomes known to a journalist, and the importance of the personal data or its public disclosure to the public interest.
All of these stipulations, when subject to interpretation by media outlets and courts alike, could result in a threat to media freedom, especially when it comes to reporting on the activities of public officials.
Jury member and media expert Georgi Lozanov explained further:
Самите критерии са добри. Те наистина помагат на защитата и са по посока на тази чувствителност, която нараства. Въпросът е, че те могат да имат страничен ефект, да нарушат едно друго право – правото на свободно изразяване и на свобода на словото. Могат да се превърнат в предписания за действия при упражняване на журналистическата професия, а такъв тип предписания са фактически цензура. Така че наградата не е толкова за самите критерии, които са в защита на личните данни, колкото за това, че не е предвиден риск те да се превърнат в заплаха за свободата на словото.
On their own, the criteria are okay. They indeed aid protection, and are in the direction of increasing sensitivity. The issue we have with them is that they can have side effects, and have an adverse effect on another human right — the right to free expression and media freedom. They can be used as rules for conducting the journalistic profession, which in practice can amount to actual censorship. Therefore, the award is not so much for the criteria, as it is for not taking into account the risk of turning them into a threat to media freedom.
Dimitar Ganchev, who is a member of the ISOC-Bulgaria board, added that another reason the parliament won out was that the vote on the data protection law was taken without any debate and with very low attendance by ministers.
He stressed that the criteria listed in the law are so extensive — and the fines so high — that they could result in self-censorship:
Рискът е изключително сериозен. Точките, по които могат да бъдат атакувани, не са малко – те са цели десет.
The risk is extremely serious. These laws provide ten points which can be used to stage attacks against journalists.
The private sector organization that clenched the Big Brother Award is the Center for Education and Qualification of Pedagogical Specialists Ltd., thanks to a massive personal data leak that affected more than 9,000 students and more than 2,000 of their parents. Lists with their personal data were exposed to the public through various mechanisms, including posting the details on a major social network.
Other runners up in the private entities category included Municipal Forestry from Elin Pelin, Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski, and Trimoncium, a medical centre in Plovdiv.
The Big Brother – Bulgaria Award ceremony took place in Writer's club “Peroto” [“The Quill”] in Sofia, Bulgaria, 3 Feb 2019. Photo: Irina Aleksova / Internet Society – Bulgaria, CC-BY.
Though none of the nominees responded to the invitation to attend the ceremony, the organizers expressed satisfaction that the event had good press coverage, unlike other years, when media would hardly report on it.
Founded by Privacy International, the awards were inspired by the character of Big Brother from George Orwell’s novel “1984”, which symbolizes the power of the state in conducting absolute surveillance and providing for the basic needs of its subjects at the price of total annihilation of human freedoms. The symbol of the anti-award is a military boot crushing a human head, also a reference to a scene from the cult book.
The first Big Brother Awards ceremony took place in the United Kingdom. Since then, a growing number of affiliate human rights groups present the awards in about twenty countries. Apart from Bulgaria, the European version of the awards also takes place in the Netherlands and Germany.

author: Filip Stojanovski


text:
Censored on WeChat: A year of content removals on China’s most powerful social media platform · Global Voices
Wechatscope

This post was written by Marcus Wang and Stella Fan of the WeChatscope, a research initiative at The University of Hong Kong. This article is the first in a partnership series with Global Voices.
In China today, it is nearly impossible to live one's life without WeChat. What began as a chat app, similar to WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger, has become an essential tool for conducting many everyday activities, from communication to basic purchases and bill payment.
WeChat has the largest number of domestic users and the most extensive coverage of any social media service in the country. According to data released by WeChat, the company now boasts more than 1.0825 billion individual users, along with more than 20 million registered public accounts.
In addition to regular citizens who typically maintain personal WeChat accounts, nearly all government departments, state-owned organisations, private entities and local communities have registered “public” accounts on WeChat, where they produce content similar to Facebook pages. This creates an open space for quasi-public discussions about a wide range of topics such as personal stories, social issues, sports, technology and breaking news. Individual users closely interact with public accounts by leaving comments and forwarding the posts to social groups.
In 2018, an estimated 500,000 WeChat official accounts were active every day, with roughly five billion daily page views. WeChat's mobile payment system has become China's preferred method for payments of all kinds, due to the app's convenience and the sharp rise in the circulation of counterfeit currency in the country.
WeChat's massive user base and powerful social influence have also helped it to become a chief component of China's rigorous censorship regime. In 2017, our team at the University of Hong Kong built a technical web “scraping” system for studying censorship on WeChat's publicly accessible pages. Throughout 2018, we preserved censored posts in a publicly accessible database. We call it WeChatscope.
Our team tracked more than 4,000 public accounts covering daily news through our computer program which visits (and periodically revisits) published articles and records the contents. When the system sees that a post has disappeared, it is detected as censored. A copy of the post is then restored in the database and made available for public access.
By the end of 2018, a total of more than 1.04 million articles were included. Out of these, roughly 11,000 have been removed by the internet censorship system.
This approach allows us to detect content that was removed after it was posted — but it misses content that was censored prior to publication. The majority of Chinese social media platforms are equipped with a keyword filter that allows them to automatically censor sensitive information before it is published. A list of keywords is created and constantly updated by state censorship authorities, and then handed down to platform operators. This explains why certain politically sensitive topics such as the Xinjiang re-education camps rarely appear in our dataset.
While the volume of content blocked by keyword filtering is large, by analyzing the available content data, the project can still serve as a barometer China’s overall social media censorship regime.
After a post is removed from WeChat, the company issues an official explanation of the removal to its authors and readers. The company typically offers one of four different reasons:
This message indicates that the author removed their own posts. Self-censorship is a common practice among internet users in China as online speech can easily bring them trouble. Posts that cite unofficial sources of information can easily be charged with spreading rumors if they are re-posted more than 500 times. Users will often remove their own posts if they receive warning from senior colleagues or employers.
This message indicates that either the censorship authorities or the corporate content review team found and removed illegal contents.
If a user has violated community rules several times, the related account will be suspended or terminated. The censorship authorities could also request platform operators to block a user's account directly.
Content can be removed if other users flag it for violating platform rules.
Upon examining our full 2018 data set, the research team found that the scope of topics censored on WeChat has expanded from domestic policies and social unrest to less politically sensitive topics, in what seems to be an effort to support China’s international political image as a “great power”. The most sensitive topics of 2018 included:
In this forthcoming series, we will highlight the top 10 censored topics in 2018, one article at a time.

author: Wechatscope


text:
Every vote counts? Tackling voter apathy and low voter turnout in Nigeria’s national elections · Global Voices
Nwachukwu Egbunike

Defaced campaign posters on a wall in Lagos, Nigeria. Image by Nwachukwu Egbunike, used with permission.
With Nigerian national elections around the corner on February 16, 2019, the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) and the National Orientation Agency have shown concern for void votes — those deemed invalid by INEC.
Voter apathy and low turnout (absentee rejections) is a form of void votes. Unraveling the reasons behind voter apathy is essential for minimizing void vote.
Looking back on 2015 elections, the INEC Summary of Results shows that the number of votes cast (29.4 million) was less than half the number of registered voters (67.4 million). Of these registered voters, 31.7 million showed up on election day and were accredited by the INEC. But only 28.6 million were valid votes while 844,519 were void and rejected.
If all registered voters had cast their ballot in 2015, and the number of rejected votes increased by the same amount, it would come to about 4 percent — a negligible number. On this assumption, low turnout at elections (rather than the number of rejected votes) is a more worrying form of void votes.
The consolidated number of registered voters for the 2019 General Elections is 84 million — 44 million are male while 39.5 million are female.
Over half — 51 percent —  are youth ages 18-35 whereas nearly 30 percent are middle age (36-50). Just 15 percent are elderly (51-70) and nearly 4 percent are old (70 and above). Digital natives (youths) and digital immigrants (middle age) make up 81 percent of registered voters in Nigeria.
Internet users in Nigeria grew from 98.3 million in 2017 to 100.5 million in 2018. Facebook maintains the lead as the social media platform of choice with 22 million users, followed by YouTube (7 million+), Twitter (6 million) and Instagram (5.7 million).
The majority of voters in this year’s election have been using digital technologies since birth or transitioned from analog to digital technologies — digital media is not an alternative but rather, simply, the media.
In the prelude of Nigeria’s 2015 presidential elections, Twitter became the space for political conversations for young voters. Discussions were hot and bitter — trenches were dug and supporters of both All Progressive Congress (APC) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) got involved in an unending cycle of accusations and counter-accusations.
Within this divisive environment emerged a class of non-aligned people called the “Fencists.” They are not undecided voters, but rather decided voters who reject the need to express their political support on Twitter. Fencists held that neither of the two candidates in the 2015 presidential elections was “Messiahs” and time has vindicated their stance.
Fast forward to 2019, this same group of politically conscious youth and middle-aged Nigerians have been campaigning for people to get their Permanent Voters Card (PVC). These potential voters don’t necessarily need education on void votes, but they seek a firm guarantee that this year’s election will be free, fair and credible — that their votes count, period!
The credibility of elections depends primarily on a transparent voting process. E-voting would appeal to young and middle-aged voters because of their comfort with technology, significantly reducing voter apathy with a viable, transparent process.
In March 2017, the Nigerian Senate approved the use of Electronic Voting when it passed an amendment to the Electoral Act Number 6 2010 into law. E-voting received wide acclaim because it guarantees free, fair and credible elections. However, on December 8, 2018, President Muhammadu Buhari declined to sign the bill “for the fourth time in two years”. This closed the use of e-voting in the 2019 general elections.
E-voting would have entailed significant changes, including the full biometric accreditation of voters with Smart Card Readers. The electoral officers would be obliged to instantly send accreditation and election results from polling units to the corresponding collation center. Also, officers in charge of the elections must record accreditation data and polling results on INEC’s prescribed forms, which must concur with what was recorded, before transmitting them.
Nigeria's electoral umpire, INEC, would have had unlimited powers to conduct elections by electronic voting. In addition, the collation of election results would have been done electronically and would have helped to determine final results on a real-time basis.
E-voting may not happen any time soon because the government, along with elderly and old constituents, just about 19 percent of the electorate – insist on having an analog election in 2019.
Constitutional amendments guarantee INEC’s independence after woeful 2007 presidential elections, marked by fraud and violence.
According to the National Democratic Institute, the election witnessed underage voting, ballots lacking names of all candidates, errors in voter registration, lack of privacy, inadequate polling stations, stealing ballot boxes, intimidation and vote buying. Also there were recorded instances of political violence, impunity and police bias. By 2011, INEC became financially independent – funded from the Consolidated Fund, putting it on “par with the way the judiciary and the National Assembly are funded.”
The president can no longer unilaterally hire or fire the INEC chief without a confirmation from the Senate.
Yet, these electoral reforms have not done enough to address void votes during elections. If the majority of voters are digital natives and migrants, E-voting makes the most sense because it meets the majority of voters where they spend most of their time.
Documentaries, short video clips, podcasts, webinars can be employed with explainers in English, Nigerian Pidgin, Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba — Nigeria’s most widely-spoken languages — on milestones and improvements in the electoral process.
Education that emphasizes historical narratives on Nigeria’s democratic evolution from the First Republic to date would help convey the value of voting. Understanding the sacrifices of those who died to make Nigeria's democracy in the past 20 years possible is crucial. Do Nigeria's youth remember the June 12 martyrs, those who fought — albeit unsuccessfully — to restore the 1993 presidential election which was annulled by the military government?
Online education must also emphasize how voter participation is key to a successful election. Voters are the missing link to a strong democracy.
Every vote counts.


text:
Mozambicans demand justice on government debt scandal · Global Voices
Dércio Tsandzana

Judgment of the former Minister of Finance of Mozambique in South Africa | used with permission from the Public Integrity Center
In December 2018, a new chapter of Mozambique's ‘hidden debt’ scandal unfolded when former Finance Minister Manuel Chang was arrested in South Africa after authorities fulfilled an international arrest warrant issued by the United States.
The ‘hidden debt’ scandal refers to money borrowed by former president Armando Guebuza without permission from Parliament. In 2015, the international press revealed the existence of an undeclared debt by the government.
In total, the debts amount to two billion US dollars. Officially, they were borrowed to fund three security projects. This situation left Mozambique without budget support from the European Union and International Monetary Fund, which demanded an independent investigation about the debts and also supported an international audit in 2017.
A year after an investigation began, four people have been arrested on international warrants issued by the United States — besides former Guebuza's Finance Minister Manuel Chang, three former executives of the bank Credit Suisse were also detained. Chang was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud and money laundering.
The United States is involved in the investigation because the transactions were made in US dollars and through electronic devices from the United States’ territory.
There are a lot of reactions highlighting the desire to see those guilty to be punished in the US.
Elvino Dias noted:
A EXTRADIÇÃO É INCONTORNÁVEL
Uma das notícias que marcou a imprensa nacional e internacional ontem foi a de que as autoridades de Moçambique pediram à África do Sul a Extradição de Manuel Chang, ou seja, para se julgarem entre bradas.
Na solidão da minha pocilga, pesquisei para analisar se tal facto era possível ou não, tendo em atenção que os EUA também pretendem a extradição do mesmo INDIVÍDUO. Da pesquisa obtive as seguintes respostas: NA EXTRADIÇÃO VIGORA O PRINCIPIO DA PRIORIDADE, ou seja atende-se ao pedido do Estado que solicitou em primeiro. Os EUA solicitaram em primeiro.
EXTRADITION IS UNAVOIDABLE
One of the news that marked the national and international press yesterday was that the Mozambican authorities asked South Africa for the extradition of Manuel Chang so that he is tried in Mozambique.
In the loneliness of my pigsty, I have researched whether or not this was possible since the United States also intends to request extradition of the same INDIVIDUAL. From the research, I have obtained the following answers: IN EXTRADITION RULES THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIORITY, that is, the State that requested it first should be the one fulfilled. The US has asked first.
University Professor and activist Adriano Nuvunga shares the same opinion:
A extradição de Chang é importante para compreendermos os contornos da dívida ilegal; responsabilização criminal dos lesa-pátrias; recuperação dos activos do odioso calote e, fundamentalmente, a Assembleia da República anular as leis que legalizam as dividas ilegais que oneram o nosso povo e empurram a nossa juventude para o desemprego e marginalidade.
Chang's extradition is important for us to understand the features of the illegal debt; criminal liability for treason; recovery of the assets of the abhorrent default and, fundamentally, for the Assembly of the Republic to annul the laws that legalize the illegal debts that burden our people and push our youth to unemployment and marginality.
An activist of the Youth Parliament of Mozambique, Socrates Mayer was more incisive:
O povo têm de se libertar de vermes nocivos (ladrões do povo) e apostar na esperança do bem-estar ( outra força partidária), porque aceitar os gatunos e lesa-pátria. E aceitar a ladroagem dos governantes. E caso Chang volte à Moçambique vamos caminhar até à ponta vermelha e retirar o empregado que viola os interesses do patrão. Digamos Chang em moz não…
The people have to free themselves from harmful worms (robbers of the people) and bet on the hope of well-being (another political party), because to accept the thieves is treason. And to accept the thievery of the government. And if Chang returns to Mozambique we will walk to the red tip and remove the employee who violates the interests of the boss. Let's say no to Chang in moz…
Under the hashtag #EuNaoPagoDividasOcultas (#IDoNotPayHiddenDebts), the Center for Public Integrity, a local NGO, has launched a campaign on social media calling for Mozambicans to oppose the debt's payment.
Faça parte desta campanha EU NÃO PAGO DÍVIDAS OCULTAS.
Venha buscar a sua t-shirt e faça o seu vídeo sobre o não pagamento das dívidas ocultas. #EuNaoPagoDividasOcultas
O CIP situa-se no Bairro da Sommerschield, rua Fernão Melo e Castro, nrº 124. pic.twitter.com/XDNdXM9HHv
— CIP-Mozambique (@CIPMoz) 18 janvier 2019
Be a part of this campaign I DO NOT PAY HIDDEN DEBTS. Come get your t-shirt and make your video about the non-payment of hidden debts. #EuNaoPagoDividasOcultas. CIP is located in the Sommerschield neighborhood, Fernão Melo e Castro street, number 124
Mozambicans also reacted with humour: local comedian Txiobullet did a performance of Manuel Chang arriving in a US prison and the video amounted over nineteen thousand views on Instagram.
Other people asked for the matter to be resolved swiftly:
Os EUA entendem da matéria mas não tem o arguido. A RSA tem o arguido mas não entende da matéria. Moçambique não tem o arguido e nem entende da matéria. Questão a resolver: Para onde deve ir o arguido?
The US understands the matter but does not have Chang. RSA has Chang but does not understand the matter. Mozambique does not have Chang and does not understand the matter. Question to be answared: Where should Chang go?
On January 21, the police went to the CIP offices in Maputo and confiscated t-shirts from the public. Anyone leaving the CIP offices with a t-shirt was ordered to remove it, and bags and rucksacks were searched too. When asked why the policemen said that t-shirts could be used to “create agitation” and that they were following orders by superiors.
On February 1, the police banned the Youth Parliament of Mozambique from performing theatre pieces about the scandal. On February 5, Mozambican NGOs have called on Credit Suisse to write off the government's debt.

author: Dércio Tsandzana


text:
As India’s elections draw near, right-wing leader is arrested for shooting Mahatma Gandhi’s effigy · Global Voices
Vishal Yashoda Manve

A sculpture of Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation for India. Image from Flickr by NewTown Grafitti. CC BY 2.0
Amid high-pitched campaigning for India's upcoming general elections, the leader of a Hindu fringe group shot an effigy of the country's most prominent leader, Mahatma Gandhi, and a subsequent video of the incident went viral, causing outrage across the country.
Eventually, Indian police officials arrested Pooja Pandey, the leader of Hindu Mahasabha which had organized the January 30th event to celebrate the 71st anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi's assassination by Nathuram Godse.
In the video, a saffron saree-clad Pandey surrounded by other right-wing group members can be seen firing an air pistol at Gandhi's effigy in celebration. In India, multiple right-wing groups praise Godse for having killed Mahatma Gandhi, calling the former ‘patriotic and nationalist’ and the latter ‘too moderate’.
Pooja Shakun Pandey, the Hindu Mahasabha leader who recreated Gandhi's assassination by shooting at #Gandhi‘s effigy (and spilling mock blood), and also garlanded Gandhi's murderer Godse's photo, posing for pictures with top BJP leadership. #NotSoFringe pic.twitter.com/FZPYCfNZxS
— Shehla Rashid شہلا رشید (@Shehla_Rashid) January 31, 2019
The action drew widespread criticism from Indian National Congress headed by Party President Rahul Gandhi, with multiple state-wide agitations and many activists joining the fray. Protesters are calling the act ‘dangerous’ (despite being symbolic in nature) against the independence leader. Police officials who had been deployed finally arrested Pandey and her husband, who is seen taking part in the video footage. Numerous arrests subsequently followed after the high-profile event.
Gandhi, despite being a revered leader in post-independent India, also starkly divides various political groups. Recently, a statue of Gandhi was removed from a university in Ghana owing to his apparent racist comments against African communities.
Despite Gandhi's globally revered image as the founder of the non-violent movement against the British Empire and India's subsequent Independence, Hindu hardliners accuse the leader of betraying the community by being ‘pro-Muslim’ and supporting India's partition and the birth of Pakistan. Nathuram Godse fatally shot Gandhi on 30 January 1948 and was a member of multiple right-wing groups including the Hindu Mahasabha.
Those of you who are shocked at the Hindu maha sabha freaks shooting at Gandhi's effigy -
This is their politics. Right from the lowliest troll on Twitter to Modi himself. Each and every sanghi is a fan of Godse and glad that he murdered Gandhiji pic.twitter.com/2tNWNOXXSV
— Sankar Das (@mallucomrade) January 30, 2019
This is not the first time right-wing groups have publically revered Gandhi's killer. In 2015, the right-wing group Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha announced plans to install statues of Godse across six districts — leading to protests across India.
On social media, netizens protested against the latest incident and its implications against the revered leader known globally for peace:
Mohammad Sajjad wrote on Twitter:
Aj Tak TV, in May 2018, had run 5 hours long debate on Jinnah portrait in AMU 1938.
Not a single hour debate on Aligarh Hindu Mahasabha shooting Gandhi effigy on January 30, 2019.
Sharm tum ko magar nahin aati
— Mohammad Sajjad (@sajjadhist) February 1, 2019
(Sharm Tum ko magar nahi aati: You aren't embarrassed, yet.)
Some supported her ‘freedom of expression':
She fired at an Effigy of Gandhi with an Air Pistol. However obnoxious the act, this was her FOE and no reason to be Jailed https://t.co/QSsZKHBFjB
— Joy (@Joydas) February 6, 2019
Journalist Iain Marlow wrote:
Ah, a Hindu nationalist group is shooting a gun at an effigy of Gandhi (which apparently oozed blood) and garlanding a statue of his assassin. Carry on. https://t.co/l6ul6ZskTi
— Iain Marlow (@iainmarlow) January 30, 2019
Manimugdha Sharma wrote about a previous controversy involving Pakistan's founder Jinnah's portrait getting news coverage but this issue sidelined by right-wing affiliated organizations:
Last year, numerous TV news channels had conducted debates on a portrait of Jinnah at Aligarh Muslim University. These were endless debates stretching for days. The issue was kept alive. How many of those channels debated the shooting of the Gandhi's effigy by Hindu Mahasabha?
— Manimugdha Sharma (@quizzicalguy) February 1, 2019
Sadhvi Khosla wrote in NewsD:
An advocate of non-violence, Gandhi ji had created many enemies when he was occupied in teaching the world the power of ahimsa. While he had the three-wise-monkeys that guided us all to not to see evil, not to hear evil, and not to speak evil, people today are doing exactly the contrary.
Recently, an Indian Parliamentary committee summoned Twitter to appear before a panel for apparently developing an anti-right-wing bias, which was rebuffed by Twitter representatives. Indian right-wing groups are seeking to normalize Hindutva form of nationalism and alter India's secular nature established by the constitution. And Indian elections across 29 states will only intensify the polarisation.
RW trolls have been attacking @Twitter @misskaul & @jack for suspending RW abusive accounts. Later @TwitterIndia was summoned by Parliamentary committee of IT for acquiring an anti-right wing attitude. All thanks to @ianuragthakur
Let me share a few accounts which were suspended pic.twitter.com/zZ0SJxhDXt
— Zoo Bear (@zoo_bear) February 9, 2019

author: Vishal Yashoda Manve


text:
Decorated army major accused of “beating youth” in Kashmir · Global Voices
GV South Asia

Special Forces in Kashmir. Image via Wikimedia Commons CC-BY-SA-4.0.
An Indian army major has been accused of beating and torturing a young man in Indian-administered Kashmir after the youth was summoned for unknown reasons to unit 44 Rashtriya Rifles camp, a counterinsurgency force of the Indian army stationed in Shadimarg village in the Pulwama district of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Indian army Major Rohit Shukla has beaten a student in army camp in Pulwama and forced him to pose with a gun to label him as a militant and kill him in a fake encounter. #kashmir #IndianArmySponsoredTerrorism pic.twitter.com/JM3GLcejNU
— Fahaid Rehman (@FahaidR) February 6, 2019
Tawseef Ahmad Wani, who is undergoing treatment at Srinagar hospital, claims that he was badly beaten by Major Rohit Shukla. Major Shukla is a highly decorated officer who received the Shaurya Chakra, the third Indian highest peacetime military award from the president of India, for his role in anti-militancy operations in 2018.
Wani alleged that the major asked him to “pose with the gun or get ready to die in an encounter” — ostensibly demanding that Wani post photos of himself dressed like a militant on Facebook.
Brave so called Indian Army and Major Shukla. Tawseef Was beaten up ‘mercilessly’, by Indian army admitted in SHMS hospital ,also asked him to ‘pick up arms’, threatens to ‘kidnap his sister’#KashmirSolidarityDay pic.twitter.com/aRI0WHqQvA
— AllAboutKashmir (@powerofkashmir) February 5, 2019
However, the army claims that “this is propaganda played by the terrorists, wherein they have beaten up the individual and are trying to put blame on the Army, so as to put pressure on security forces.”
*✅Army never did anything wrong in Kashmir: Kavinder Gupta over Major Shukla*
…
⭕?SRINAGAR, FEB 06:Former deputy chief minister of the state and Senior BJP leader Kavinder Gupta said that Army never did anything wrong in Kashmir with Kashmiri pic.twitter.com/vPzO3d6wco
— Asian News Hub (@dar_rare) February 6, 2019
Wani's brother is serving in the Indian army and has reportedly gone missing and other reports suggest that his father was killed by militants.
The issue took a political turn when former chief minister of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, Mehbooba Mufti visited the injured man at the hospital and demanded action be taken against the major.
Mehbooba Mufti visits SMHS to inquire health of Injured boy allegedly beaten by Major Shukla In Pulwama South Kashmir pic.twitter.com/fTePiZOpR2
— Bhat Nisar (@BhatNis02010632) February 6, 2019
Mehbooba Mufti: Talks of compassion…
Tawsif Ahmad Wani: For the sake of vote
The incident has since drawn sharp criticism from people on social media:
How #India makes militants in #Kashmir
A psychopath army major is forcing a civilian to join militancy, threatens to kill him in a fake encounter if he doesn’t. https://t.co/k2yQtIwzpp
— kashmir (@mykashmirmylife) February 5, 2019
Why Major Shukla Target youths without any reason?
— Yasir (@Yasir58390794) February 6, 2019
Major Shukla:
“Pose with a gun and post the photograph by tomorrow; if not, I will kill you in an encounter in the coming days.”
.
.
And then they say why Kashmiri's hate Indian force.#Kashmir
— Encrypted Layman!! (@FreddieFaizan) February 5, 2019

author: GV South Asia


text:
Iranian environmentalists fear death penalty after a year behind bars · Global Voices
Article 19

A campaign poster showing environmental activists, Taher Ghadirian, Niloufar Bayani, Amirhossein Khaleghi, Houman Jokar, Sam Rajabi, Sepideh Kashani, Morad Tahbaz and Abdolreza Kouhpayeh. #anyhopefornature campaign.
A version of this article was originally published by the freedom of expression organisation ARTICLE 19, as part of a content-sharing agreement.
Eight environmental activists in Iran have been in detention for over a year after they were arrested and charged with “espionage” and “spreading corruption on earth”. They were finally brought to trial on January 30, 2019.
The corruption charge they face, under Iran's penal code, carries a possible death sentence.
The eight activists, Niloufar Bayani, Sam Radjabi, Houman Jowkar, Taher Ghadirian, Morad Tahbaz, Sepideh Kashani, Amir Hossein Khaleghi and Abdolreza Kouhpayeh, all worked for the Tehran-based Persian Wildlife Heritage Foundation (PWHF), and were arrested in January 2018, along with Kavous Seyed-Emami, the managing director of PWHF.  Seyed-Emani died on 8 February 2018 while in custody in Evin prison. While the judiciary says Seyede-Emani died by suicide, both the domestic and international community have called for an independent investigation into his death, which has not yet taken place.
The government’s case against the activists focuses heavily on the group’s work to protect the Asiatic cheetah, a wild cat native to eastern Iran that is nearing extinction. Most members of the group had studied outside Iran, mainly in Canada and the US, and had ties to international environmental expert groups, some of whom have visited Iran in an effort to learn more about the cats and potentially help in their preservation. Iranian officials have seized on the defendants’ connections with foreign universities and used them to support accusations that the activists are foreign intelligence agents masquerading as environmental experts.
All defendants were initially accused of “espionage” and detained while awaiting trial, but Tehran Prosecutor Abbas Jafari Dowlatabadi announced on 24 October 2018 that charges against four of them had been changed to “spreading corruption on earth,” which is punishable by death.
Public prosecutors built much of their case against the group from a forced confession made by one of the activists, which has since been retracted.
On 30 January and 2 February 2019, the eight conservationists faced trial at Branch 15 of the Revolutionary Court, presided by Judge Salavati, who has a history of issuing disproportionate and oppressive sentences to human rights defenders. According to the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI), half of the 300-page indictment was read in these sessions, all of which was based on the confessions of one of the eight defendants, Niloufar Bayani. Bayani interrupted the court multiple times to object, saying that her confessions were made under duress, are false and that she had retracted them.
Other serious and concerning allegations have been made about the trials, including that the trials are being held behind closed doors, the defendants were not given the right to choose their lawyers, and that not all the judiciary-appointed defence lawyers were present in court.
The defendants say they have been subjected to months of solitary confinement and psychological torture, including being threatened with death, threatened with being injected with hallucinogenic drugs, and threatened with arrest and the death of family members.
The treatment the defendants have faced has violated their rights to life, freedom of expression, fair trial and due process of law. It also marks part of a trend of silencing those speaking out on environmental issues in the country using espionage charges.
ARTICLE 19 and other human rights organizations have called for their immediate and unconditional release, and for a thorough, immediate and impartial investigation into allegations of torture and other ill-treatment.

author: Article 19


text:
Let the dead tell their stories about Hong Kong · Global Voices
HoLok Chen

Temple Street, Yau Ma Tei, Hong Kong. PHOTO: David Yan (CC BY 2.0)
Warning: this story includes graphic descriptions of death and violence. A version of this story was previously published on Medium.
If you have traveled to Hong Kong, you have probably visited Yau Ma Tei, a popular night market district where people go to enjoy shopping and street food. Yau Ma Tei is one of the most densely populated areas in Hong Kong.
Since 2016, the district has been the site of “20,000 ways to die in Yau Ma Tei”, a guided “homicide tour” founded by Melody Chan and myself, who have lived in the area for many years. Through the tour, we seek to address the meaning of life and living conditions in Hong Kong.
The 1.5-kilometer tour route runs north and south of Yau Ma Tei and visits 12 murder scenes over two hours. We started it  originally as a Halloween activity to raise funds for a local organization. As the feedback was excellent, we continued organizing tours at night during the winter months when the weather is cooler. The tour guides are social workers, teachers, medical doctors and other professionals. Thus far, about 500 people have taken the tour.
The homicide cases we selected date mostly from 2012 to 2016. Details of the cases were compiled from newspaper reports and records from the Coroner's Court.
Below is a trailer of the tour's 2017 edition on YouTube:
The population density in downtown Kowloon peninsula is about 44,000 people per square kilometer, and about 20,000 people live in Yau Ma Tei. Many apartments are sub-divided into smaller units. People live so closely together, but at the same time, they are quite isolated.
Quite a number of the cases featured on the tour involve elderly people. In one case, an old man committed suicide by jumping out of the fourth-floor window of a building with a rope tied around his neck. The body dangled on the outer wall of the building above the street all night, but no one noticed it until the next morning when the residents of a building across the street opened their window.
Another case involves two elderly people who were found dead at home, one starved to death. It was later revealed that the husband was the caretaker of the wife, who was suffering from dementia. The husband had a fall in the living room and died, and the wife slowly starved to death in bed. It is difficult to imagine that no one had taken notice of the somewhat desperate living conditions of two elderly people.
According to the 2016 population census, there were about 1.16 million people aged 65 and over in Hong Kong—about 15.9 per cent of the total population. About 150 thousand of those people lived alone. The average monthly income of retired elderly people in 2016—including pension and family and government support—was HK$5,780 (US$720). The current individual median income is about HK$16,800 (US$2,200) dollars.
But living with family or others does not guarantee support. There are many family tragedies in the city, among the working classes, in particular.
In one case, the deceased was a 15-year-old girl who was into cosplay. She performed well in her studies but quarrelled with her family because of her hobby. Eventually, she dropped out of school and became a photo model to earn a living. She was murdered by a client who had paid her HK$500 dollars (US$65) to take pictures of her.
In another case, a dead baby with its umbilical cord intact was found in a bag in Yau Ma Tei subway station by a cleaning lady. Upon investigation, the police found out that the mother was a foreign domestic helper who became pregnant and was afraid that her employers would dismiss her. The woman was arrested and jailed.
During this segment of the tour, the guide raises the question: aren't the woman's employers also guilty? It is difficult to imagine not noticing that the person who served you daily is pregnant. There are more than 370,000 helpers in Hong Kong and the law requires them to live in their employers’ homes. This arrangement makes them vulnerable to abuse in the form of long working hours, poor diet, etc.
About a year after that case, another foreign domestic helper was fired for getting pregnant. It took two years for the woman to successfully appeal the illegal termination of the contract in court.
Many of the murders in Yau Ma Tei are crimes of passion committed by ordinary people, and as is typical when the crime is not premeditated, the perpetrators make many mistakes.
There is the case in which a man killed his older brother in an open street with a nine-inch fish knife that penetrated the brother's lungs. The knife was supposed to be a gift for the brother.
One killer stayed at the crime scene after the murder; another used his ID card to book a hotel room to hide the body.
Another murder took place in a convenience store. The incident was recorded by closed-circuit TV. The murderer was a tourist holding a Canadian passport, who stabbed the storekeeper after the latter questioned him for taking items from the shop without paying.
The majority of tour patrons are college students. Some join out of curiosity; others consider it a way to educate themselves. A doctor who was part of a team of medical workers who took the tour said this of one case:
The protagonist of the case is very similar to the patients we often encounter in the accident and emergency wards – drug addicts, street sleepers, refugees. We all have to rescue them in the emergency room. But usually they are quite hostile in their attitudes. It’s very difficult to deal with them and we tend to lose patience over time.
This guided tours remind us that we must be patient and should not become indifferent. And their lives are very miserable and they struggle hard to survive.
Yau Ma Tei's 20,000 residents will all eventually die in different ways. We believe that upon their death, their souls will become part of the fabric of the city and continue to linger in the alleys and streets, reminding people of the meaning of existence. The tour aims to create a space for these shadows to reveal their stories.

author: HoLok Chen


text:
Nigeria’s presidential elections — a test for democracy in Africa · Global Voices
Nwachukwu Egbunike

An All Progressive Congress rally during the 2015 presidential elections in Nigeria. PHOTO: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (CC BY-SA 2.0)
The African continent will witness 20 elections in 2019. The February 16 presidential election in Nigeria, however, is especially significant, as it coincides with the 20th anniversary of the country’s return to democratic rule. Nigeria also has the largest population on the continent—nearly 199 million, according to the latest statistics—so this election also has implications for the future of democracy in Africa.
Hence the usefulness of taking a broad look at the democratic process—of which elections is just one part—and examine aspects such as election violence, the power of incumbency, and the independence of the electoral and judicial umpires.
Infographic showing national elections taking place in Africa in 2019. CREDIT: Public domain via Africa Center for Strategic Studies.
Nigeria has a history of post-election violence. In 2011, about 800 people were killed following riots in northern Nigeria after the election results were announced. In 2015, about 58 people lost their lives to pre-election violence.
For this reason, the two main contenders in Nigeria’s presidential race—the incumbent Muhammadu Buhari (All Progressive Congress) and former vice president, Atiku Abubakar (Peoples Democratic Party)—signed a peace pact in December 2018. Under the pact, both candidates have agreed not to promote violence before, during and after the presidential elections. But as laudable as the pact is, it does not guarantee violence-free elections.
The ethnic and religious divide between northern and southern Nigeria plays a great role in determining elections outcomes in Nigeria. It might seem that having two northern Muslims in the running—Buhari and Abubakar—should have reduced tensions ahead of the vote, but it has not. This may be due to the keenness of the contest, and the sense that Buhari, if defeated, might not easily concede.
The 2015 presidential elections marked a turning point in Nigeria with the defeat of the then incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan, by Muhammadu Buhari and the smooth transfer of power that followed. In an unprecedented move, Jonathan conceded defeat and called his rival to congratulate him.
On the African continent, as elsewhere, incumbency has both advantages and disadvantages. Incumbents have higher public profiles, a greater ability to raise campaign funds, and can back up campaign promises by pointing to their track record in office. But if those achievements are minimal, or are of dubious ethicality or legality, the incumbent then has to engage in reputational damage control.
Although Buhari, having completed some of the projects started by previous administrations, can count a few visible infrastructural developments among his achievements, he falls short in key areas. The election platform on which he campaigned and won in 2015 hinged on fighting corruption, improving security, and salvaging the economy, but he has failed in these three areas.
During Buhari’s tenure, Nigeria dropped from 136 (in 2016) to 148 (in 2017) in Transparency International’s 180-country Corruption Perception Index. Accordingly, in 2018 Nigeria was ranked the “16th least peaceful country in the world” by the Global Peace Index. And in the 2018 World Bank Ease of Doing Business report, Nigeria was ranked 146 out of 190 countries, falling from 167 in 2016. Nigeria’s economy entered a recession in 2016 but recovered in the second quarter of 2017. These failures of Buhari’s administration, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, give Abubakar the edge in the upcoming election.
The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has improved over the years in its management of elections in Nigeria, and its credibility soared after the election in 2015 that led to the defeat of an incumbent president. But following allegations late last year that INEC colluded with the ruling APC party to rig elections in Nigeria’s southwestern Osun State, former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo expressed doubt about INEC’s integrity and impartiality.
Nigerians are concerned as well over the independence of the judiciary, which is the final arbiter in election disputes. President Buhari recently suspended the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Walter Onnoghen, who was accused of financial malfeasance by a civil society group linked to the president. This unconstitutional action has heightened fears about Buhari’s dictatorial push, executive lawlessness and attempts to defang the judiciary so close to the elections. In addition, the action further tarnishes the perception of the neutrality of the judiciary in post-election litigation.
Building a strong electoral commission requires political will, as was the case with INEC. The 2007 presidential elections in Nigeria were widely criticized because the election was marred by irregularities that were caused by the electoral commission. The National Democratic Institute reported large scale underage voting, ballot papers that did not contain the names of all the candidates, theft of ballot boxes, intimidation, vote buying, and instances of political violence, impunity and police bias.
INEC was liberated from the apron strings of the presidency in 2011 by a constitutional amendment that changed the way that the commission is funded and its members appointed. Since then, INEC has been funded by the Consolidated Fund, which also funds the judiciary and the National Assembly, and the president can no longer unilaterally hire or fire the INEC chief without confirmation by the Senate.
Despite these gains, INEC is still not totally independent. Public fears that the electoral body will collude with the ruling party in rigging the 2019 elections run deep, a situation made worse by a recent gaffe by Adams Oshimhole, the chairman of the ruling party, who said that “for democracy to flourish, only people who can accept the pain of rigging, sorry, defeat, should participate in an election.”
From Rwanda to Cameroon, from Togo to Uganda, from Malawi to the Democratic Republic of the Congo too often on this continent have elections left behind a trail of blood and anguish and debilitated the possibility of building a genuinely democratic culture. The fear of violence in Nigeria should not be taken lightly, nor should the impact of this type of conflict on the sub-region and continent.
In advanced democracies, the power of incumbents that connive with a compromised electoral umpire is usually checked by an independent judiciary. That was the case when Kenya’s Supreme Court, following a petition filed by the rival candidate Raila Odinga, annulled the incumbent Uhuru Kenyatta’s victory in the 2017 presidential election and ordered a new vote to be held within 60 days.  As the UK Guardian noted, the decision “surprised many in Kenya, where courts have long been subservient to the president.” The Court placed the blame on the country’s electoral commission.
If the upcoming presidential election in Africa’s most populous country are free, fair and credible, it sets a strong example for the continent’s other democracies. If, however, the electoral commission slips in its duty, or the judiciary is muzzled judiciary and unable to adjudicate fairly in election disputes, then violence will be the likely outcome. And the prospect of a large-scale conflict in Nigeria is enough to send shivers down the spine of the entire continent.


text:
Venezuela’s humanitarian crisis puts Trinidad and Tobago’s refugee policy under the microscope · Global Voices
Georgia Popplewell

Cedros Bay, in southern Trinidad, with the Columbus Channel in the background. The narrow Channel separates Trinidad from the Venezuelan mainland. PHOTO: Grueslayer CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikipedia.
Since January 23, Caribbean nations have been engaged in decisive international diplomacy regarding Venezuela’s political impasse, most recently as co-architects of the “Montevideo Mechanism”, the four-part solution to the Venezuelan crisis proposed by Mexico, Uruguay and CARICOM at last week's meeting in Uruguay.
One member of CARICOM, however, has been less certain about its position regarding the Venezuelan nationals who have sought refuge within its borders. As trucks carrying US-sponsored humanitarian aid arrived at the Venezuelan border last week, the Trinidad and Tobago government dodged questions in Parliament about whether it recognised that Venezuela was facing a humanitarian crisis, reiterating the diplomatic position of “non-interference and non-intervention” the country has taken as part of CARICOM.
Trinidad, the larger of the two islands forming the nation of Trinidad and Tobago, is located just 11km north of the Venezuelan mainland. As the political and economic situation in Venezuela has worsened, the island has experienced a large influx of Venezuelans fleeing hardship and violence. Some arrive clandestinely via Trinidad’s southern coast, others through the country’s ports. Some estimates suggest that the country has taken in around 60,000 migrants, a significant figure for a country of 1.3 million inhabitants.
Trinidad and Tobago's decision to repatriate 82 Venezuelans in April 2018 drew harsh criticism from the UNHRC, which called the move a “forced deportation” that was in breach of international law. With the world’s attention currently on the political impasse in Venezuela, the country’s lack of a cohesive approach to migration is attracting international scrutiny.
Though the country's Cabinet adopted a national policy to address refugee and asylum matters back in 2014, it is not being implemented. In its statement to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the government said that although it had acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and is signatory to both the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, a lack of legislation “has hindered the application of proper protection principles for refugees and asylum seekers.”
As a result, asylum seekers and people with UNHCR refugee status end up being treated like undocumented migrants, with many ending up in the Immigration Detention Centre, exploited by employers, or, according to a January 2019 Refugees International (RI) report, “forced into illegality”. As things stand, Venezuelans wishing to claim protection in Trinidad and Tobago are subject to the terms of the country's Immigration Act, which holds that undocumented migrants can be detained, fined and, quite likely, deported.
After the rescue in Trinidad last week of 19 female teenagers believed to be Venezuelans from a major drug and prostitution ring, there have been renewed calls for Venezuelans to be allowed to work in the country. The children of refugees and asylum seekers are also barred from attending public school in the country.
The Living Water Community, the Catholic charity that acts as the UNHCR’s implementation partner in Trinidad and Tobago, has been trying to put into practice a regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan, designed to meet the needs of Venezuelans fleeing the country.
Trinidadian journalist Wesley Gibbings has suggested that legislation (or lack thereof) wasn't the only fly in the ointment, also noting on Twitter that:
No doubt, some of the xenophobia being exhibited in #Trinidad stems from the fact that some continued to assert that #Venezuela‘s humanitarian crisis had been externally-generated propaganda and not lived experience.
Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela have long enjoyed close diplomatic relations. An oil and gas producer, the nation benefited from the late Venezuela president Hugo Chávez’s push for higher oil prices, and last year signed a major gas deal with Chávez’s embattled successor, Nicólas Maduro, that some critics have suggested may be a factor in the government's hesitation to acknowledge the Venezuelan situation as a humanitarian crisis.
But while the country is feeling the heat due to its proximity to Venezuela, the state of affairs in other Caribbean nations is not very different.
According to a paper co-authored by Rochelle Nakhid, the regional coordinator with the Living Water Community for UNHCR, among Commonwealth Caribbean countries, “only Belize has legislation for refugees, while Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago have a refugee policy but no legislation.” Nakhid is optimistic, though, that the drafting process to incorporate international migration protocols is “being undertaken in a commendably participatory way” with key stakeholders, including the Immigration Division.
Meanwhile, refugees are protesting Trinidad and Tobago's failure to live up to its international obligations around migration issues, while diplomats emphasise the need for a proper structure to be put in place.

author: Georgia Popplewell