The importance of press freedom

The United Nations General Assembly declared 3 May to be World Press Freedom Day to raise awareness of the importance of freedom of the press and remind governments of their duty to respect and uphold the right to freedom of expression enshrined under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and marking the anniversary of the Declaration of Windhoek, a statement of free press principles put together by African newspaper journalists in 1991.

Freedom of the press is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic media and published materials. While such freedom mostly implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state, its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections.

With respect to governmental information, any government may distinguish which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on classification of information as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest. Many governments are also subject to sunshine laws or freedom of information legislation that are used to define the ambit of national interest.

According to Reporters Without Borders, more than a third of the world's people live in countries where there is no press freedom. Overwhelmingly, these people live in countries where there is no system of democracy or where there are serious deficiencies in the democratic process. Freedom of the press is an extremely problematic problem/concept for most non-democratic systems of government since, in the modern age, strict control of access to information is critical to the existence of most non-democratic governments and their associated control systems and security apparatus.

World opinion is divided on the importance of having a free press, according to a poll conducted for the BBC World Service in 2007. Of those interviewed, 56% thought that freedom of the press was very important to ensure a free society but 40% said it was more important to maintain social harmony and peace, even if it meant curbing the press's freedom to report news truthfully. The strongest endorsement came from North America and Western Europe, where up to 70% put freedom first, followed by Venezuela, Kenya and South Africa, with over 60%. In India, Singapore and Russia, by contrast, more people favoured stability over press freedom.

Freedom of the Press is a yearly report by US-based non-governmental organization Freedom House, measuring the level of freedom and editorial independence enjoyed by the press in every nation and significant disputed territories around the world. Levels of freedom are scored on a scale from 1 (most free) to 100 (least free). Depending on the basics, the nations are then classified as "Free", "Partly Free", or "Not Free". If you would like to see the results of this report - which differs slightly from the Reporters Without Borders freedom of the press index - then click on the third link at the bottom of this post.

Every year, Reporters Without Borders establishes a ranking of countries in terms of their freedom of the press. Below is the ranking for 2009:

1 Denmark 0.00

1 Finland 0.00

1 Ireland 0.00

1 Norway 0.00

1 Sweden 0.00

6 Estonia 0.50

7 Netherlands 1.00

7 Switzerland 1.00

9 Iceland 2.00

10 Lithuania 2.25

11 Belgium 2.50

11 Malta 2.50

13 Austria 3.00

13 Latvia 3.00

13 New Zealand 3.00

16 Australia 3.13

17 Japan 3.25

18 Germany 3.50

19 Canada 3.70

20 Luxembourg 4.00

20 United Kingdom 4.00

20 United States 4.00

23 Jamaica 4.75

24 Czech Republic 5.00

25 Cyprusa 5.50

25 Hungary 5.50

27 Ghana 6.00

28 Trinidad and Tobago 7.00

29 Uruguay 7.63

30 Costa Rica 8.00

30 Mali 8.00

30 Portugal 8.00

33 South Africa 8.50

34 Macedonia 8.75

35 Greece 9.00

35 Namibia 9.00

37 Poland 9.50

37 Slovenia 9.50

39 Bosnia and Herzegovina 10.50

39 Chile 10.50

39 Guyana 10.50 42 Suriname 10.60

43 France 10.67

44 Cape Verde 11.00

44 Slovakia 11.00

44 Spain 11.00

47 Argentina 11.33

48 Hong Kong 11.75

Grenada 12.00

49 Italy 12.14

50 Romania 12.50

51 Northern Cyprusb 14.00

51 Maldives 14.00

51 Mauritius 14.00

54 Paraguay 14.33

55 Panama 14.50

56 Papua New Guinea 14.70

57 Burkina Faso 15.00

57 Haiti 15.00

59 Republic of China (Taiwan) 15.08

60 Kuwait 15.25

61 Lebanon 15.42

62 Botswana 15.50

63 Liberia 15.50

63 Malawi 15.50

63 Serbiac 15.50

63 Tanzania 15.50

63 Togo 15.50

68 Bulgaria 15.61

69 South Korea 15.67

70 Bhutan 15.75

71 Brazil 15.88

72 Benin 16.00

72 Seychelles 16.00

72 Timor-Leste 16.00

75 Kosovod 16.58

76 Nicaragua 16.75

77 Montenegroc 17.00

78 Croatia 17.17

79 El Salvador 17.25

80 Central African Republic 17.75

Tonga 18.00

81 Georgia 18.83

82 Comoros 19.00

82 Mozambique 19.00

84 Ecuador 20.00

85 Peru 20.88

86 Uganda 21.50

86 United Arab Emirates 21.50

88 Albania 21.75

89 Senegal 22.00

89 Ukraine 22.00

91 Mongolia 23.33

92 Guinea-Bissau 23.50

93 Israel (Israeli territory) 23.75

94 Qatar 24.00

95 Bolivia 24.17

96 Kenya 25.00

97 Zambia 26.75

98 Dominican Republic 26.83

99 Lesotho 27.50

100 Guinea 28.50

100 Indonesia 28.50

100 Mauritania 28.50

103 Burundi 29.00

103 Côte d'Ivoire 29.00

105 India 29.33

106 Guatemala 29.50

106 Oman 29.50

108 United States (extra-territorial) 30.00

109 Cameroon 30.50

110 Djibouti 31.00

111 Armenia 31.13

112 Jordan 31.88

113 Tajikistan 32.00

114 Moldova 33.75

115 Sierra Leone 34.00

116 Republic of the Congo 34.75

117 Cambodia 35.17

118 Nepal 35.63

119 Angola 36.50

119 Bahrain 36.50

121 Bangladesh 37.33

122 Philippines 38.25

122 Turkey 38.25

124 Venezuela 39.50

125 Kyrgyzstan 40.00

126 Colombia 40.13

127 Morocco 41.00

128 Honduras 42.00

129 Gabon 43.50

130 Thailand 44.00

131 Malaysia 44.25

132 Chad 44.50

133 Singapore 45.00

134 Madagascar 45.83

135 Nigeria 46.00

136 Zimbabwe 46.50

137 Gambia 48.25

137 Mexico 48.25

139 Niger 48.50

140 Ethiopia 49.00

141 Algeria 49.56

142 Kazakhstan 49.67

143 Egypt 51.38

144 Swaziland 52.50

145 Iraq 53.30

146 Azerbaijan 53.50

146 Democratic Republic of the Congo 53.50

148 Sudan 54.00

149 Afghanistan 54.25

150 Israel (extra-territorial) 55.50

151 Belarus 59.50

152 Fiji 60.00

153 Russia 60.88

154 Tunisia 61.50

155 Brunei 63.50

156 Libya 64.50

157 Rwanda 64.67

158 Equatorial Guinea 65.50

159 Pakistan 65.67

160 Uzbekistan 67.67

161 Palestinian Authority 69.83

162 Sri Lanka 75.00

163 Saudi Arabia 76.50

164 Somalia 77.50

165 Syria 78.00

166 Vietnam 81.67

167 Yemen 83.38

168 People's Republic of China 84.50

169 Laos 92.00

170 Cuba 94.00

171 Myanmar 102.67

172 Iran 104.14

173 Turkmenistan 107.00

174 North Korea 112.5

175 Eritrea 115.50

Information from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_Press_(report)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7134918.stm

Racism in the UK Police Force

Here is a documentary from late 2008 by BBC Panorama where they investigate racism in the UK police force. Apologies but the last 10 minutes is not available.

We would like to make it clear that we do not own this documentary in anyway and all credit goes to the BBC and the creators of this documentary. We simple wish to share their work with the world.

Viewers be warned: there will be language some may find offensive and the videos will not be suitable for children.

Racism in Multicultural Britain

Over the law few days we have seen different videos showing racism in the United States and peoples reactions to it. But the US is no where near the only country with such racism and this BBC Panorama documentary from late 2009 investigates discrimination in Britain today.

We would like to make it clear that we do not own this documentary in anyway and all credit goes to the BBC and the creators of this documentary. We simple wish to share their work with the world.

Viewers be warned: there will be language some may find offensive and the videos will not be suitable for children.

Analyse similarities and differences between liberal feminism and radical feminism

Feminism is a cross-cutting ideology, encompassing three broad traditions: liberal feminism, socialist feminism and radical feminism. The first wave of feminism was deeply influenced by the ideas and values of liberalism while radical feminism is one of the distinctive features of second wave feminism during the 1960s and 1970s.

While liberal feminism is deeply influenced by liberalism, radical feminism view conventional ideologies as inadequate vehicles for advancing the social role of women and criticised for harbouring patriarchal attitudes and assumptions.

The first major feminist text by Mary Wollstonecraft argued that women should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as men on the ground that they are human beings. She claimed that the distinction of sex would become unimportant in political and social life if women gained access to education and were regarded as rational creatures in their own right. However some radical feminist emphasize the differences between women and men. If sex differences are natural then the roots of patriarchy lie within the male sex itself: men are the enemy. This has led for radical feminist to believe in separatism.

This has also led radical feminists to believe that sexual equality and harmony is impossible because all relationships between men and women must involve oppression. This has led to the development of political lesbianism. Other feminists however, including liberal feminists, believe that it is possible to establish harmony between men and women in a non-sexist society. Hence they believe sexual preferences are strictly a matter of personal choice and not a question of political commitment. This also reflects their opposing beliefs on the public and private divide. Radical feminists proclaim the personal is the political and analyse the politics of everyday life. Although liberal feminists object to women’s access to the public sphere, they also warn against the dangers of politicizing the private sphere, which in liberal theory is a realm of personal choice and individual freedom. While radical feminists wish to abolish the public/private divide, liberal feminists merely wish to reform it.

This is also reflected in their rivalling ideas of equality. Liberal feminists champion legal and political equality with men. Equality thus means equal access to the public realm. Radical feminists however are primarily concerned about equality in family and personal life. This shows that while liberal feminists focus on women in the public sphere, radical feminists focus on women in the private sphere.

Nevertheless both seek equality with men and to end patriarchy in society. On the other hand, they use the term patriarchy in different ways. Liberal feminists use the term to draw attention to the unequal distribution of rights and entitlements in society. They highlight the under-representation of women in senior positions. Radical feminists see patriarchy as a systematic, institutionalised and pervasive form of male power that is rooted in the family. The pattern of male dominance and female subordination that characterises society is a reflection of the power structures that operate within domestic life. Once again, the differences between liberal and radical feminists boil down to the priority of the public or private sphere.

Although radical feminism formed the distinctive feature of second wave feminism, liberal feminism also formed a significant components, particularly within the women’s movement in the USA. Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique highlighted the problem with no name, the deep unhappiness and despair many women experience because they are confined to a domestic existence and unable to gain fulfilment in a career or through political life. Liberal feminists have also assumed that men and women have different natures and inclinations and accepts that women’s leaning towards family and domestic life is influenced by natural impulses and so reflects a willing choice. Friedan discussed the problem of reconciling the achievement of personhood with the need for love. Friedan’s emphasis on the continuing and central importance of the family in women’s life has been criticised by radical feminists as contributing to a mystique of motherhood.

Radical feminists disagree that men and women are different, but see this not as a lean towards the family but as a lean away from men. Their acceptance of unalterable differences has led towards cultural feminism, a retreat from the corrupt, aggressive male world of political activism into an apolitical, women-centered culture and life-style.

As the first feminists text was by the liberal feminist. Many Wollstonecraft and the first wave of feminism was heavily influenced by liberal feminism, it can be argued that liberal feminism is the mother of feminism and its ideas. As radical feminism began in the 1960s, it can be seen as the child of liberal feminism began in the 1960s it can be seen as the child of liberal feminism, building it on its predecessor’s ideas. In this sense the similarities between the two come from the common goals at the heart of feminism and their differences are part of the growth of feminism as it built and strengthened its ideas beyond that of other ideologies. Radical feminism symbolises the development of feminism and its ability to stand on its own as an ideology rather than draw from other ideologies as it had done with liberal feminism.

British Law: Strict Liability - Consider why and in what circumstances the court recognize the existence of crimes of strict and absolute liability.

Here is another essay that I wrote while revising for my January Law exam on strict liability. Hopefully it should explain anything, but if there's anything that you don't understand, then just comment!

Robyn, UK

‘Strict liability offences are contrary to fundamental legal principle. The imposition of criminal liability without reference to the state of mind of an accused can never be justified.’

Consider why and in what circumstances the court recognize the existence of crimes of strict and absolute liability.

A crime of strict liability is one where mens rea is not required in respect of at least one aspect of the actus reus. It is the imposition of criminal liability without proof of fault on the part of the defendant. This makes it an exception to the basic principle of criminal liability where actus reus and mens rea must be proved. In strict liability offences there may be no blameworthiness on the part of the defendant. This was seen in the case of Callow v Tillstone where a butcher asked a vet to examine a carcass to see if it was fit for human consumption. The vet said it was but it wasn’t and the butcher was convicted of the offence of exposing unsound meat for sale. For strict liability, all the prosecution needs to be proved is that the defendant committed a voluntary act.

In comparison to absolute liability as no mens rea is required for the offence and here is no need to prove that the defendant’s actus reus was voluntary. A case that illustrates this is Larsonneur where the defendant was ordered to leave the UK so she went back to Eire. However, the Irish police deported her back to the UK against her will and she was arrested for being an ‘alien’. These offences are very rare and involve offences where the actus reus is a state of affairs. This means that the defendant is liable because they have been found in a certain situation.

Nearly all strict liability offences have been created by stautes and are regulatory offences in nature. Strict liability offences were created as there was an increase in regulatory legislation and there were growing difficulties with enforcement. Therefore, the courts decided to do away with the requirement of mens rea in many cases where there were no express words in the statutes requiring proof of mens rea.

Judges interpret the definition of the offence in the act and although there is always a presumption that mens rea is required, judges are prepared to interpret the offence as one of strict liability if Parliament has not indicated any mens rea word in the relevant section of the act. If the statute includes certain words or expressions such as ‘wilfully’ or ‘intentionally’, then the offence requires mens rea and is not one of strict liability. However if the act makes it clear that mens rea is not required then the offence will be one of strict liability. This was seen in Sweet v Parsley, where the courts presumed mens rea was required because in their interpretation of the offence, Parliament did not mention the need for mens rea.

In Gammon, Lord Scarman gave other factors to be considered by judges when deciding if an offence is one of strict liability. Firstly, the presumption of mens rea is displaced if the statutes clearly say so. However, the presumption of mens rea is required if the offence is truly criminal in character. This occurred in B v DPP where the D’s conviction of inciting a child under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency was quashed by the House of Lords, who argued that mens rea was required for this offence. Lastly, presumption is displaced if the statute is concerned with issues of social protection and public safety, which is why many regulatory offences are ones of strict liability. In Alphacell, the company was charged with causing polluted matter to enter a river when pumps they installed failed, even though there was no evidence either that the company knew of the pollution or that it had been negligent. The House of Lords held it to be one of strict liability and the company were found guilty because it was important that rivers should not be polluted.

For some offences the statute provides a defence of ‘due diligence’ which means that the defendant will not be liable if they can show that they did all that was within their power not to commit the offence. However, there is currently no sensible pattern for when Parliament decides to include a ‘due diligence’ defence or does not. In Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah, the staff of the defendant sold a lottery ticket to someone under 16. Magistrate dismissed the charges but the Divisional Court held that the offence did not require any mens rea and the act of selling the tickets to someone under 16 was enough to make the defendants guilty, even though they had done their best to prevent this happening in their shop.

Another feature of strict liability offences is that the defence of mistake is not available. In Cundy the defendant was charged with selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person. Even though there was evidence that the defendant had not noticed that the person was drunk, the magistrate held that the offence was complete in proof that a sale had taken place to a drunk person and convicted the defendant. The lack of these two defences for strict liability cases means that I can be unjust as in the cases for Cundy and Harrow LBC, the defendants were unaware that an offence had been committed and were blameless.

This is reflected in the case of Prince where the defendant had taken an unmarried girl under 16 out of the possession of her father, thinking that she was 18. He was convicted of taking an unmarried girl under 16 out of the possession of her father because the offence doesn’t require mens rea for at least part of the actus reus and is thereby one of strict liability. On the other hand, in Hibbert the defendant met a 14 year old girl on the street and had sex with her but was acquitted because it was not proved that he had intention to take her away from he father and mens rea is required for this aspect. The case of Hibbert shows that even though one aspect of the offence was strict liability, mens rea was required for the main aspect. This provides a protection for some defendants who were unaware an offence had been committed and were blameless. However it also shows an inconsistency in the courts attitudes towards strict liability because even though Hibbert occurred before Prince, Prince was still found guilty.

Nevertheless the main reason for the creation of strict liability offences is to protect the public and this protection is needed in many different types of situations. Strict liability is easier to enforce as there is no need to prove mens rea and therefore saves court time as people are more likely to plead guilty. Also, as seen in Hibbert, allowances for levels of blameworthiness can be made in sentencing.

About the Rwandan Genocide

The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Rwanda's Tutsis and Hutu political moderates by the Hutu dominated government under the Hutu Power ideology. Over the course of approximately 100 days, from the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana on April 6 through to mid-July, at least 800,000 people were killed, according to the estimate of Human Rights Watch. Other estimates of the death toll have ranged between 500,000 and 1,000,000, or as much as 20% of the total population of the country. As an ideology, Hutu Power asserted that the Tutsi intended to enslave Hutus and thus must be resisted at all costs. The assassination of Habyarimana in April 1994 was the proximate cause of the mass killings of Tutsis and pro-peace Hutus. They were carried out primarily by two Hutu militias associated with political parties: the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi. The genocide was directed by a Hutu power group known as the Akazu. The killing also marked the end of the peace agreement meant to end the war and the Tutsi RPF restarted their offensive, eventually defeating the army and seizing control of the country.

Numerous elite Hutu politicians have been found guilty for the organization of the genocide. The Rwandan Military and Hutu militia groups, notably the Interahamwe, systematically set out to murder all the Tutsis they could capture, irrespective of their age or sex, as well as the political moderates. Hutu civilians were forced to participate in the killings or be shot, and were instructed to kill their Tutsi neighbours. Most nations evacuated their nationals from Kigali and abandoned their embassies in the initial stages of the violence.

National radio, with the exacerbation of the situation, advised people to stay in their homes, and the Hutu power station RTLM broadcast vitriolic propaganda against Tutsis and Hutu moderates. Hundreds of roadblocks were put up by the militia around the country. Lieutenant-General Dallaire and UNAMIR were in Kigali, escorting Tutsis, and were unable to stop the Hutus from escalating their attacks.

On April 9, UN observers witnessed the massacre of children at a Polish church in Gikondo. The same day 1000 heavily armed and trained European troops arrived to escort European civilian personnel out of the country. The troops did not stay to assist UNAMIR. Media coverage picked up on the 9th as the Washington Post reported the execution of Rwandan employees of relief agencies in front of their horrified expatriate colleagues. On April 9–10, US Ambassador Rawson and 250 Americans were evacuated.

Most of the victims were killed in their villages or in towns, often by their neighbors and fellow villagers. Militia members typically murdered their victims by hacking them with machetes, although some army units used rifles. Victims were often found hiding in churches and school buildings, where Hutu gangs massacred them. Ordinary citizens were called on by local officials and government-sponsored radio to kill their neighbors, and those who refused to kill were often murdered themselves. "Either you took part in the massacres or you were massacred yourself."

Several individuals were active in attempting to halt the Rwandan genocide, or to shelter vulnerable Tutsis, as the genocide was being carried out. Among them there are Pierantonio Costa, Antonia Locatelli, Jacqueline Mukansonera, Paul Rusesabagina, Carl Wilkens, and André Sibomana. You can read about these great people in our post on the Key Figures, due out one hour after this post.

In 1998, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda made the landmark decisions that war rape in Rwanda was an element of the crime of genocide. The Trial Chamber held that "sexual assault formed an integral part of the process of destroying the Tutsi ethnic group and that the rape was systematic and had been perpetrated against Tutsi women only, manifesting the specific intent required for those acts to constitute genocide." Although no explicit written orders to rape or commit sexual violence have been found, evidence suggests that military leaders encouraged or ordered their men to rape Tutsi as well as condoned the acts taking place, without making efforts to stop them. The Special Rapporteur estimated that between 250,000 and 500,000 Rwandese women and girls had been raped.

The UN and its member states appeared largely detached from the realities on the ground. In the midst of the crisis, Lt. General Roméo Dallaire was instructed to focus UNAMIR on only evacuating foreign nationals from Rwanda. The change in orders led Belgian peacekeepers to abandon a technical school filled with 2,000 refugees, while Hutu militants waited outside, drinking beer and chanting "Hutu Power." After the Belgians left, the militants entered the school and massacred those inside, including hundreds of children. Four days later the Security Council voted to reduce UNAMIR to 260 men. The U.S. government was reluctant to involve itself in the "local conflict" in Rwanda and refused to label the killings as "genocide", a decision which then-president Bill Clinton later came to regret in a Frontline television interview. In the interview, five years after the genocide, Clinton stated that he believes if he had sent 5,000 U.S. peacekeepers, more than 500,000 lives could have been saved. The UN conceded that "acts of genocide may have been committed" on May 17, 1994. By that time, the Red Cross estimated that 500,000 Rwandans had been killed. The UN agreed to send 5,500 troops, mostly from African countries, to Rwanda. This was the original number of troops requested by General Dallaire before the killing escalated. The UN also requested 50 armoured personnel carriers from the United States, but for the transport alone they were charged $6.5 million (U.S.) by the U.S. Army. Deployment of these forces was delayed due to arguments over their cost and other factors.

Following an investigation of the plane crash of 6 April 1994 that killed both the Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana and Burundian President Cyprien Ntaryamira and precipitated the genocide, and in which three French crew had also died, the French judge Jean-Louis Bruguière indicted eight associates of Rwandan president Paul Kagame on November 17, 2006. President Kagame himself was not indicted, as he had immunity under French law as a head of state. Kagame denied the allegations, decrying them as politically motivated, and broke diplomatic relationships with France in November 2006. He then ordered the formation of a commission of his own Rwandan Justice Ministry's employees that was officially "charged with assembling proof of the involvement of France in the genocide" The political character of that investigation was in turn further averred when the commission issued its report solely to Kagame - symbolically on November 17, 2007, exactly one year after Bruguière's announcement - and the head of the Rwandan commission, Jean de Dieu Mucyo, stated that the commission would now "wait for President Kagame to declare whether the inquiry was valid." In July 2008, Kagame threatened to indict French nationals over the genocide if European courts did not withdraw arrest warrants issued against Rwandan officials, which by then included broader indictments against 40 Rwandan army officers by Spanish judge Fernando Andreu. Findings of the commission were released at Kagame's order on August 5, 2008 and accused the French government of knowing of preparations for the genocide and helping to train the ethnic Hutu militia members; named 33 senior French military and political officials of involvement in the genocide, including then-President Mitterrand and his then general secretary Hubert Védrine, then-Prime Minister Edouard Balladur, then-Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, and his chief aide at the time, Dominique de Villepin. A statement accompanying the release claimed that "French soldiers themselves directly were involved in assassinations of Tutsis and Hutus accused of hiding Tutsis... French forces committed several rapes on Tutsi survivors", though the latter was not documented in the report. A BBC report commented that French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, denied French responsibility in connection with the genocide but said that political errors had been made.

The suspicions about United Nations and French policies in Rwanda between 1990 and 1994 and allegations that France supported the Hutus led to the creation of a French Parliamentary Commission on Rwanda, which published its report on December 15, 1998. In particular, François-Xavier Verschave, former president of the French NGO Survie, which accused the French army of protecting the Hutus during the genocide, was instrumental in establishing this Parliamentary commission. The commission released its final report on December 15, 1998. It documented ambiguities and confusion in both the French and UN responses. Regarding Operation Turquoise, it regretted that the intervention took place too late, though it noted that this was better than the non-response from the UN and the opposition by the U.S. and U.K. governments to such a response. The Parliamentary Commission did not find any evidence of French participation in the genocide, of collaboration with the militias, or of willful disengagement from endangered populations, to the contrary. It documented multiple French operations, all at least partly successful, to disable genocide-inciting radio broadcasts, tasks which the UN and the United States had rejected calls for assistance with. The report concluded that there had been errors of judgment pertaining to the Rwanda Armed Forces, but before the genocide only; further errors of judgment about the scale of the threat, at the onset of the genocide; over-reliance on the UNIMAR mission without awareness that it would be undercut by the United States and other parties; and ineffective diplomacy. Ultimately, it concluded that France had been the foreign power most involved in limiting the scale of the genocide once it got started, though it regretted that more had not been done. In 2010, French President Nicolas Sarkozy acknowledged that France made "mistakes" during the genocide, but did not offer an apology.

Approximately two million Hutus, participants in the genocide, and the bystanders, with anticipation of Tutsi retaliation, fled from Rwanda, to Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda, and for the most part Zaire. Thousands of them died in epidemics of diseases common to the squalor of refugee camps, such as cholera and dysentery. The United States staged the Operation Support Hope airlift from July to September 1994 to stabilize the situation in the camps.

After the victory of the RPF, the size of UNAMIR (henceforth called UNAMIR 2) was increased to its full strength, remaining in Rwanda until March 8, 1996.

In October 1996, an uprising by the ethnic Tutsi Banyamulenge people in eastern Zaire marked the beginning of the First Congo War, and led to a return of more than 600,000 to Rwanda during the last two weeks of November. This massive repatriation was followed at the end of December 1996 by the return of 500,000 more from Tanzania after they were ejected by the Tanzanian government. Various successor organizations to the Hutu militants operated in eastern DR Congo until May 22, 2009.

British Law: Omission - Assess the truth of this statement by reference to situations where a failure to act may result in criminal liability.

Here is another essay on Omission, quite similar to the last one

Robyn, UK

‘In general, the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose criminal liability for an omission. However, there are justifiable exceptions to this general principle.’

Assess the truth of this statement by reference to situations where a failure to act may result in criminal liability.

Criminal liability in criminal law accepts that a person must commit an unlawful act with mens rea. However criminal law accepts that in certain circumstances a person who fails to act where there is a duty of care and does something negligently can also be liable. This called omission.

Some countries have a good Samaritan law which means that all citizens have a duty to help one another in emergency situations. However British judges do not like this because it implies that the defendant ought to have acted and to impose a duty is to strike at the defendant’s freedom. Instead judges and parliament have established duties of care through common law and statutes.

An example of statutory duty comes from the Children and Young Persons Act 1991 which states that parents have a duty towards their children. Before the 1991 act the case of Gibbins and Proctor established that there is a duty of care where there is a relationship. This case is an example of the parent-child relationship as the defendants failure to feed his daughter was enough for the actus reus of murder.

Pittwood illustrates a contractual duty as the defendant, who was a railway keeper omitted to shut the gares and was found guilty of the manslaughter of a person hit and killed by a train.

There can also be a duty through ones official position. This is rare but occurred in Dytham where a police officer saw a man being beaten up and did nothing to help. He was found guilty of neglecting to perform his duty.

The defendant can also be liable where the duty was undertaken voluntarily. In Stone and Dobinson, Dobinson had voluntarily undertaken to look after Stone’s elderly sister and so was found guilty of her manslaughter when she died from malnutrition. The Court of Appeal said that by taking her into their home they had agreed to take care of her.

Lastly, there is a duty where the defendant set in motion a chain of events. This was created by Miller where the defendants mattress caught fire and the defendant did nothing. The house caught fire and the defendant was convicted of arson as he knew that there was a dangerous situation but failed to take any steps to deal with it.

However it can be difficult to decide when a duty of care exists. It is normally he judge who determines whether there is a duty of care and the jury decides if there is a duty of care and if that duty has been breached. This means that the law is capable of expanding to cover more situations, as stated obiter in Khan and Khan where the defendant had supplied heroin to a new user who took it in their presence and collapsed. The defendant left her alone and by the time they returned to the flat she had died. However this can be seen to make the law uncertain.

Secondly, it can seem harsh that someone who accepts an adult into their home has assumed a duty towards them as adults are generally considered to be responsible for their own life. The argument for this is that if the adult is vulnerable then the adult taking care of them is in the best position to ensure potential harm is avoided. This duty can be fulfilled simply by summoning help and the defendants in Stone and Dobinson were found guilty because they failed to do so.

Lastly, many statutes impose duties and many of the laws in this area have strict liability. The justification for this is that it is for the greater good of society. One example is the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act which makes all household members liable for failure to protect a child. This makes it easier to succeed in prosecution with is important because the law should provide children and vulnerable adults with as much protection as possible.

British Law: Omission - Assess the truth of this statement by reference to situations where a failure to act may result in criminal liability

This is another essay that I wrote while revising for my January Law exam. It is on omission, another part of criminal law. (I shall leave my essay to explain what it is!)

Robyn, UK

In general, the criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but does not impose criminal liability for an omission. However, there are justifiable exceptions to this general principle.

Assess the truth of this statement by reference to situations where a failure to act may result in criminal liability

Criminal liability in criminal law accepts that a person must commit an unlawful act with mens rea. However criminal law accepts that in certain circumstances a person who fails to act where there is a legal duty of care and does something negligently can also be liable. This is called omission.

Some countries have a Good Samaritan law which means that all citizens have a duty to help one another in emergency situations. However British judges do not like this because it implies that the defendant ought to have acted and to impose a duty is to strike at the defendant’s freedom. Instead judges and parliament have established some legal duties of care in certain types of relationships through common law and statutes.

An example of statutory duty which the courts applied comes from the Children and Young Persons Act 1991 which states that parents have a legal duty of care towards their children, to feed and cloth them. Before the 1991 act the case of Gibbins and Proctor established that there is a duty of care where there is a relationship. This case is an example of the parent-child relationship as the defendant’s failure to feed his daughter was enough for the criminal liability for the actus reus of murder.

Other cases in which he common law judges have created some legal duties include the case of Pitwood, which illustrates a contractual duty. The defendant was a railway keeper who omitted to shut the gates and was found guilty of the manslaughter when a person was hit and killed by a train. The court held that because of the nature of his job, his duty was not only towards his employer but to others who used the gate.

There can also be a duty through ones official position. This is rare but occurred in Dytham where a police officer saw a man being beaten up and did nothing to help. He was found guilty of neglecting to perform his duty.

The defendant can also be liable where the duty was undertaken voluntarily. In Stone and Dobinson, Dobinson had voluntarily undertaken to look after Stone’s elderly sister and so was found guilty of her manslaughter when she died from malnutrition. The Court of Appeal said that by taking her into their home they had agreed to take care of her.

Lastly, there is a duty where the defendant set in motion a chain of events. This was created by Miller where the defendants mattress caught fire and the defendant did nothing. The house caught fire and the defendant was convicted of arson as he knew there was a dangerous situation but failed to take any steps to deal with it.

However it can be difficult to decide when a duty of care exists. It is normally the judge who determines whether there is a duty of care and the jury decide if there is a duty of care and if that duty has been breached. This means that the law is capable of expanding to cover more situations as stated obiter in Khan and Khan where the defendant had supplied heroin to a new user who took it in their presence and collapsed. The defendants left her alone and by the time they returned to the flat she had died. However this can be seen to make the law uncertain.

Secondly, it can seem harsh that someone who accepts an adult into their home has assumed a duty towards them as adults are generally considered to be responsible for their own life. The argument for this is that if the adult is vulnerable then the adult taking care of them is in the best position to ensure potential harm is avoided. This duty can be fulfilled simply by summoning help and the defendants in Stone and Dobinson were found guilty because they failed to do so.

Lastly many statutes impose duties and many of the laws in this area create strict liability offences. The justification for this is that it is for the greater good of society. One example is the Domestic violence, Crime and Victims act which makes all household members liable for failure to protect a child. This makes it easier to succeed in prosecution which is important because the law should provide children and vulnerable adults with as much protection as possible.

Democracy in action: Question Time

In the years since it was first broadcast on 25 September 1979, Question Time has become something of a national institution, offering British voters a unique opportunity to quiz top decision-makers on the events of the day.

The panels are drawn from significant figures in politics as well as industry, the media and entertainment.

But at the heart of Question Time is the audience - both in the studio and at home.

The programme is recorded in front of a live audience from around 2030 each Thursday.

The recording is done in a single take, precisely as if it were broadcast live. Some exchanges occasionally have to be edited out for legal or taste/decency reasons.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/about_the_show/default.stm)

Question time is the public's opportunity to question politicians on their actions and their views on current issues within the UK. It is one of the few ways that the public can directly speak to politicians and is a very often effective debate. The clips below demonstrate some of the topics that have come up in question time. The first video is from arguably the most famous episode of Question Time, with BNP leader Nick Griffin. To read more about the BNP click here. The second video is talking about the recession and the banks bonuses. The third video is about the MPs expenses and second homes. The fourth video discusses Sarah Palin. The fifth video is about the torture of suspected terrorists.

Do you have question time in your country? Do you think it is an effective programme? Leave a comment and let us know!

How to make your voice heard 101

This fantastic video was posted on http://blogs.cqpolitics.com by Craig Crawford. It does talk in terms of contacting in the US but the tips are definitely usable in other countries.

Power List 2010: Britain's 100 most influential black people

After recently reading the Power List, I felt so inspired by the men and women inside it that I had to mention them in here. Obviously I cannot write out what the list says about each of them because that would be plagiarism but I will list them below with what they do and leave it to you to research who they are! (the names are not listed in any particular order)

I would highly recommend purchasing the power list (link to do so is at the bottom) as well as information on all of the people who have made it into the list, there are fascinating interviews with some of the people, articles and other lists for example the 25 most influential African Americans. It truly is a great read and extremely inspiring.

The Selection Panel

Baroness Amos of Brondesbury, British High Commissioner to Australia

Carol Lake, managing director: head of philanthropy, sponsorship and diversity EMEA at JPMorgan

Kwame Kwei-Armah is a renowned actor and playwright

Annmarie Dixon-Barrow runs a head-hunting agency specialising in sourcing diverse candidates.

Michael J Prest, former barrister that heads Petrodel Resources Ltd, a family company that is one of the largest independent energy investment groups in sub-Saharan Africa.

The Arts, Fashion and Design

Benjamin Zephaniah, poet

Tandy Anderson, co-founder and chief executive, Select Models

Ozwald Boateng, fashion designer

Edward Enninful, fashion designer, i-D magazine

Sokari Douglas Camp, sculptor

Ekow Eshun, artistic director, the institute of Contemporary Arts

Steve McQueen, artist/director

Aicha McKenzie, founder/director, AMCK Management

Jourdan Dunn, model

Kenneth Olumuyiwa Tharp, chief executive, The Place

Lady Sue Woodford-Hollick, chair, Arts Council England, London

Althea Efunshile, executive director, arts planning and investment, Arts Council England

Pat McGrath, Global cosmetics creative design director, Proctor & Gamble

Shirley Thompson, composer

Andrew Ramroop, proprietor, Maurice Sedwell

Stephen Wiltshire, artist

Elsie Owusu, architect

David Adjaye, architect

Business, Finance & Information Technology

Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones, farmer/Conservative parliamentary candidate

Alexander Amosu, founder and CEO, Amosu Luxury Ltd

Abib Bocresion, global head of complex interest rate derivatives trading, JPMorgan

Rene Carayol, business guru

Tim Campbell, founder, Bright Ideas Trust

Trevor Williams, chief economist at Lloyds TSB

India Gary-Martin, global head of equities integration, RBS global banking & markets

Patrick Clarke, director of connections, EDF Energy

Tom Ilube, CEO, Garlik

Anne Gates, executive vice president and managing director, Disney consumer products Europe and energing markets

Ric Lewis, chief executive and chairman, Tristan Capital Partners

Daniel Taylor, founder and MD, Metro Design Consultants

Karen Blackett, chief operations director, Mediacon

Piers Linney, director, outsourcery

Dambisa Moyo, best-selling author

Levi Roots, proprietor, Reggae Reggae Sauce

Wol Kolade, managing partner, ISIS Equity Partners

Phil Walker, senior vice-president, Capgemini Consulting

Media, Publishing and Entertainment

Ellah Allfrey, deputy editor, Granta

Sonita Alleyne, co-founder and chief executive, Somethin' Else

Robert Beckford, educator, author and broadcaster

Abigail Blackburn, editor, Now magazine

Patrick Younge, chief creative officer, BBC Vision Productions

Kanya King, founder, CEO of MOBO (Music of Black Origin Awards)

Claudine Moore, CEO, C. Moore Media

Malorie Blackman, author

Darcus Beese, co-president, Island Records

Peter Casely-Hayford, managing director Twenty Twenty Television

Noel Clarke, actor, director, screenwriter

Annette Thomas, chief executive Macmillan

Michelle Ogundehin, editor-in-chief, Elle Decoration, Real Homes, Elle Decoration Collections

Heather Rabbatts, non-executive chair, Shed Media

Penny McDonald, managing director, The Outside Organisation

Oona King, head of diversity, Channel 4

Politics, Law and Religion

Justice Dobbs QC, High court judge

Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North & Stoke Newington

Daniel Alexander QC, barrister

Dawn Butler, MP for Brent South and assistant whip for the Labour party

Matthew Ashimolowo, senior pastor, Kingsway International Christian Centre

David Lammy, MP, under-secretary of state for innovation, universities and skills

Courtenay Griffiths QC, barrister

Oba Nsugbe QC, SAN (Senior Advocate Nigeria)

Sharifa Faure, head of buisness and legal affairs, MTV networks international, Emerging Markets

Fidelis Oditah QC, SAN

Adam Afriyie, MP, Shadow minister for innovation, universities and skills

Carmel Jones, founder and director, Pentecostal Credit Union

Trevor James, managing partner, Morrison and Foerster

Margaret Casely-Hayford, director of legal services, John Lewis Partnership

Public Sector and Third Sector

Mike Fuller, chief constable, Kent Police

Seyi Obakin, chief executive Centrepoint Soho Ltd

Tunde Banjoko, founder & chief executive, Local Employment Access Projects (LEAP)

Joe Montgomery, director general, Regions & Communities

Doreen Lawrence, social justice campaigner

Sharon White, director general and chief executive, Office for Criminal Justice Reform

Roger Lynch, founder & chief executive, Robust Training/Ruskin Private Hire

Sarah Ebanja, Deputy chief executive and group director of Strategies, Equalities & Performance, London Development Agency

Jean Tomlin, director, human resources, Locog

Trevor Phillips, chair, commission for Equality and Human Rights

Lord Victor Adebowale, chief executive, Turning Point

Science, Medicine & Engineering

David Waboso, director of engineering, London Underground

Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock, space scientist

Dr Yvonne Greenstreet, senior vice president (chief of strategy, R&D) GlaxoSmithKline

Michael Parker, chairman, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Professor Cynthia Pine, executive dean, faculty of Health & Social Care, Salford University

Laverne Antrobus, consultant child and educational psychologist

Nelson Ogunshakin, chief executive Association for Consultancy & Engineering

Sport

Lewis Hamilton, Formula 1 world champion

Chris Powell, chairman, Professional Footballer's Association and player, Leicester City FC

Luol Deng, basketball player, Chicago Bulls and Great Britain

Bobby Barnes, deputy chief executive, Professional Football Association

Hope Powell, head coach, England Women International football team

Garth Crooks, broadcaster and sports policy advisor

Top Ten

10. Tsega Gebreyes, founding partner and CEO, Satya Capital Limited

9. Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York

8. Vivian Hunt, director, Mckinsey & Co

7. Claire Ighodaro, independent director and trustee

6. Trevor Faure, global general counsel and partner, Ernst & Young

5. Ken Olisa, chair, Restoration Partners: non-exec director Thomson Reuters: non-exec director ENRC

4. Damon Buffini, chairman, Permira

3. Dr Mo Ibrahim, founder and chairman, Mo Ibrahim Foundation

2. Tidjane Thiam, chief executive, Prudential

1. Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal QC, Attorney General

You can purchase the power list as well as other inspiring publications here:

http://www.powerful-media.com/

Tower Block of Commons: Episode 3

In this episode the MPs stay with people who need their help to discover how much power an MP really has.

Nadine Dorries is staying with 69 year old widow Ruth. When asked whether she likes her area, she says she used to but not any more. There used to be a British Legion across the road but "somehow the Somalians bought it and turned it into a mosque". Ruth is frustrated by them parking on double yellow lines and praying on the pavement, so people cannot use it and, as Nadine put it, "the laws that everyone else has to abide by are not being adhered to". Nadine puts on a headscarf and Muslim dress, then goes to speak to the Imam to talk about the problems with obstructing the footpath and parking on the double yellow lines. Despite the Imam defending that they are on their land, Dorries says "tensions begin when one particular group or another feel that they can behave differently or not adhere to the laws that other people have to adhere to." Clearly insulted, the Imam tells Dorries of all the work they have done for the community, such as clearing out the heroin needles and stopping the drug addicts from using the building. Later that night Dorries says "I do want to make people's lives better and when you come face to face with what you do... I've realised that quite often what politicians do is make people's lives worse". The next day Dorries finds out how resentful some of the residents are towards the new Mosque and comes up with the idea of having a barbecue to get the two communities to mix together and talk. Ruth however doesn't think she'll "get much support". Dorries then goes to speak to the Imam, who is very unhappy to see her saying he didn't want to see her again and "was very hurt" by her "tarnishing the building making it feel like we're some suicide bombers" and forgetting all that they have done for the community. Nadine tries goes to other members of the Mosque to get support and finds Anab, who insists that to be with the Somalian community that Nadine needs to get a Somalian outfit. Once wearing the full dress, Nadine says "it feels nothing like me, it feels like a different person". As the barbecue is about to begin, Nadine realises that at the moment only the Somalian community have come and is worried that no one from the estate will join them. She says that "It just dawned me... that I may have made things worse" as if only the Mosque community turns up, things may get worse. Fortunately, Ruth arrives and so do some more eventually and the 2 communities begin to talk. The Imam comes down to see what is happening and admits he is "a little bit impressed". As they talk they discuss the problems and begin to work on building relationships and a better merge of their two communities. Later on, Ruth tells Dorries that "its been lovely having you here, i've really enjoyed it and the things that you've done I think are magnificent".

Austin Mitchell is staying with Lindsey, a volunteer at the last youth centre on the estate called The Chill Out that is in danger of closing down from lack of funding. It provided a safe haven for young people on the estate and rans classes on everything from how to write a CV to putting on a condom under the influence of drink and drugs. Lindsey says that without the club there is a very bleak outlook for the kids and "to have a bleak outlook at 15 is just sad". Austin speaks to one of the youths, asking what it does for him and he said it "keeps us out of trouble, helps us look for a job and is everything we need really. Without this place we're nothing". When the youths ask Mitchell if he can help, he says "there's nothing I can do, it's not my constituency". Unhappy with this response, one of them replies "so just because it isn't your area you aren't going to do anything". Mitchell then goes on the defence saying "you can't turn to me, you've got to help yourselves". When Mitchell asked the youths what they would do went it closed down, they replied "go back to a life of crime". Everyone wants the club to stay open: the youths, the volunteers and the parents. One parent shows Mitchell a used heroin needle she picked up from outside and says "once my daughter came home with one of them in my mouth, she was in hospital every week for blood tests". When the Chill Out closes completely, Austin discusses what he can do with his wife saying "its a serious question, what does a politician do for people, what do government do for people. That's a real problem." The next day Austin tries making calls to reopen the youth club by publicising it and getting public opinion to pressure the council to give them funding. Austin also joins local young offenders on community service, picking up rubbish. He speaks to one of the offenders who is doing community payback for a crime he committed before joining the Chill Out centre and says that now it is closed, he has nowhere to go. If he had somewhere to go, he would be less likely to offend because he would have something to do. Mitchell said he "never realised it was so simple...thought it was giving playstations and such but actually it’s just a roof with a meeting place to sit and talk”. Mitchell's phonecalls and emails have paid off as news of The Chill Outs closure will be broadcast on local television. Mitchell admitted that “politics is a matter of priorities and unless a problem is... kicking you up the backside its gets postponed and gets ignored”.

Tim Loughton is staying with Adrian who hates the estate saying that there is no safety and he once had a knife put against him in the stairway when he was coming home and there are always people doing drugs. He keeps a large stick in every room for safety. Loughton tries to find out more about the gang violence in his area and finds an organisation called Families for Peace, dedicated to raising awareness of the effect gang violence has on families. Tim met Debbie, whose nephew Aaron was shot outside her house in 2005 and is now stuck reliving the memory. He also spoke to Aaron's father, who showed him the box with Aaron's ashes in it. When talking about the experience later "no one except a robot could have had that experience and not have been moved". Families for Peace put Tim in touch with Jason, an ex-gang member who served 2 years in prison for drug related offences and when he was released found many of his friends had been murdered. He now works for Young Disciples, an organisation that attempts to give youngsters an alternative to gang life. Tim wants to talk to someone of the youths themselves, but the difficulty is finding ones that are willing to be identified. They eventually manage to speak to one boy who keeps his hood up and face down the entire time so his face cannot be seen. Tim asks the youth to explain postcode wars to him. Postcode wars are when groups of people fight one another because of the different areas that they live in. Tim tried to get an explanation as to why this happens, but the youth couldn't give one, only able to say that "you've got to stay loyal" and “you’ve got to protect your turf”. The youth admits that he doesn't feel safe but says that "there's no point in living in fear all your life. You just get over it and do what you've got to do." When asked how to fix the problem, he replied "just give us something to do". After the interview, Tim said he had never before realised "the pointlessness of it all" and called it a "sobering" experience. It makes you "appreciate what you've got and what you've come from" and "you value life more when you speak to people who lost it and who wont have the chance to go back and regain it". The next day Tim goes to speak to more youths to try and find up what they would like to see happen. The suggestion of football arises and Loughton asks about setting up a football tournament between them and the police. Jason takes Tim to see the Young Disciples facilities and on talking to one youth, finds out that the organisation keeps him out of trouble and if it wasn't there, he would be back out on the streets. Later that night, Tim's host Adrian says that he thinks Tim's exploration of the gang culture has really "opened his eyes" and even "shocked him a little bit".

Mark Oaten is staying with civil partners Mark and Alan in their flood damaged flat. Mark Oaten's campaign from the first episode has continued and in fact grown as he has gotten all of his hosts, Cathy, Sloane and now Mark and Alan interested and involved. He puts up signs for a meeting for residents in the evening but then finds out that the council has come and taken them down. A furious Oaten said “it’s like they’re saying we don’t want you to talk together because when you talk together you might get dangerous”. He doesn't give up however, and puts his leaflets through peoples letterboxes instead. Nervous about whether anyone shows up to his meeting, Oaten is excited to find nearly 30 people have shown up and to hear that more people will be coming. Oaten is keen to hand over the campaign to the residents so they can do it when he has left. The meeting begins with the residents voicing their anger about the housing and then begin discussing how to get their voices heard. The meeting attracted the attention of a BNP local councillor who began to give a speech on the horrible mistakes of Labour and basically use their meeting as an opportunity to promote the BNP. He doesn't get to speak for long, however, as Sloane interrupts him saying that "we're trying to get everyone in a positive notion here and you're just negative, negative". The other residents then join in, with one saying she "refuses to listen to the BNP" and that this "is not a party political broadcast". The BNP councillor continues his anti-Labour rant and the residents begin yelling abuse at him, almost leading to a fight. However, he eventually leaves and they get things back into control and focus on becoming active. The next day while Sloane and fellow resident Candy are making posters, a number of police cars and vans pull up to the estate and go inside. They were called to the estate after a fight between 2 families became violent. The trouble was sparked after allegations that a child was hit. Oaten says he has "never seen anything like this before but it must be bread and butter to these guys". Standing with some children, he asks how often this happens, to be told "about 3 times a month" and then begins to comfort one little girl who was scared and began crying. Afterwards Oaten said "kids shouldn't have to see that". Later that night, Oaten says "I couldn't live here."

The last episode sees the MPs prepare to say goodbye. Find out tomorrow whether they have managed to really learn anything from their week in the tower blocks!

Click here to read about episode 1

Click here to read about episode 2

Click here to read about episode 4

The Iraq Inquiry in the UK

On the 15th June 2009 the Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that there would be an inquiry to “identify lessons that can be learned from the Iraq conflict”. The inquiry was officially launched on 30th July 2009. At the launch, the chairman of the inquiry Sir John Chilcot said that the inquiry “will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country."

This inquiry highlights the British public’s displeasure at the decision to go to war in Iraq and seems to be our chance to point the blame and dish out the punishments. In 2009, six out of ten people thought that UK troops shouldn’t have gone to Iraq. “This [inquiry] is our chance to get justice for all those poor soldiers that died in a war that shouldn’t have happened” said one member of the public. In 2003, 46,000 British army personnel were sent to Iraq. Iraqi Mohammed Nayyef, 19, said that many soldiers “were really trying to help and they are friendly but some were terrified in Iraq”. 179 British service personnel were killed between 2003 and 2009.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians also died over the same period. Nayyef, who lives in the capital city Baghdad, says that seeing all of the dead bodies “gives you more of a sense for life and flavours it with a bit of sadness”. The majority of deaths have been caused by a high number of suicide bombers in the cities. The most recent event at writing was five days ago; a car bomb that killed eleven and hurt twenty in the city of Ramadi. Fifteen days before that, at least twenty pilgrims were killed on their way to a religious festival in a suicide attack in the city of Karbala and two days before that a female suicide bomber killed at least 41 people and injured over 100. In the Iraqi population it would be difficult to find someone who hasn’t lost a friend or relative and near on impossible to find someone in the cities that hasn’t seen a dead body.

The justifications for the Iraq war began 11 months before, when then Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons that "Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked. He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop these weapons, a threat to us also." Later that year, Blair made the infamous claim that “Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes." This 45 minute claim became controversial after months of searching for weapons in Iraq were unsuccessful and people began to question whether there were actually any WMD (weapons of mass destruction). Two years later during a different inquiry over the war, Blair said “it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy."

A few months later, Blair changed his position and gave the justification for the war being to end Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq: “The world is a better place with Saddam in prison not in power." Saddam Hussein was President of Iraq for over 20 years and was known for being “the most hated Arab leader”. According to an exiled Iraqi diplomat, "Saddam is a dictator who is ready to sacrifice his country, just so long as he can remain on his throne in Baghdad." When he came into power, Hussein started as he meant to go on by putting to death dozens of his rivals. In the years of his regime, Baghdad authorities tortured and killed opponents of the regime. When asked if this was true, Saddam responded “Of course. What do you expect if they oppose the regime?” Saddam imposed his authority through a terror which went far beyond the arrest and execution of opponents. He used chemical weapons on the Kurdish people of Iraq and put down a Shi’ia rebellion by flattening entire towns and draining the marshlands of water. After running away when the war began, Saddam Hussein was found in the cellar of a farmhouse near his hometown of Tikrit on 14th December 2003. On 5th November 2006 he was found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death by hanging, which took place on December 30th 2006. Nayyef says that “greater good was made” as although “[the war] needed lots of sacrifice, that war was needed. People were suffering more from Saddam.”

If it had been shown that there were no WMD in 2004 and Saddam Hussein was executed in 2006, why did the UK only end combat operations in Iraq on April 30th 2009? While there are many conspiracy theories related to ex- US President George Bush wanting to use Iraq’s rich oil resource, in 2006 Blair said that this war was part of a wider global struggle between “democracy and violence” and enhanced the ideas of making Iraq a democratic country. However it has come out in the Iraq inquiry that there was a serious lack of planning for what would happen in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. Thousands of Iraqis died in the months after the invasion as law and order broke down in many parts of the country. Although US officials listened to UK ideas about post-war planning, their input was largely ignored. A Foreign Office official said that “[US officials] had a touching faith that...everybody would be grateful and dancing in the streets and there would be really be no further difficulty. And then the Iraqis would somehow magically take over and restore their state to the democratic state it should be in.” Despite this, Nayyef says many positive things have come out of the war “like freedom and the Iraqis are starting to breathe again. Kids grow up without fears of the future like before” however he admits that there are still many problems with “war destruction, lack of security and terrorism. But Iraq is recovering now”.

It is clear that many mistakes were made with this war and “lessons” certainly do need to be learnt, but is this “shoulda, woulda, coulda” attitude really going to improve things? On a political level, it is important to make sure that no future Prime Minister can ever send the UK to war when so many people are against it. But what about on a social level? What about the people of Iraq? When asked about teenage life in Iraq Nayyef, who is a first year medical student at the medical school of Baghdad, said “being a teenager is a very hard thing in normal situations, so imagine how it is here. Teens can lose faith very easily and grow up in despair. It’s harder here to raise a child because the environment is altered in many ways but we can also say that it’s getting better. Everyday life is getting normal and that’s good!” Surely now our focus should be on the people of Iraq, in particular the youth who deserve, after years of terror and turmoil, an opportunity to grow up in a peaceful society. It’s time to give the Iraqi youths a world where their biggest worry is not whether they will live to see tomorrow, but whether their hair looks OK.

What do you think about the Iraq Inquiry? What do you think about the Iraq War? Are you living in Iraq? Do you know any soldiers in Iraq? Leave a comment and let us know!

South Africa Apartheid

Question:

Describe a contemporary international event, current event, or global issue, and discuss why you feel this event was important.

An international event that I think is important is the apartheid conflict in South Africa. The apartheid conflict has attracted viewers from all over the world. The actions that political leaders seem to have taken made this a crime against humanity. The crime that I am speaking of is the segregation of races in South Africa. This action was known as the apartheid laws.

The apartheid laws were laws that restricted blacks and colored people form interacting with whites. These laws were very similar to America’s segregation laws but on a different scale. The whites in power systemically controlled blacks. For example, blacks were educated to take employment in technical areas such as mechanics or construction. This perpetuated the idea of blacks being ignorant and incompetent, only a few blacks were achieved professional status, in doing so the blacks had to attend a black university.

Racist ideologies were portrayed throughout this time period which kept blacks virtually non-existent. During the apartheid, there were 19million blacks and 4.5million whites. The logical idea would be to have placed the blacks on the most land since they occupy the most percentage of people. Instead the whites occupied 87% of South Africa land while the blacks occupied 13% of the land. As you can see the land allocation is not properly proportioned. This move put blacks at the end of the end of the social and economic ladder.

This is considered an international event because it brought back ideals that the rest of the world thought had been eradicated. It has been established that one group of people should not be oppressed because they do not fit the criteria of other people. Due to globalization the world has become a more tolerant and accepting place. We promote the idea of diversity which is what makes the apartheid so horrifying. It was almost like a second age segregation act except it was in South Africa.

In conclusion, the apartheid was an international conflict since it attracted people from all over the world. During this period the whites systemically controlled blacks through economic, educational, and social laws. Also during this period that apartheid placed blacks who seemed to be low class on the lowest amount of land available. This is type of treatment that leads to this being a crime against humanity. Now during this new age of diversity and globalization all people have the right to life, liberty, and property.

Cortez A., U.S.

What do you think about the apartheid? Do you agree with Cortez? What contemporary event or global issue do you think is important?