Category: human rights

UN report on the killing of Khashoggi: Saudi Crown Prince among those implicated

June 21, 2019 • 12:15 pm

The UN report about the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi (murdered in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul), prepared by the Special Rapporteur to the UN’s Human Rights Council, is now online. You can see it by clicking on the screenshot below, where you can also download a Microsoft Word version.

 

The report considers the killing an an “extrajudicial killing for which the State of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is responsible. His attempted kidnapping would also constitute a violation under international human rights law.”

I haven’t read the report in detail, but have looked it over, and it’s an extraordinarily thorough reconstruction of how Khashoggi was murdered (anesthetized or injected and then dismembered, presumably after death), partly based on recordings from inside the consulate. The comings and goings of the entire “murder team”, as well the departure of the van presumably containing Khashoggi’s plastic wrapped body, are documented in detail. The conclusion is that there is no way this could have been prepared and carried out without approval at the highest levels of the Saudi government.

The smoking gun for many people will be the report’s clear conclusion that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman was involved. This is from the executive summary (my emphasis):

State Responsibilities

  1. Khashoggi’s killing constituted an extrajudicial killing for which the State of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is responsible. His attempted kidnapping would also constitute a violation under international human rights law. From the perspective of international human rights law, State responsibility is not a question of, for example, which of the State officials ordered Mr. Khashoggi’s death; whether one or more ordered a kidnapping that was botched and then became an accidental killing; or whether the officers acted on their own initiative or ultra vires.
  2. The killing of Mr. Khashoggi further constituted a violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (thereafter VCCR) and of the prohibition against the extra-territorial use of force in time of peace (customary law and UN Charter). In killing a journalist, the State of Saudi Arabia also committed an act inconsistent with a core tenet of the United Nations, the protection of freedom of expression. As such, it can be credibly argued that it used force extra-territorially in a manner “inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
  3. Further, the circumstances of the killing of Mr. Khashoggi may constitute an act of torture under the terms of the Convention Against Torture, ratified by Saudi Arabia. Finally, the killing of Mr. Khashoggi may also constitute to this date an enforced disappearance since the location of his remains has not been established.

Individual liability

  1. The Special Rapporteur has determined that there is credible evidence, warranting further investigation of high-level Saudi Officials’ individual liability, including the Crown Prince’s. She warns against a disproportionate emphasis on identifying who ordered the crime, pointing out that the search for justice and accountability is not singularly dependent on finding a smoking gun and the person holding it. The search is also, if not primarily, about identifying those who, in the context of the commission of a violation, have abused, or failed to fulfill, the responsibilities of their positions of authority.

If you don’t want to read the report, the New York Times has a good summary of it (click on screenshot below)

The Times report includes these “key takeaways”:

• Saudi officials carried out an extensive cover-up of Mr. Khashoggi’s killing in a Saudi consulate in October, scrubbing down rooms, blocking investigators and possibly burning evidence.

• The destruction of evidence and the active role of the Saudi consul general in organizing the operation in coordination with officials in Riyadh suggest that the killing and cover-up were authorized at the highest levels of the Saudi royal court.

• The report presents a new challenge to President Trump, who has embraced the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed Bin Salman, as a pivotal ally and sought to avoid blaming him for directing the killing.

Two other issues. First, the report calls for criminal investigations by not only the UN (who could have murderers tried at the UN’s International Court of Justice in the Hague), but also by the FBI, since Khashoggi was a permanent resident of the U.S.

And that puts this in the lap of “President” Trump, who has repeatedly waffled verbally about whether the Crown Prince was involved in this matter. He also vetoed an April measure, passed by both the House and the Senate, ending American assistance to Saudi’s war in Yemen as well as curtailing Trump’s war powers. Note, too, that yesterday the Republican-controlled Senate voted to block the sale of billions of dollars of arms to both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a measure Trump has vowed to veto. There are not enough votes in Congress to overturn such a veto.

The rift about Saudi Arabia between a Congress acting for once in a bipartisan manner and “President” Trump is perhaps the clearest “check and balance” we have between the legislative and executive bodies in this administration. Trump will win, because it takes a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress to overturn such a veto, and those votes aren’t there.

But Congress is correct here, and their bipartisanship is rare but refreshing. Trump has a penchant for courting thugs and dictators, and this is but one example. Saudi Arabia has shown itself to be a rogue state, and the U.S. should not be sending it arms, much less giving it any kind of break. Let Trump exercise his veto, and let’s see what kind of excuses the moron makes to let Saudi Arabia off the hook.

h/t: Ken

Asia Bibi’s request for asylum was indeed rejected by Britain

November 24, 2018 • 11:20 am

As I reported in the last few weeks (see here, here, and here), the case of Asia Bibi (real name Aasiya Noreen), the Pakistani Christian woman convicted of blasphemy and then freed, has taken some distressing turns. After spending eight years in solitary confinement for an accusation of blasphemy that proved to be false (blasphemy is a capital crime in her benighted land), Noreen was set free by Pakistan’s Supreme Court. While she was in prison, two Pakistani politicians were assassinated simply for supporting her, and the Supreme Court judges have been threatened similarly.

(From the Spectator) Asia Bibi at a jail in Sheikhupura, located in Pakistan’s Punjab Province, November 20, 2010. (Reuters/Asad Karim/File Photo)

In the meantime, Noreen hasn’t been allowed to leave the country, and has gone into hiding. Distressingly, the Supreme Court is keeping her in Pakistan because they are weighing an appeal from Pakistan’s odious Tehreek-e-Labaaik party, a party dedicated solely to punishing blasphemy and establishing sharia law. But if the Court deemed the charges against Bibi insupportable, there’s no reason to force her to stay in Pakistan. Bibi’s lawyer has fled to the Netherlands, and her husband has pleaded to Canada, Italy, the US, the UK, and the Netherlands to grant her asylum. Here’s a short video showing Noreen’s husband:

As I reported on November 10, there was a report that the UK had refused asylum to Noreen because of the potential unrest it would cause:

Wilson Chowdhry, chairman of the British Pakistani Christian Association, said two countries had made firm offers of asylum, but Britain was not one of them.

“I’ve been lead to believe that the UK government had concerns that her moving to the UK would cause security concerns and unrest among certain sections of the community and would also be a security threat to British embassies abroad which might be targeted by Islamist terrorists.

Several readers, exercising better diligence than I, deemed Cowdhry and the British Pakistani Christian Association shady, and doubted that Britain really would reject such a request for asylum. But now, after a report in Quillette from Hardeep Singh, a Sikh journalist, it seems more likely that my report was true—that the UK did refuse asylum for Noreen. Read the article below (click on screenshot):

In this piece we get two corroborating pieces of evidence that the British government acted reprehensibly by refusing Bibi asylum. First, we have an email to Cowdhry from a government official confirming the report.

Chowdhry has received threats for lobbying for Bibi’s safe passage to the West. He has been accused by hard-line Muslims of making up accounts about the British government’s decision not to grant Bibi asylum, despite having an email from an All Party Parliamentary Group secretary confirming the position.

If you don’t believe Chowdhry, ask to see the email.

Second, we have this letter to Teresa May from May’s now-resigned PM Trade Envoy to Pakistan, which contains a bit about Noreen’s fate:

The relevant bit:

This states clearly that the government is failing to offer help to Noreen. Indeed, if the initial reports were wrong, why hasn’t Britain announced they would give her asylum? The Australian Home minister has said as much, adding that “Britain initially suggested it would offer Bibi asylum but then pulled out, reported for fear of unrest from Muslims in the UK and of threats to diplomats in Pakistan.”

Finally, we have this report from the Guardian:

Tom Tugendhat, the foreign affairs select committee chair, asked the Foreign Office permanent secretary, Sir Simon McDonald, whether the episode “does not raise the question that either staff should be withdrawn or security increased or otherwise UK policy is effectively dictated to by a mob?”.

Tugendhat took the committee into lengthy private session after McDonald said he did not wish to give evidence in public on a such a sensitive issue

McDonald defended Britain’s efforts to find a third country to take Bibi, saying this would allow UK policy objectives to be achieved without any risk to its staff.

That’s just disgusting.

I hope Noreen is allowed to leave the country, for if ever a person deserved asylum as protection against persecution, it is she. And if some country other than Britain gives her asylum, that’s wonderful, but it’s a blot on the British government. That government has been whitewashing Islamist misdeeds for a long time, and it’s time for a supposedly democratic society to step up and act on its principles.

Speaking of “democratic societies”, why hasn’t the U.S. offered her asylum?

h/t: cesar

The new regressive New York Times: op-ed defends Saudi Arabia’s human rights violations against criticism by Canada

August 14, 2018 • 8:45 am

As I reported two days ago, the Canadian government has called out Saudi Arabia for human rights violations, which include imprisoning “blasphemer” Raif Badawi and his activist sister Samur. These violations were initially highlighted by tweets from the Canadian government’s foreign policy site and Canada’s foreign minister, to wit:

The Saudi government, not used to being criticized by other governments for its odious and repressive ways, struck back, recalling its ambassador from Canada, expelling Canada’s ambassador from Riyadh, freezing all new trade agreements with Canada, cutting off aid to Saudi students in Canada, and darkly threatening Canada with images of 9-11 displayed on Saudi state media (these have now been deleted).

But all is not over: the regressive New York Times come to the defense of Saudi Arabia! An op-ed by Ali Shihabi, a Saudi national and founder of the think tank Arabia Foundation, chides Canada for offending Saudi culture and sensibilities. See the apologetics by clicking on the link below:

Shihabi argues along the lines of “it was just a tweet, for crying out loud!” and “you don’t understand how Price Mohammed is trying to reform the country, and can’t be lectured to by foreign powers”.  See for yourself:

This situation must be understood in the context of Saudi and Islamic culture. Any Arab leader, particularly a young one who has recently assumed power in a traditional and mostly tribal society, has to carefully maintain his and his country’s stature and prestige, what classical Muslim scholars called hayba. This refers to the awe and respect that a ruler and his state must command in order to maintain order and stability without having to resort to excessive coercion, and without which there is no basis for legitimate rule.

This means that Prince Mohammed cannot allow himself or his country to be publicly lectured by Western leaders — especially in his own language. This was particularly the case since the Canadian embassy in Riyadh posted the tweet in Arabic, ensuring a wide circulation on local social media. Such perceived blatant interference in Saudi Arabia’s domestic affairs could not go unanswered without damaging the prestige of the state in the eyes of its people.

Interference in Saudi domestic affairs? Well, maybe so, but so is every criticism of human rights violations, including those in Syria and North Korea. I guess Amnesty International should disband. The apologetics go on:

Let’s be clear: This has nothing to do with Prince Mohammed’s status as a reformer. The crown prince’s stated goal is social, economic, and cultural and religious transformation of his kingdom — not political reform. This is a point his Western critics often forget. In fact, to implement the enormous changes he wants, he has felt the need to further limit the margin of free speech in order to control public debate on these reforms and ensure that they do not escalate into civil unrest.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters: the Prince can’t allow free speech because it would cause unrest. And he needs to go slow, because rapid change would give support to Saudi’s religious conservatives.

Yes, women can now drive—a Band-Aid on the gaping wound of female oppression—but the rhetoric here reminds me of what I heard during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. At that time, segregationists and their sympathizers (and even President Lydon Johnson) said the same thing. “We need to go much more slowly; we can’t have rapid change in civil rights. That would only make the segregationists more resistant.” But of course Dr. King and his supporters didn’t go slowly, and things happened quickly.

Further, to claim that the Prince was already implementing these reforms is to claim the unknowable. In light of Saudi Arabia’s continuing human rights violations, it’s not wrong for other countries to criticize Saudi Arabia. After all, people are still being oppressed, killed, and imprisoned for things that aren’t crimes in our lands. We should shut up about that?

Now it’s possible that Shihabi is right in claiming that Saudi citizens might see future reforms as a sign of foreign interference and not necessarily as something coming from their own government. But until reform happens and is public, there is nothing wrong with criticizing the continuing human rights violations in Saudi Arabia. After all, Raif and Samur Badawi remain in prison, women are still under oppressive dress and “guardianship” restrictions, and the Kingdom still cuts off people’s heads and limbs for apostasy, blasphemy, and theft. We are supposed to wait, comforted by these words from a Saudi national?:

Does this mean that the Saudi government didn’t overreact? No. But Western nations have a vested interest in the success of Saudi Arabia’s attempt to transform itself, and so they must understand the political limitations and treacherous risks under which the leadership is attempting to bring about change. Prince Mohammed has every interest in maintaining good relations between his country and the West. The crown prince is very open to Western leaders and is in constant communication with many of them. Feel-good public posturing may play well with liberals in Canada, but quiet diplomacy is far more effective.

And of course there’s all that oil . . .

Remember that, as a Saudi National, Shihabi is more or less forced, if he says anything, to defend his government, lest he never be allowed to go back to his natal country. Now he may really feel this way, but we don’t have to. We should keep criticizing human rights violations in every country until they are corrected, and not rely on the nebulous “promises” of apologists like Shihabi.

Here’s a reaction from Steve Pinker, and I endorse it.

Saudi Arabia, called out for human rights violations, goes after Canada

August 12, 2018 • 12:45 pm

I’m not the world’s biggest fan of Justin Trudeau, though I tend to side with his political positions, but now I must strongly applaud the stand of his government and its ministers in calling out Saudi Arabia’s human rights violations. Referring in particular to Samur Badawi, imprisoned again for fighting for human rights and women’s rights, and including her imprisoned brother Raif Badawi, jailed (and flogged) for apostasy and “insulting Islam”, the Canadian government took a strong (and almost unique) public stand against Saudi Arabia:

This is from Canada’s foreign minister:

I’d rank Saudi Arabia and Syria just slightly above North Korea in the degree to which they violate the human rights of their citizens; all are odious countries and deserve the world’s opprobrium. But of course we need the oil and don’t want to offend monsters like Assad. (North Korea has been criticized, but now Trump is almost praising its leaders.) So kudos to Canada for going public; it’s the right thing to do. And it’s shameful that the U.S. doesn’t have the moxie to join our northern neighbor, but it will be a cold day in August when the Trump administration starts criticizing any country for human rights abuses.

Saudi Arabia, full of hubris, of course got back at Canada, recalling its ambassador, expelling the Canadian ambassador in Riyadh, freezing new trade agreements, and cutting off all scholarships supporting Saudi students in Canada. It also went on a public media campaign:

As Ali Rizvi noted, Saudi Arabia even darkly threatened Canada with this now deleted Twitter statement from Saudi state media.

Now, as described in this National Post article (click on screenshot), Saudi Arabia is going after Canada with a campaign whose theme is “you’re worse than we are.” (Click on screenshot to see the piece.)

Some of Saudi’s accusations have merit: for example, Canada has treated its indigenous people abysmally. But they’re trying now to rectify that. I suppose you could say that Saudis are now allowing women to drive, but overall, and considering women, I think most of us would rather live in Canada than Saudi Arabia. Here are the other accusations that Saudi has leveled against Canada, all of which are discussed and answered by The Post:

  • Jordan Peterson is a “Canadian political prisoner.” That’s insane; he’s free. Raif and Samar Badawi, on the other hand, are political prisoners.  Here I’ll mention the horrible punishments Saudi inflicts on criminals, including beheading and amputation of body parts. You can also be executed for blasphemy, atheism, and adultery in Saudi, but these aren’t even real crimes in Canada.
  • Canada has a lot of homeless people. True, and it could always do better, but Saudi Arabia has even more: one estimate is that it has 83,000 homeless children, as well as arresting beggars and journalists who try to document the Kingdom’s poorer quarters.
  • “Canada is one of the worst oppressors of women.” This is absolutely unbelievable—and laughable. Much of this is based on the reported incidents of domestic abuse and spousal rape in Canada, but those are not crimes in Saudi Arabia. In contrast, women have many more rights in Canada than in Saudi Arabia, including the right to go outside without wearing a sack and the ability to make decisions about travel and employment without consulting a male “guardian.”
  • Racism is rife in Canada.  The support for this, mentioned by a Saudi lobbyist in Washington, is simply that a Canadian woman verbally abused a table full of Afghan men. In contrast, Saudi Arabia goes after its own minorities, including Shia Muslims, and bans the public practice of any religion save Islam. They also use “guest workers” as a form of slavery.
  • Quebec Francophones are an oppressed minority. I’ll let you decide about that. Which would you rather be: a French-speaking Canadian or a Saudi woman?
  • Canada supports international terrorism.  Given Saudi Arabia’s record on this, they should just keep their yap shut. The only evidence given for Canadian support of terrorism is the Saudi claim that by criticizing Saudi Arabia, Canada is supporting terrorists.

Canada is a great country and a good place to live—far, far better on human rights issues than Saudi Arabia, and far better than the U.S. in calling out other countries’ abuse of human rights. We should stand with Canada. I do, but our administration won’t.

Here’s are two video clips that explain and document the new fight between Canada and Saudi Arabia. The “We Will Boycott Tim Horton’s” in the first clip cracks me up.

An eight-minute CBC news report emphasizing the failure of Canada’s allies to join it in condemning Saudi Arabia:

h/t: Nilou

Iran sentences art gallery owners to death

March 22, 2017 • 3:43 pm

By Grania

Although it has been not been reported very widely in the Western press, on March 12th Iran sentenced Iranian-American Karam Vafadari and Afarin Nayssari to death.

They were originally arrested on charges of serving alcohol in their home and hosting mixed-gender parties. Vafadari is Zoroastrian and thus is technically not bound to these Islamic laws. Minority religions in Iran are protected in their Constitution.

Kateh Vafadari, the sister who lives in the USA claims that the case is really about “extortion, property seizure and national security threats“. Former Italian ambassador to Iran, Roberto Toscano, agrees:

“The reason must be a different one…political blackmail toward the US (of which they are also citizens), envy for their success, intimidation toward the Zoroastrian community, desire to grab their properties, [and] repression of contemporary art (the reported destruction of works of art at their home would point in this direction).”

Earlier this month these charges appear to have been changed to now include attempting to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran and recruiting spies. The Center for Human Rights in Iran says these charges are completely without evidence, and notes:

The imprisonment of Vafadari and Nayssari also appears motivated by greed: the Islamic Republic has a long and documented history of unlawfully confiscating private property, especially that belonging to those with whom the authorities do not favor. The family of Vafadari reported continuous calls right after the couple’s arrest demanding money, and noted that the charges brought would allow the seizure of the couple’s extensive properties.

 

FDD’s Senior Iran Analyst Tzvi Kahn agrees:

 

The prognosis is not good. The New York Times notes:

The continued inclusion of Iran among the six predominantly Muslim nations in Mr. Trump’s revised visa ban has only aggravated matters, according to Iranian-American advocates. Iran, which has described the ban as insulting, has retaliated by prohibiting most American visitors.

“The problem is that no one has a clue about Trump administration policy,” said Hadi Ghaemi, the executive director of the Center for Human Rights in Iran. With the American prisoners in Iran, he said, “there is limbo, really.”

 

Hat-tip: Malgorzata

_____________________________

Further reading:

Former Italian Ambassador to Iran Denounces Detention of Iranian-American Dual National and Wife

Grave and Baseless New Charges Against Imprisoned Iranian-American and Wife

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/khan-tzvi-tehran-sentences-iranian-american-to-death/

http://freekaranandafarin.blogspot.ie/2017/03/new-charges-against-karan-vafadari-and.html

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2017/03/_wheres_the_coverage_iran_sent.html

New York Times

The New Yorker

 

The United Nations “Human Rights Council” is a joke

June 18, 2016 • 1:30 pm

Here’s a short but powerful speech (two minutes long) given yesterday before the Human Rights Council at the UN. I have no idea who the passionate young woman is (she appears to represent the UN Watch group), but I know of the three incidents of rape she recounts.

The countries she names are, of course, Muslim-majority countries, with an abysmal record of treating women fairly and equally. Saudi Arabia, among the worst offenders, has a seat on the Council as well as a leadership position on one of its panels. As the Washington Post writes, noting that the U.S. also bears the stain of human-rights violations:

Saudi Arabia had earlier this year sought the leadership slot of the entire Human Rights Council of the U.N., a move that drew criticism given the country’s human rights record. The kingdom routinely comes in at the bottom of Freedom House’s rankings of world freedom.

“Saudi Arabia has arguably the worst record in the world when it comes to religious freedom and women’s rights,” UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer said in a statement. “This UN appointment is like making a pyromaniac into the town fire chief, and underscores the credibility deficit of a human rights council that already counts Russia, Cuba, China, Qatar and Venezuela among its elected members.”

Some observers have questioned why Saudi Arabia has a seat at the 47-member Human Rights Council at all. But many countries on the council have enacted laws that are at odds with the U.N.’s official stances. To take one obvious example, the U.N.’s High Commissioner for Human Rights advocates against capital punishment, saying that “the death penalty has no place in the 21st century.”

But a number of countries on the council, including the U.S., actively sentence people to death and execute them each year. In 2014, council member countries executed at least 139 prisoners, contrary to the commissioner’s stated position. That doesn’t include executions by China, which also sits on the council and where experts agree that annual execution numbers run into the thousands. Exact numbers on capital punishment in China are hard to come by, as official sources are generally seen to be unreliable.

This tw**t was published by The Independent:

And of course it’s barbaric that the U.S. is the only First World country (unless you count Japan) that retains the death penalty. What kind of example is that?

h/t: netmyst

Saudi Arabia sues man who tw**ted that poet’s death sentence was “Isis-like”

November 26, 2015 • 11:30 am

If you’re an American, one thing you can be thankful for today is that you’re not a Saudi. It galls me continuously to realize that this barbaric land, where apostasy, homosexuality, and blasphemy are crimes punishable by death—and death by beheading—is our ally. Obama, of course, refuses to raise his voice against the brutality of this medieval theocracy, for, after all, they’ve got OIL, and claim to be on our side.

So spare a thought today for Ashraf Fayadh, a 35-year-old Palestinian poet (born in Saudi Arabia) who was sentenced to death for these horrific crimes (from Human Rights Watch):

The religious police held him for a day, then released him, but authorities re-arrested him on January 1, 2014. Prosecutors charged him with a host of blasphemy-related charges, including: blaspheming “the divine self” and the Prophet Muhammad; spreading atheism and promoting it among the youth in public places; mocking the verses of God and the prophets; refuting the Quran; denying the day of resurrection; objecting to fate and divine decree; and having an illicit relationship with women and storing their pictures in his phone.

What kind of country kills people for this? A backwards one, one not touched at all by the values of the Enlightenment.

Fayadh denied the charges, and was sentenced to 800 lashes and four years in prison, but the prosecutor appealed. And, although Fayadh repented of some of the accusations, and denied most of the others, another judge said that repentance wasn’t enough and sentenced Fayadh to death. An appeal is pending.

Saudi Arabia has executed 2015 people this year, and the year isn’t over yet. And it doesn’t matter, of course, that Fayadh is formally a Palestinian—in fact, that may be one reason he’s being persecuted. If you blaspheme in Saudi Arabia, you’re subject to its laws.

And, in further proof that the world is becoming complete fodder for The Onion, Newsweek reports that the Saudi government is suing a Twi**er used who called Fayadh’s sentence “ISIS-like”. It’s not yet clear what “suing” means: it may mean a jail sentence, a fine, or both. And here’s how far freedom of speech goes in that nation:

“Questioning the fairness of the courts is to question the justice of the Kingdom and its judicial system based on Islamic law, which guarantees rights and ensures human dignity”, [the newspaper] Al-Riyadh quoted the justice ministry source as saying. The ministry would not hesitate to put on trial “any media that slandered the religious judiciary of the Kingdom,” it said.

You can’t have pictures of women on your cellphone, you can’t leave Islam, you can’t slander the prophet or the Qur’an, you cant “object to fate and divine decree,” and now you can’t even compare the government to ISIS, which is absolutely a fair comparison. Orwell would have a field day were he still alive.

Obama’s busy pardoning turkeys, but he can’t spare a word to speak up against the repeated violations of human rights by one of our “allies.”

11190928_1604519553122521_124686960_n
Ashraf Fayadh

h/t: Grania