Democracy Headlines

Politicians must listen, learn and level with citizens

03 07 2009 FT | Opinion - That democracy is in trouble – in some versions terminal trouble – is now the commonest of ideas among political scientists, coupled with a regret that their warnings have not been attended to, writes John Lloyd

UN chief denied meeting with Suu Kyi

03 07 2009 The Guardian | World news -

Ban Ki-moon told Than Shwe he wants to meet jailed opposition leader during talks The UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said today the leader of the Burmese junta had rejected his initial request to meet jailed opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Ban says he told Senior General Than Shwe during two hours of talks todaythat he wants to meet directly with Suu Kyi. Ban told reporters after the talks that Than's initial response was that Suu Kyi is currently on trial. Ban said he told Than the issue is important and he is "waiting for their reply". If Ban is allowed to meet with her, he will be the first UN secretary general to do so since her first period of detention began in 1989. The UN chief is on what he calls a "tough mission" to press the junta to release Suu Kyi and all political prisoners in the country. Suu Kyi is on trial for violating her lengthy house arrest and could face five years in prison in a trial that has sparked global outrage. Ban earlier said he would "convey the concerns of the international community about the slow pace of political conciliation and democratisation process". Shortly after he arrived in Burma, the court presiding over Suu Kyi's widely criticised trial announced an adjournment until 10 July. The trial had been due to resume today after a month-long delay, with the pro-democracy leader's final defence witness taking the stand. Her lawyers had appealed against the court's decision to ban three witnesses, one of whom was reinstated by an appeals court. The 64-year-old Nobel peace prizewinner is charged with violating the terms of her house arrest when an uninvited American man swam secretly to her lakeside home and stayed for two days. She has pleaded not guilty but faces five years in prison if convicted and is being detained at the notorious Insein prison. The trial has prompted outrage from world leaders, Nobel laureates and human rights groups, who say the junta is using the bizarre incident as an excuse to keep Suu Kyi behind bars through elections scheduled for 2010. She has been in detention for more than 13 of the last 19 years. During his visit, Ban is also expected to meet ethnic minority groups and the leaders of political parties including senior members of Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy. Speaking before the trip, Ban said his talks would also focus on the resumption of dialogue between the military government and its opposition and creating the conditions for credible elections. Aung San Suu Kyi told her lawyers during a two-hour meeting yesterday that national reconciliation was key to solving the country's problems.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Drax protester trial: Lessons from the Great Train Ambush

03 07 2009 The Guardian | Climate change | News -

The hijack of a coal train by climate protesters and their ensuing trial both played out in a uniquely British manner, writes Martin Wainwright It was a lovely sunny morning in perfect English countryside, but somewhere among the fields between the M62 and Drax in North Yorkshire, something extremely atypical of this tranquil landscape was about to happen. I wasn't sure exactly what, but on the empty lanes not long after dawn it was easy to guess that the railway line servicing Drax power station might be in the sights of the climate change campaigners' next rumoured protest. Access isn't easy to the completely rural stretch of track, the sort of winding line which earlier campaigners rhapsodised about when they tried to stop Beeching's 1960s railway cuts. But after several cow-parsley fringed dead ends, I saw a man in a dayglo jacket with a red flag at an isolated level crossing, and in the distance a bridge. One heavily laden procession of coal hoppers had already trundled past, but Drax devours fossil fuel and there were no doubt more on the way. I parked, got out and checked out the supposed Network Rail employee; and he looked, shall we say, just a bit "alternative". I didn't need any hints, but scampered off towards the bridge – the recording I made at the time faithfully reproduces my 58-year-old puffs. Sure enough a second train was creeping up towards the river Aire crossing from the south; and then it stopped. Just as I reached it, and called up to the driver (these freight trains are massive, and I wouldn't have fancied trying to climb aboard), a swarm of people appeared on top of the first two coal hoppers and on the girders of the bridge. Unbeknown to me, a sophisticated operation had swung into action and worked with a precision I have only seen elsewhere by the military. The protesters coordinated their actions using a "wedding code". The train was the "bride" in texts between the various ambushers. They were the "in-laws" and the "priests". Reconnaissance had established the bridge as the perfect place to scale the girders and then drop onboard, then to get out the shovels and start heaving coal on the tracks. As a nervous exponent of the Guardian's new technology, I concentrated on trying to hold my digital camera as steady as possible and remembering to double click the record button on my digital tape recorder. Then I had cheerful conversations with Leeds University lecturer Paul Chatterton, and primary school teacher Grainne Gannon, who was dressed as a coal miner's coalminer's warning canary. Someone then pointed out a distant figure in blue uniform coming down the line from the level crossing where I had parked, and I decided that it was probably best to concentrate on getting my information back to London. For Wi-Fi reasons, that meant finding a McDonald's so off I went, chatting briefly to the police officer and having the satisfaction of using a variant of "they went thattaway", pointing down the line to the train. Listening to the court proceedings has brought it all back, and particularly the good-natured way in which a non-violent but illegal and dramatic act was somehow set in what we like to think of as a traditional British context. The trial was the same; an illogical but friendly compromise reached between the judge and the 22 defendants. They pleaded not guilty to obstructing the train but admitted that they were on it, helping offload the coal. The judge said that court would not accept evidence on climate change, but sat through discussions on polar bears, dinosaurs and Arctic melt, even saying in his summing-up that they were eloquent, sincere, moving and engagingly told. The story obviously doesn't end here. The Great Train Ambush may be an interesting lesson for future generations in how democracy and justice need – and can come to terms with – devices other than votes and debates to progress.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Time for action on climate change | Richard Chartres

03 07 2009 The Guardian | Climate change | News -

Our children will denounce us in years to come if bold and ambitious action isn't taken to protect the planet Two hundred children, a horde of farm animals and a bishop being followed by camera crews and journalists in an ark down the Thames might sound like a media circus. That, of course, is the point. In a loose recreation of the Noah story our ark will be a buzz with enthusiastic, young climate change activists fresh from delivering their own, homemade, ark to the prime minister. Accompanied by the music of a brass quintet, the temporary residents of the ark will join together in song as we sail down to Westminster to encourage the UK government to take a lead in the upcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen. There are many resonances in the imagery of the flood faced by Noah and the challenge human beings face with climate change. Bold and ambitious action must be taken to protect the planet. If we are as a nation going to keep our promises and achieve our pledged reductions in carbon emissions, the action necessary now is likely to be controversial. Operation Noah, the Christian group organising the event, is bringing us together this afternoon to help create a supportive climate of public opinion and to enlarge the political room for manoeuvre. Governments in a democracy cannot move too far beyond public opinion and the experience of previous campaigns like Jubilee 2000 (on developing world debt) suggests that the churches can mobilise a constituency that is passionate about global poverty and the need to tackle common global challenges. The environmental agenda and tackling poverty are interlinked. Climate change obviously poses a considerable threat to the wellbeing of some of the poorest and most vulnerable communities in the world. Both Genesis and Darwin assert that we are participants in a web of life; creatures of star dust not the masters and possessors of the earth. The Bible makes clear that creation care is our responsibility. We are to keep the balance between developing and preserving the earth. Genesis 2 talks symbolically of God putting Adam into the Garden of Eden "to till and to keep the earth". It is essential in the 21st century that humankind learns to recover a sense of balance and rhythm in life. The efforts towards sustainability can bring with it a genuine enlightenment that happiness does not so much come from accumulating things, but rather from our relationships with others and with God. The church has a role to play in this great human challenge, working with allies of all faiths and of none. Over 70% of the population of our country claimed to be Christian for the purposes of the most recent census. Technological developments will be vital in adapting to and mitigating the effects of climate but faith also has a role. At a time when there is so much apocalyptic talk, the Christian way is not so much to get measured for a hair shirt as to get feasting and fasting into balance and to follow the command of Jesus Christ to love our neighbours. In a wired, interconnected world, our neighbours are not only in the same street but in Bangladesh and other vulnerable places as well. Our children will rightly denounce us for failing to take action if we do not rise to the challenge. In boarding the ark, it is important to recognise and welcome the UK government's leadership on climate change to date. The climate change bill was a groundbreaking achievement of non-partisan politics. Copenhagen presents a new and even more important opportunity. Agreement and cooperation over substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions must be reached, if irrevocable damage to the planet is to be avoided. We must act now. We are in the same boat. Even passengers in the first class saloon will not long survive if the leak in steerage is not mended.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Drax protester trial: Closing statement from the defence

03 07 2009 The Guardian | Climate change | News -

The trial of 22 climate change activists accused of hijacking a coal train headed for the Drax power station ended with a summing up statement from defendant Jonathan Stevenson, who was leading the campaigners' defence. Before trial, the judge had ruled out a defence of necessity, though the defendants attempted to use it anyway. A related defence of lawful excuse was previously used successfully by activists who defaced the coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent in 2007.

This is Stevenson's speech Members of the jury. I'm going to try to summarise why we feel that we are not guilty, why we feel that what we did was right, despite the very proper laws against obstructing trains, why we feel that it was the wrong decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute us in this case, and why we don't feel that we are guilty of a crime. I want to start by responding to your request for clarification yesterday about "lawful excuse". His honour may say [in his summing up] that it's true that there are ways in law to make space for circumstances, to allow a bigger picture to be considered. These ways can have different names for different offences — so for example "lawful excuse", which you asked about yesterday, applies only to the charge of criminal damage. For example, last September, a jury in Kent found six protesters not guilty of committing £30,000 worth of criminal damage to Kingsnorth coal-fired power station, since the group were acting to prevent a greater crime. Those on trial did not disagree that criminal damage is a crime, just that, in certain circumstances, it may be necessary and proportionate to cause some damage to prevent a great crime. That jury agreed. His honour may explain that there is a legal defence of "necessity", that applies to most laws, and that it was on the basis of "necessity" — the fact that we believed our actions were going to save lives and that we had to act — that we prepared a legal defence before this trial. Along with many legal professionals we were very disappointed by his honour's decision prior to the trial that this defence was not available to us in law. Nonetheless we decided not to appeal against it. We felt that you the jury would be free to decide on the facts of a case as you find them - and not just the ones his honour tells you are relevant. It's up to you to decide whether what we did was necessary. I would like to emphasise to you that we believed and we still believe that it was urgently necessary to do what we did, and proportionate to the scale of the problem, that the consequences of that train taking coal into Drax are so serious that any reasonable person would understand our reasons for stopping it. To help explain why we were so sure of the links between Drax's activities and deaths around the world we had expert witnesses lined up to talk to you about the immediate and ongoing harm that Drax's emissions cause. However from what evidence we have been able to get across to you, with his honour's indulgence, we hope that you can see that these facts speak for themselves, and our actions, though harmful, were indeed necessary to try to stop a greater harm. And if you agree with that then you still have a legal right – as the jury - to find us not guilty. You've heard it said already I think, that the judge decides about the law, but the jury decide about the facts. What does that mean? It means you the jury can decide as you see fit. You the jury have a constitutional right to follow your own judgement and not necessarily follow the judge's directions to find us guilty. In other words, you get to make the final decision. In law this principle is called the jury's power of nullification, and it's been a right that has been regularly used over the years when juries have felt the law has been applied harshly, or inappropriately, or unjustly, or incorrectly. Perhaps I can explain this with a quote from a very senior judge, Lord Denning. He said: "This principle was established as long ago as 1670 in a celebrated case of the Quakers, William Penn and William Mead. All that they had done was to preach in London on a Sunday afternoon. They were charged with causing an unlawful and tumultuous assembly there. The judge directed the jury to find the Quakers guilty, but they refused. The Jury said Penn was guilty of preaching, but not of unlawful assembly. The Judge refused to accept this verdict. He threatened them with all sorts of pains and punishments. He kept them 'all night without meat, drink, fire, or other accommodation: they had not so much as a chamber pot, though desired'. They still refused to find the Quakers guilty of an unlawful assembly. He kept them another night and still they refused. He then commanded each to answer to his name and give his verdict separately. Each gave his verdict 'Not Guilty'. For this the judge fined them 40 marks apiece and cast them into prison until it was paid. One of them Edward Bushell, thereupon brought his (case) before the Court of the King's Bench. It was there held that no judge had any right to imprison a juryman for finding against his direction on a point of law; for the judge could never direct what the law was without knowing the facts, and of the facts the jury were the sole judge. The jury were thereupon set free." This was affirmed as recently as 2005, in relation to the case of Wang, where a committee of Law Lords in the highest court in the land, the House of Lords, concluded that: "there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty". So you do have that right to decide for yourselves. And unlike in 1670, his honour won't be able to fine you, or put you in prison for making what he sees as the wrong decision. There have been many cases over the years where juries have decided, on reflecting more broadly, to find people not guilty despite directions from the judge. For example, the case of Zelter and others who were accused of damage to an aircraft about to be used for bombing civilians. In all of these and others the judge said that the defendants admitted the offence and so must be found guilty. But the jury chose to look outside the limited view of the court room, and to find them not guilty. The freedom that you have is what enables the law, where necessary, to move forward. It is what allows you to look beyond the confines of this court to the wider world, and to make a judgement based not just on law, but to make a judgement based on justice. Justice is the force that underpins and breathes life into the law, and it is your role as the jury to see that justice as you see it is done. We all know that times change, and what was acceptable in one era may not be acceptable in another. You have heard of how it was once legal to own other people, how it was illegal for women to vote. Well one way or another we are going to have to stop burning coal and move on from the fossil fuel era. And that means that the law will eventually have to change and acknowledge the harm that carbon emissions do to all of us, by making them illegal. The only question is whether the law will catch up in time for there to be anything left to protect. We are not trying to tell you how to decide. We are only trying to say that it is up to you, and we are grateful for that. I want you to think back to that situation of there being a person on the tracks ahead of that train going on its way to Drax. Members of the Jury, it may sound like a strange thing to say but in truth there is a person on the branch line to Drax. The prosecution have not challenged the facts we presented to you on oath about the consequences of burning coal at Drax. 180 human lives lost every year, species lost forever. There is a direct, unequivocal, proven link between the emissions of carbon dioxide at this power station and the appalling consequences of climate change. That many of those consequences impact on the poor of other nations or people in Hull we don't know and should not in any way negate the reality of this suffering. We got on that train to stop those emissions, because all other methods in our democracy were failing. Just because we don't know the name of the person on the tracks or where they live or the exact time and day of their dying, does not in our view mean they are less worthy of protection. We don't dispute that there's a law against obstructing trains. We don't dispute that obstructing trains is a crime and should continue to be a crime. We just argue that in this case, we should not be found guilty of a crime for trying to block this train on its way to Drax. On Tuesday the prosecution argued that what we did was quite simply a crime, and as a result we should be found guilty. They were trying to suggest that if you find us not guilty, the whole world would fall apart. We argue that the more likely route to the whole world falling apart is if we continue burning coal in the enormous quantities that it is being burnt at Drax. His honour may say that we have been telling you stories, that we are trying to introduce emotions into the trial to distort the evidence. But we have been telling you the facts. If those facts move you, that's because they are moving, and they are what moved us to do what we did. We are happy to be judged by you, the jury. Thank you for taking the time to listen to us.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

POLITICS-BOTSWANA: Parties Block Women Candidates for Upcoming Elections

03 07 2009 IPS | Africa | News - GABORONE, Jul 3 (IPS) - As Botswana prepares for general elections in October, gender activists are protesting against the lack of female parliamentary candidates.

U.N. Chief Meets With Myanmar Junta

03 07 2009 New York Times | International news - Secretary General Ban Ki-moon arrived in Myanmar to lobby for the release of many political prisoners including the pro-democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

Myanmar denies UN chief's request to see Suu Kyi (AP)

03 07 2009 Yahoo! | World News - AP - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon could leave Myanmar empty-handed after apparently failing to win any concessions Friday from the country's top military ruler or to gain permission to visit opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi in jail.

Case of Herri Batasuna and Batasuna v. Spain

03 07 2009 ECHR | News - The Court has concluded that there was no violation of the Convention in the case of Herri Batasuna and Batasuna v. Spain, which concerned the dissolution of the political parties Herri Batasuna and Batasuna. It also found no violation in the cases of Etxeberria and Others v. Spain and Herritarren Zerrenda v. Spain, concerning the disqualification from standing in elections imposed on the applicants on account of their activities within the political parties that had been declared illegal and dissolved.

Grand plans for Thaksin's 60th

03 07 2009 Bangkok Post - Red-shirt people throughoutthe country will celebrate former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's 60th birthday on July 26, Jaran Ditha-apichai, a leader of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, said on Friday.