UK
government plans to end centuries of open justice by allowing some
court evidence to be heard behind closed doors are "dangerous", Amnesty
International said.
The proposed legal changes, part of the
Justice and Security Bill, could result in information and evidence of
human rights violations by UK state representatives, being kept secret.
Plans
by the government to introduce new legislation were confirmed in the
Queen’s speech during Wednesday’s state opening of the UK Parliament.
“These proposals are dangerous and should be dropped," said Tara Lyle, Policy Adviser at Amnesty International UK.
“They
will allow the government to throw a cloak of secrecy over wrongdoing,
including matters as serious as the alleged involvement by UK officials
in rendition, secret detention, enforced disappearances and torture."
The
Bill would allow for the use of “closed material procedures” in future
civil claims cases. This would allow the courts to consider secret
material presented by UK authorities in closed sessions.
Claimants
and their lawyers of choice would not have access to the material or
the closed sessions and would, instead, have a court appointed Special
Advocate to represent their interests.
The Special Advocate
would be prohibited from discussing any part of the secret material with
the claimant or taking instructions from them after seeing the
material, seriously impeding their ability to serve the interests of the
claimant.
Amnesty International considers that the use of
Special Advocates fails to sufficiently mitigate the unfairness of
“closed material procedures”.
Amnesty International believes
the right to redress and a fair trial for victims of alleged human
rights violations could be critically undermined by the proposals.
The
proposals for the Bill come amid allegations that the UK has been
involved in rendition, unlawful detention and mistreatment.
“After
David Cameron promised to get to the bottom of allegations of
complicity in human rights violations by UK officials, this Bill is a
sell-out to the security services," said Tara Lyle.
“The victims
of human rights violations as well as the general public have a right
to learn the truth about whether and how government officials have been
involved in rendition, secret detention, enforced disappearances and
torture.”
“If members of the intelligence and security services
are suspected of involvement in human right violations, the government
should not be able to invoke ‘national security’ to avoid real
accountability.”
@'Amnesty International'
Thursday, 10 May 2012
Argentina's Senate passes gender identity law
Via Mauro Cabral, Co-Director of the Argentinian branch of GATE (Global Action for Trans* Equality) I learn that the country's Senate yesterday (9 May 2012) unanimously approved a gender identity law that doesn't require a medical diagnosis in order to gain legal recognition, hormonal treatment and/or surgical procedures (including hormones and surgeries carried out in the public health system) and that doesn't require medical intervention as a condition of legal recognition.As Mauro says:
It's a law grounded in the right to identity, establishing informed consent as the best practice for trans* access to health.
It seems likely there will be a short delay for the legislation to be formally enacted by Presidente Cristina Fernández before it actually becomes law, but it's hoped that it will be practically implemented soon after that.
The significance of this change cannot be understated - the linking of trans* people's medical and legal statuses is an area of trans* rights which has long been believed to cause more problems for many trans* people than it solves, both in accessing healthcare and obtaining legal recognition, and it is to be hoped that other countries will follow Argentina's example in supporting trans* people's rights.
More at the Spanish language website Minutouno
---------------
Image compiled from public domain images in Wikimedia Commons (here and here) by Helen
---------------
Cross-posted from Bird of Paradox
Tunnel of Love
A young couple walk through the 'tunnel of love' near the town of Klevan in Ukraine. The tunnel is a two-mile section of private railway that serves a local factory. A train runs through it three times a day
Photographer: Amos ChappleToday, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:
- I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.I hope you'll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality.I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently.So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.If you agree, you can stand up with me here.Thank you,Barack
Obama Lets Go Of Fear
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
