Journalist silenced
Russia maintains a tight grip on journalists reporting on the ongoing troubles in Chechnya. This clampdown began in earnest during the Second Chechen War after extensive coverage of the previous conflict had exposed Russia’s heavy-handedness to the world. Anna Politkovskaya was an investigative journalist dedicated to exposing human rights abuses on the part of both Russian and Chechen troops, and her extensive writing, which includes the books Dirty War: a Russian Reporter in Chechnya and Putin’s Russia, made her numerous enemies. Politkovskaya was shot and killed in the lift of her Moscow apartment block in October 2006, having previously received death threats and survived attempts on her life. Three men who stood trial for their involvement in the murder were acquitted in February 2009, while the murder suspect is on the run and is thought to have fled the country.
What does the future hold?
Recent elections in Chechnya were criticised by foreign observers for being neither free nor fair—in December 2007 the United Russia party won 99% of the vote. The current president of the Chechen Republic is the young, bullish and bearded Ramzan Kadyrov, who is backed by Putin and has a reputation for his tough stance against rebels. He is the son of the first president of the Russian-backed republic, Akhmad Kadyrov, who was assassinated in 2004 after only seven months in office. From 2000-9 fighting continued sporadically between rebel insurgents and the Kadyrovtsy, a militia loyal to both Kadyrovs that has been widely accused of kidnappings, torture and human rights abuses. With an administration loyal to Russia now in charge, the rebels are contained at the time of writing—Russia’s ‘counter-terrorism operation’ against the separatists officially came to an end in April 2009—but uncertainty remains over the long-term stability of the region.
‘The people have already determined Chechnya’s status at the referendum—it is a unit of the Russian Federation. Its political status is not to be discussed any more.’
AKHMAD KADYROV, August 2003
What are they?
Civil liberties are freedoms to exercise one’s rights as guaranteed by the laws of one’s country, or rights which protect the individual from interference or abuse by the government. Civil liberties and human rights are two sides of the same coin—civil liberties is used in the context of a government’s relationship with its citizens, whereas human rights refers more to the fundamental rights that we all share, regardless of our country. Many countries have their own interpretation of civil liberties written into their constitution: the best known of these is the Bill of Rights, which are the first ten amendments of the US Constitution. This guarantees the American people several important freedoms and securities, including the right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ (Second Amendment) and protection from ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ (Fourth Amendment). The Déclaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen (Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen), adopted in 1789 during the French Revolution, is another key civil liberties document; in addition to forming the basis for the French Constitution, it was a forerunner of international human rights documents.
What civil liberties do we have in the UK?
The right to a fair trial, the right to privacy, habeas corpus (the right not to be imprisoned by the state without charge or reason), freedom of speech and freedom to protest: all of these are in the famous British tradition of civil liberties, gained over centuries of hard-won reform rather than violent revolution. Documents such as Magna Carta (1215), the Great Reform Acts (1832 & 1867) and the Representation of the People Act (1918) represent important steps on the way to ‘freedom under law’ and our modern political system, a parliamentary democracy that is the envy of many other countries of the world. However, despite this strong tradition, we have no single written constitution that specifies exactly what our civil liberties are; and because of parliamentary sovereignty, which incorporates Acts of Parliament into the constitution as they are passed, our civil liberties are not fixed, but subject to change. In recent years, and particularly since the 9/11 attacks of 2001, the Labour government has passed a swathe of legislation in the name of security that has led to widespread criticism of what many see as the erosion of civil liberties in this country. The Liberal Democrats and campaign groups such as Liberty and NO2ID have been particularly vocal in their condemnation of these measures.
Stop and Search
Section 44 of the Terrorism Act (2000) allows police officers to stop and search anyone for ‘articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism’, whereas previously they needed to have ‘reasonable grounds’ for doing so. This was introduced as an anti-terrorism measure but has been applied in other contexts, such as with protesters at anti-war, anti-capitalist and anti-nuclear demonstrations. In 2007-8 a total of 117,278 people in England and Wales were stopped and searched under this legislation, the vast majority of these searches occurring in London. Fewer than 0.1% led to arrest for terrorism offences (let alone charges or convictions). As well as being overused, the Act has also caused social tensions, with black and Asian people four times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. If you are subject to a random stop-and-search, remember that you are under no obligation to divulge any personal details to the police.
Freedom to protest
Sections 132-8 of the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) introduced several measures that have interfered with the right to peacefully protest, including banning unauthorised protests within 1 km of parliament and placing restrictions on those that are authorised. This was widely viewed as a way of ousting the anti-Iraq war protester Brian Haw from his five-year ‘peace camp’ in Parliament Square. A High Court hearing in the same year ruled that SOCPA did not apply to Haw as his protest predated the legislation, but the Home Office won an appeal in 2006 that overturned this ruling. After further legal battling, Haw was allowed to stay but with various restrictions placed upon his protest, including limited use of his loudspeaker and a greatly reduced protest area. Maya Evans and Milan Rai were the first people to be convicted under SOCPA in 2005, for standing at the Cenotaph on Whitehall and reading out the names of UK soldiers and civilians killed in the war in Iraq. Two parliamentary committees (the Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill and the Joint Committee on Human Rights) have recommended that sections 132-8 of SOCPA be repealed, but at the time of writing the government has done nothing about this.
Freedom of speech
An extension of the Terrorism Act in 2006 outlawed the ‘glorification’ of terrorism, even if no intent to commit terrorist acts is involved. Some civil liberties campaign groups such as Liberty fear that silencing political extremists or dissenters by limiting their freedom of speech could make the country a more dangerous place by forcing their activities underground.
Habeas Corpus
As part of Tony Blair’s post-9/11 measures to combat terrorism in the UK, the amount of time suspects could be held without charge in police custody was increased from 14 to 28 days, the longest in Western Europe. In 2008 Gordon Brown tried to extend this to 42 days—this was