|
|
| Home About Us Contact Us Submissions Archives Contributors Links | |
Civil Disobedience & International Disobedience |
|
|
By Gideon Polya |
|
|
|
|
"Bush, Blair and their Coalition/NATO confrères are involved in both Holocaust Commission and Holocaust Denial."
|
|
|
Adherence to civil law is required for a stable, orderly civil society. Similarly, strict observance of international law is needed for an orderly, peaceful world. However there are marked discrepancies in how departures from the Law are dealt with intra-nationally and inter-nationally. I am not a lawyer so perhaps I am missing something here – but the discrepancies of Justice in this area are so extraordinary that something is evidently seriously wrong. Before writing this essay I consulted a strongly-observant Christian lawyer (I hasten to add that I am an agnostic humanist scientist). Initially my Christian lawyer friend was adamant that the law should be observed. However when I raised the issue of conflict with his Christian faith his resolve weakened. Indeed after I posited a democratic society demanding (for whatever plausible reason) that the First Born should be sacrificed he became quite adamant that, in general, his Christian conscience would come first. My Christian lawyer friend was a sample of one. One can imagine a continuum of views ranging from anarchic, libertarian civil disobedience on principle at one end of the spectrum to absolute compliance (even with Sacrifice of the First Born) to ensure absolute inviolability of the Law at the other. Steering clear of this morass, I propose to put forward my conservative, humanitarian views using some particularly relevant examples in rough (and highly arguable) order of increasing seriousness of violation of what the Christian theologians call the Natural Law. My own philosophic assumptions here as an agnostic humanist scientist are simply that “all men are created equal and have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and the practical notion of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. 1. Peaceful Civil Disobedience Civil rights campaigners (e.g. in Apartheid South Africa or the American Deep South) violated racist laws to protest such laws – and eventually overcame laws that violated international human rights conventions. Such people at the time were punished (often quite brutally) but their actions were regarded at the time as praiseworthy by decent humanitarians. In my view peace is the only way, but that silence kills and silence is complicity – we are morally obliged to inform others about gross human right abuses. A key discussion of “how” this peaceful activism should be done (demonstrations or articulate informing) occurs in Carson McCullers’ classic The Heart is a Lonely Hunter in the argument between the African-American doctor and his friend the socialist activist. [1] Racist minority rule (intra-national human rights violation) or foreign occupation (violation of international law) have been variously opposed by peaceful resistance (e.g. Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha non-violent resistance movement) or by violent resistance (the African National Congress in Southern Africa, the Hungarian Revolutionaries in 1956 and the French Resistance in 1939-1945). All of these people are now widely regarded very highly. What would you do if your country was illegally invaded or otherwise illegally taken over by Nazi-style racists? However as an Australian subject to Australian Law I will not offer an opinion - the new Australian anti-Terrorism Sedition laws can threaten those offering opinions about violent resistance to anything with imprisonment for up to 7 years. [2] Indeed a year or so ago the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) obtained a top legal opinion that an outstanding expatriate Australian journalist could run foul of these laws for comments he made about contemporary conflict. [3] Indeed it was suggested in a 2005 Senate Inquiry Submission by outstanding and humanitarian linguistics scholars [4] that others likely to run foul of these laws would be Professors Chomsky, Professor Bello, outstanding Melbourne Age anti-war cartoonist Michael Leunig – and yours truly, Dr Gideon Polya, for his anti-war views and his opinions about Australian complicity in Iraq mass mortality. [5] 2. Anti-war Defacement of Public Property Three years ago two well-intentioned Australian anti-war activists were sentenced to nine months’ periodic detention (weekend detention) and ordered to pay $151,000 clean-up costs for writing “No War” in red paint on one of the “sails” of the iconic Sydney Opera House in March 2003, in protest against Australian participation in the illegal US invasion of Iraq (this followed an earlier demonstration when two people ascended the iconic building and unfurled a banner opposing the impending Iraq War). In my view there were other ways to get publicity for an extremely worthwhile cause (e.g. by recruiting a celebrity; taking their clothes off; or some other attention-grabbing means) – no matter the courage and humanitarianism of the perpetrators, it was not necessary and certainly not desirable to deface a beautiful building. However others have attacked the punishment of these anti-war activists on civil libertarian and democratic rights grounds. [6] 3. Intemperate Words as Possible Incitements to Racism or Violence Recently a British jury convicted a young British Muslim man of “soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred” after he spoke at a rally outside the Danish Embassy in London last February against the Danish cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad. The Prosecution alleged that he appeared to lead protesters in chants of “Bomb, bomb Denmark. Bomb, bomb U.S.A.”. However in his defence the Defendant asserted that his words were “just slogans, sound bites”; that he regretted his intemperance; and that “I did not want to see Denmark and the U.S.A. being bombed” - i.e. his defence was that his words were rhetorical rather than serious exhortations to horrendous violence. The jury thought otherwise and Umran Javed will be sentenced in April (for relevant media reports see [7]). My view is that some kind of laws against incitement to racism or violence are sensible but have to be applied intelligently, proportionately and equitably – but clearly are not being thus applied, as explored below. 4. Advocacy of Racist Colonialism Colonialism (seizing and settling or otherwise physically dominating the country of another people) is intrinsically racist. In the 21st century the residual obscenity of colonialism is well illustrated by Racist Zionism (as distinct from religious Zionism or non-racist Zionism). Zionism can be religious Zionism (as in the 2 millennium-old saying “next year in Jerusalem”) or political and secular Zionism. Secular Zionism arose in the 19th century at the height of racist European colonialism (for an outstanding analysis linking racist European colonialism with the Nazi lebensraum genocides see Sven Lindqvist’s Exterminate All the Brutes [8]) and was (and is) intrinsically racist e.g. in advocating the forcible colonization of a foreign country accompanied by the disempowerment, dispossession, deprivation and displacement of the Indigenous inhabitants in order to create a Jewish ethnocracy i.e. a Jewish State to be politically and militarily dominated by Jews. Secular Zionism was opposed in the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century by religiously orthodox Jews because they believed in “Israel” as a “kingdom of the mind” of Torah-observant Jews and, further, believed that a physical state of Israel could only come about after the arrival of the Messiah for all mankind (for an anthology of religious and secular Jewish opposition to Zionism see [9]). The destruction of European Jewry by the Nazis also eliminated much of this religious opposition to political Zionism. However there was also a growing secular opposition to Zionism. Thus the Balfour Declaration (1917) made it quite clear that there should be no detriment to the Indigenous inhabitants from Jewish immigration to Palestine: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” Indeed, because of this Sir Isaac Isaacs, former Governor-General of Australia and the first Australian Jew to hold this position, supported the British 1939 White Paper constraining Jewish entry to Palestine. [10] After the formation of the State of Israel, while some Orthodox Jews (notably the Neturei Karta) maintained opposition on theological grounds, there was increasing secular Jewish opposition to the racism, violence and ethnic cleansing involved, especially after the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai (since returned to Egypt) and the Syrian Golan Heights in 1967. In the 21st century notable secular opponents of the violence and racism involved in the Israeli Occupation include Professors Noam Chomsky, Stephen Rose, Tanya Reinhart, Ilan Pappe, Bertell Ollman [11] and Norman Finkelstein [12, 13] and other Jewish intellectuals, notably Australian Antony Loewenstein. [14] Objections include race-specific laws in what is seen as Apartheid Israel and the egregious human rights abuses including ethnic cleansing in the Occupied Palestinian Territory that is effectively an “open prison”. Some horrendous statistics underscore the highly moral Jewish secular opposition to what must be described as the Racist Zionists who are running Apartheid Israel (as distinct from religious Zionists or from Jews and Israelis who want to see non-racism and peace with equity, justice and reconciliation in the Holy Land). Thus post-invasion excess deaths in the Occupied Palestinian Territory total 0.3 million, post-invasion under-5 infant deaths total 0.2 million; 0.7 million refugees fled in 1948 and there are currently 6 million refugees, 4 million registered with the UN; 80,000 are fleeing each year; 80% of the West Bank Christians have fled; 80% of the Christian Arabs of Bethlehem have fled; and the “annual under-5 infant death rate” is 0.51% (Occupied Palestinian Territory) as compared to 0.12% (in Occupier country Israel) (2003 figures). [15] This is indeed a Palestinian Genocide as defined by the UN Genocide Convention. [16] In short, while there is nothing “racist” or “murderous” in innocently advocating “next year in Jerusalem” (or in Fiji, the Bahamas, Spain) it certainly becomes incitement “to racism and murder” when people such as the Racist Zionists and the various Israel Lobbies argue for the forcible and illegal occupation of foreign lands and the disempowering, dispossession, deprivation and displacement of the Indigenous Inhabitants. We see the de facto bombing and shooting nearly every day on our TVs – but I am quite sure that the prosecution of the intemperate Umran Javed for his nasty Words will not be followed by any British prosecutions of British Zionists for their racist and murderous Words and Deeds i.e. the British legal system itself is passively complicit in the advocacy of racism and murder. 5. Advocating Democratic Imperialism Back in 2002-2003 various excuses were offered for the impending invasion of Iraq of which the asserted existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) was the best known. These excuses for illegal invasion were condemned as unproven by knowledgeable people at the time and have indeed subsequently been shown to be false. Indeed recently the former Head of the CIA in Europe, 26-year intelligence veteran Tyler Drumheller, revealed on American “60 Minutes” that the Bush Administration was authoritatively told by the CIA in the Fall of 2002 that Iraq did not have any WMD. [17] The fall-back excuse (after no WMD were found post-invasion) then became “democracy” that was formalized by its proponents in the term “democratic imperialism” i.e. the doctrine that the Western democracies had an obligation to impose Western democracy by force on undemocratic non-European countries such as Iraq. Of course the flaw in this pretext is that the most cursory inspection reveals that it too is an egregious lie. Thus a recent poll established that about 92% of Iraqis wanted the US-led Coalition to leave [18] (but Bush is now still insisting on staying, defying the democratic majority in America as well as this overwhelming vote from Iraqis). Similarly, one supposes that about 100% of Iraqis want their infants to survive but the annual death rate of under-5 year-old infants in US-Occupied Iraq is 2.7% (as compared to about 0.1% in the Occupier country, Australia), corresponding to annual under-5 infant deaths totalling 122,000 in Occupier Iraq (population 26 million) as compared to 1,000 in Occupier Australia (population 20 million). Remembering that a 55% electoral support yields a landslide victory in Western democracies, these figures make an egregious lie of the UK-US claim of “democratic imperialism”. The harsh reality is that “democratic imperialism” is actually good old fashioned imperialism for resources and hegemony and is better described as democratic tyranny and democratic Nazism. If it is racism to deny an Arab or an Asian a table at a London restaurant, what is it when you send armies half way round the world, invade Asian countries and cause the avoidable deaths of millions of Indigenous people? What then of the very public and very vocal Britons (most notably members of the Blair Government who publicly advocate such courses of action that lead to racism and murder on a huge scale? Where are the prosecutions? 6. Violation of International Law Apart from the horrendous avoidable deaths associated with Anglo-American Asian wars today, the most appalling domestic or metropolitan aspect is that neither the huge excess deaths nor the gross violations of international law are subject to requisite public discussion. In contrast, the limited if ghastly crimes of the latest British domestic serial killer make sustained front page news. Thus genocide is one of the worst of crimes and, as defined by the International UN Genocide Convention, [18] involves destruction of part or all of a population by killing them or driving them out as refugees (as in the Palestinian Genocide outlined above). In post-invasion Occupied Iraq the excess deaths now total 0.9 million, there are 2 million post-invasion Iraqi refugees in neighbouring countries and the UN estimates that 100,000 are fleeing Occupied Iraq every month) – an Iraqi Genocide indeed. In post-invasion Occupied Afghanistan the excess deaths total 2.1 million and there are 3.7 million refugees in neighbouring countries – an Afghan Genocide indeed. Yet Bush, Blair and their Coalition/NATO confrères are involved in both Holocaust Commission and Holocaust Denial. [19] Checking with the actual UN Genocide Convention [18] we see the following key articles: Article I: The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish. Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Article III: The following acts shall be punishable: Article IV: Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals. Thus those publicly advocating and supporting the violent occupations of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan and now Somalia are not only advocating “racism and murder” under British domestic law, they are also inviting prosecution under Articles III and IV of the UN Genocide Convention. A similar argument can be made out in relation to the UN Charter [20] (see; http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm ) which makes it illegal to invade another country (“racism and murder”) unless authorized to do so by the Security Council, quote: Article 39 Article 40 Article 41 Article 42 Indeed in relation to other internationally agreed conventions such as the Universal Human Rights, Geneva and Rights of the Child Conventions the same obligation holds – if our countries are signatories then these international conventions variously become incorporated into national law. Thus the Geneva Conventions by virtue of US agreement are part of US law and accordingly any American found guilty of violations causing death are liable to domestic prosecution and the death penalty; [21] quote: (a) Offense – Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. (b) Circumstances – The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act). (c) Definition – As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct – (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party; (2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907; (3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or (4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, wilfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians. Thus in relation to the appalling post-invasion excess deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan , the relevant articles of the Geneva Convention relative to Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War [22] are clearly being grossly violated by the US ,the UK, Australia, the Coalition and NATO (as evidenced by post-invasion excess deaths now totalling 3.0 million – 1,000 times greater than the number of American soldiers killed, this “death ratio” being 100 times greater than the “civilian deaths”/ “occupier military deaths” “death ratio” of 10 advocated by Hitler and effected in WW2 by the Nazi military); quote: Article 55 The Occupying Power may not requisition foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel, and then only if the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. Subject to the provisions of other international Conventions, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements to ensure that fair value is paid for any requisitioned goods. The Protecting Power shall, at any time, be at liberty to verify the state of the food and medical supplies in occupied territories, except where temporary restrictions are made necessary by imperative military requirements. Article 56 If new hospitals are set up in occupied territory and if the competent organs of the occupied State are not operating there, the occupying authorities shall, if necessary, grant them the recognition provided for in Article 18. In similar circumstances, the occupying authorities shall also grant recognition to hospital personnel and transport vehicles under the provisions of Articles 20 and 21. In adopting measures of health and hygiene and in their implementation, the Occupying Power shall take into consideration the moral and ethical susceptibilities of the population of the occupied territory. Conclusion It is clear that British and American citizens are variously violating both Domestic and International Law in relation to advocacy of racism and murder (Words) and actual complicity in the commission of racist acts and mass murder (Deeds). The British Muslim demonstrator justly found guilty recently of “incitement to racism and murder” by a jury of his peers awaits sentence – but what will happen to those complicit in Word and Deed in the horrendous crimes of the Bush War on Terror (in harsh reality an appalling war on Arab/Asian/Muslim Women and Children)? The 2005 Nobel Laureate for Literature, British playwright Harold Pinter, has called for the arraignment of Bush and Blair before the International Criminal Court. [23] Laws are only as good as their observance and enforcement. I have done my duty and sent formal complaints to the International Criminal Court over Coalition war crimes in Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan. [24] But I am not holding my breath. Dr Gideon Polya has published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text, Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds (Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003), and is currently editing a completed book on global avoidable mortality. Numerous articles on this subject can be found on his websites:
Endnotes |
|
