As Elections Loom, There’s a Crisis at South Africa’s Public Broadcaster

BY TYLER MCBRIEN-JULY 1, 2016

On Monday morning, Jimi Matthews, acting Chief Executive Officer of South Africa’s public broadcaster, SABC, tweeted a photo of his resignation letter. In the text, he described a “corrosive atmosphere” that has weighed on his “moral judgment.” The final line read simply,“What is happening at the SABC is wrong and I can no longer be a part of it.”

Although Matthews didn’t specify exactly what had prompted his departure, there is little doubt that the wording was a not-so-subtle nod to the growing accusations of government interference and censorship at the public broadcaster. After several policy changes and questionable editorial decisions in the last few months, free press activists have harshly criticized the SABC for what they see as an intensifying bias in favor of the governing African National Congress (ANC) party ahead of the hotly contested local elections in August.

While the ANC has dominated South African politics since the fall of apartheid in 1994, these elections could prove to be a turning point. The party is riven by factional infighting, it presides over a flatlining economy, and its head, President Jacob Zuma, has been accused of corruption. To try to turn its dismal numbers around, it’s no wonder the ANC has resorted to manipulating one of the country’s most influential broadcasters.

“[The SABC] is a crucial media machine and source of information for so many people that it does have the power to profoundly influence elections,” said Micah Reddy, an organizer at the Right2Know Campaign, a local organization that works to advance freedom of expression and access to information. With three TV channels and 18 radio stations, the broadcaster enjoys the lion’s share of South African media audiences. According to one estimate,SABC radio reaches a staggering 24 million people a day, nearly half of South Africa’s population.“For a lot of people, primarily constituencies that are critical to ANC support, the SABC is their primary and sometimes only source of broadcast news,” Reddy said. “A lot of these households won’t even have newspapers. They’ll be listening to SABC radio and watching SABC television.”

The SABC’s Chief Operating Officer, Hlaudi Motsoeneng, has emerged as a central figure in the drama. Since he began his tenure as COO in 2011, he has embarked on an increasingly heavy-handed purge of coverage that’s critical of the government. In early June, Motsoeneng yanked from the airwaves a long-running radio show that often critiqued the ANC, describing the move as a “revamp.” The main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, painted the decision as blatant censorship.

Earlier this week, three SABC journalists were suspended for challenging an order not to cover a protest of the broadcaster’s own censorship practices. In response, three other senior journalists wrote a letter to Motsoeneng and other SABC leaders asking for clarity on the suspensions and lamenting the fact that their “journalistic integrity continues to be compromised.”

Most pernicious of all are the editorial changes. In a country with an unemployment rate of over 26 percent, regular protests over economic hardship, and numerous corruption scandals,Motsoeneng has stood by his 2013 call for all SABC television channels to air a minimum of 70 percent “good news.” Last May, in a bid to downplay societal tensions ahead of August’s elections, he banned any coverage of the sometimes violent protests that have swept the nation in recent months. In the past week, the SABC has failed to cover violent unrest connected to the announcement of the ANC’s mayoral candidate in Tshwane, the municipality that encompasses the city of Pretoria. The fact that many remain unsure as to the exact origin of the unrest illustrates why impartial coverage is so important.

Motsoeneng regularly steals headlines and attention on Twitter for his controversial public statements, such as declaring that he doesn’t believe in “scientific research” during a radio interview. Many of these #Hlaudisms reach nearly Trump-like levels of demagoguery, but as with Donald Trump, widespread criticism seems to glance off him with little effect. Despite adamning report by widely respected independent government investigator, Thuli Madonsela, which found that Motsoeneng had lied about his high school to the SABC, Motsoeneng retains control of the broadcaster.

The reasons for his longevity should come as little surprise, considering the clear pro-ANC bias of Motsoeneng’s decisions: he is an agent of the ruling party in its attempts to undermine the SABC’s independence. Motsoeneng is close to Faith Muthambi, the Minister of Communications, who oncedescribed the SABC as a state-owned company, not an independent public broadcaster, and who is an ardent supporter of President Zuma.

In September 2014, Muthambi circumvented the SABC’s board by signing an amended version of the corporation’s Memorandum of Incorporation that enhanced her power to hire and fire executives and to call for the removal of board members. The change essentially insulated Motsoeneng from possible removal from his position. In May, the minister instituted another change that gave Motsoeneng editorial control of the SABC, making him more powerful than its CEO.

In light of these political allegiances, it’s no wonder that Motsoeneng has felt free to double down. A few weeks ago, he announced that SABC would air no negative views of President Jacob Zuma, because he “deserves a certain degree of respect as president of the country.”

Despite these troubling trends at the country’s most widely watched and listened-to broadcaster, South Africa still scores moderately well on free press indices. In its 2015-16 report, Reporters Without Borders ranked the country 39th on its worldwide index of press freedom.

In part, that’s because strong papers of record — like the Mail & Guardian and the Sunday Times — do hold the government to account. South Africa’s vibrant and independent online media also features critical commentary on the ruling party. But the costs of subscribing to these newspapers, or of accessing the internet, are beyond the reach of millions of South Africans.Especially in poor and rural communities, the press is only independent for those who can afford it. These barriers highlight both the importance of the existence of a public broadcaster in South Africa and the danger of that broadcaster taking an overtly pro-government line.

Neither accusations of pro-government bias nor major shake-ups are anything new for the SABC. “In the 1980s, the public broadcaster wasn’t a public broadcaster. It was a state mouthpiece, singing the tune of apartheid. In the 1990s it was radically transformed into a publicly accountable, transparent broadcaster,” Reddy said. “The situation as serious as now requires an even more serious, radical response.”

Spokespeople for the SABC, including Motseoneng, routinely defend the broadcaster against these allegations. In response to criticism of his “70 percent good news” directive, Motsoeneng flipped the argument on its head,describing the lack of positive news in the media as censorship. Other deflections involve flimsy legal interpretations of the South African constitution and the Broadcasting Act, which the SABC constantly claims to uphold. SABC did not respond to a request for comment on this story.

Last week, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, a telecommunications and broadcasting regulatory body, held a public hearing into the SABC’s ban on reporting violent protests. The inquiry found that the broadcaster lacked any empirical evidence to back up its argument that covering violence would incite violence. Although that commission can’t reverse the ban, the hearing marked a sign of resistance to Motsoeneng’s power.

Perhaps more than ever before in its post-apartheid history, South Africa needs free and fair airwaves, and this includes an independent public broadcaster that would be equally critical of all parties. The ANC’s efforts to suppress such an institution during a time of crisis for the party makes this point self-evident. To truly uphold freedom of the press for all in South Africa, rich and poor, its public broadcaster must be made public once again.

In the photo, a man shouts slogans against South African President Jacob Zuma and the ruling ANC party during a protest in Johannesburg on April 27.

Photo credit: GIANLUIGI GUERCIA/AFP/Getty Images

Brexit through the eyes of a new British citizen

Featured image courtesy IBTimes

ZAYNAB ZUBAIR on 06/30/2016

On the day Britain found out that it chose to leave the EU, I became British. It was supposed to be a special day for me. After 5 years and thousands of pounds I was receiving validation of the person that I believed I was inside. I’ve been British for a long time now. I just needed something to prove it. The morning of the ceremony I was working from home, while watching the saga unfold on BBC. I began directing my turmoil and anguish at my sleeping spouse, who had voted for Brexit. The pound had dropped, the markets were crashing! Our initial focus was on the macro issues that were affecting this nation. Soon to be mine. Not only was I becoming British, but as soon as I did, I automatically surrendered my Sri Lankan nationality. In all this confusion it didn’t occur to me that I was going to also become “European”.

At the ceremony in the red brick Registrar’s Office, decked with plush seats and a portrait of her Majesty, the Registrar welcomed me to the United Kingdom and I took an oath to Queen and country. There was no mention of the European Union. At that moment I was celebrating becoming British. Then the micro effects of this watershed moment hit me. I now need to apply for a passport- was it to be a European Union one? I am due to travel quite a bit for work and my husband as an Engineer for an Airline hops, skips and jumps all over Europe- what does this mean for us?

Taking on the responsibility of being British previously may have meant coagulating a European identity. In my slightly indeterminate case, having already felt British, I began contemplating if I ever felt European. Now that I was officially British I didn’t feel the need to come to terms with not being European having never felt it.

For me the EU was more about the free movement of goods and services- something I learned in economics class at school. Following the Second World War the aim to create a united Europe with its many caveats of EU currency or not, Schengen area or not, Single Market or not did confuse the rest of us. In my history books Britain was always positioned as “with Europe but not of Europe”. If so why was I feeling so upset over the vote by British people to leave?

Was it because I finally felt like I had gained validation and entry to enjoy the free movement across the region merely with an EU driver’s licence, or because I didn’t like the attitude of the campaigners such as UKIP Leader Nigel Farage who clearly had their own agendas, or because I believe that such a decision should be made on what is good for the country on an economic level- because British people will never really consider themselves European. Britain has always felt and been separate, geographically, linguistically and in the sense of National pride. So the EU marriage had always seemed like an economic decision to me.

Then it dawned on me, the problem I was having was that this split was sold as something that would let us “take back control”, “protect our borders” and reduce “immigrants”. This word: Immigrants. That must have been what riled me. It would be hypocritical for me to stand in front of a portrait of the Queen enjoying the great liberty that was being bestowed upon me and then turn around and aim to limit the same access for others. That didn’t seem fair.

On the Tube Monday morning, I was beaming as I began doing “firsts” as a British citizen. I politely gave up my seat to a pregnant lady, waited for passengers to disembark at Green Park station before I boarded my Victoria Line train and once in, I observed that more people were voraciously reading a newspaper than I had ever seen before. Previously when I looked around a train I would make eye contact with ladies in hijab, smiling at them- acknowledging our solidarity. This time I saw a Polish lady cradling a baby. I smiled at her. I used to look at Europeans on the train and think how lucky they were. Nobody could tell most of them were foreign until they opened their mouths and started speaking. I was more comfortable speaking the English language, I understood British humour, I could rattle off Shakespeare’s work in my sleep, but for some reason I was foreign. Me with my brown skin, a black lady with her shopping, a lady in hijab, we all stood out as different. Britishness in my opinion is not skin deep. It’s a state of mind; it is not eating that last biscuit, it is offering someone a cup of tea, it is politely avoiding eye contact in a lift, queuing properly, giving your seat to an old person, complaining about the weather, taking long walks a good natter and being curious about others. For once on the tube though I realised, that some British people now saw Europeans as “immigrants” and “foreigners” too.

In the bubble that is central London however the cosmopolitan melange will cushion the reality of what is happening in the rest of the country. London is truly European in its most positive sense, the rest of Britain is probably not- and that is what we need to realise.

The overwhelming melancholic response from my colleagues at work who were English and sorely depressed was reassuring. One of them was so sure that we would remain, he even put money on it. None of us could understand. All of our friends on Facebook were supporting remaining. How had we gauged such a skewed perception of the results?

It rained heavily in London on the day of the vote. We blamed the rain. A Czech colleague of mine who was hoping to return back to Prague said she now was going to stay in the UK and complete five years here to get her Indefinite Leave to Remain. At work we had calls that day with Poland, Italy and Croatia, there were jokes and an underlying feeling of ‘us’ and ‘them’ for a fleeting second. Most of us took the “Keep Calm and Carry On” option in true British fashion. The best man won, democracy took its rightful course and let’s work together were the slogans of the post-manic phase. But wait. Why? Hitler, Mugabe and my former President Mahinda Rajapaksa were all democratically elected. And soon the American trump card Donald may soon also be democratically elected. Yes London had its first Muslim mayor, great job- but what about the rest of the country? Was it divided enough that immigration could be such a strong topic to unravel our relationship with Europe. They say not much will change however I’m not going to keep calm. I want my country to succeed, to be the best it can be.

The thing about social media is that people share. Even if they’ve only been to the United Kingdom on holiday, or to study or have relatives here, the internet seemed to care. Posts about racist slurs hurled at immigrants populated my newsfeed. I was being tagged on posts asking me if “this was true” was it “that bad”. No. It wasn’t. British people are lovely – take it from me, I’ve lived in Devon! Would I choose to make this my home if I felt racially targeted? I can safely say that I have never had anything racist said to me.

This country does have a problem though, the noise of a few who are quite vocal and also good at engaging the masses, especially those who are ready to blame immigrants for job losses and pressure on public funding, are louder than those who are keen to create a Britain that is united and thrives. I want the best for my country. I want it to continue to attract the best talent across the world, to provide a home for those who are in need of protection, to be envied as a destination to “make it”, to set the standard for class, manners and behaviour the world over, to be a place for art, culture, crossroads, food and sport. Look at our runners, our cricket team our politicians- immigrants add flavour. Imagine an immigrant free Britain- no chicken tikka, bao, Sriracha, stroopwafel, bubble tea or kebab!

So as I continue the rest of the week dispassionately avoiding BBC, the newspapers and Facebook brawls on the state of the nation, I hope to make peace with the fact that I may never be European, but nothing can stop me from feeling so, should I choose to.

FBI interviews Hillary Clinton in private server probe

BY EMILY FLITTER-Sun Jul 3, 2016

The Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for three and a half hours on Saturday as part of the probe into her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state, her campaign said.

The interview at FBI headquarters in Washington followed a week of intense public focus on the investigation and on Clinton's viability as a presidential candidate, with four months to go to the election. Her campaign has tried for months to downplay the controversy as a distraction.

In an interview broadcast on MSNBC, Clinton said she was happy to do the FBI interview, which her spokesman earlier described as "voluntary."

"I've been answering questions for over a year" regarding the private email server, Clinton said.

It was not clear if the questioning of Clinton signaled an imminent conclusion to the investigation in a pivotal time for the presidential race. It does follow FBI interviews of several of Clinton's former staff members, as well as her top aide Huma Abedin.

Clinton is expected to be formally nominated as the Democratic candidate for the Nov. 8 presidential election at the party's convention in less than four weeks.

"Timing of FBI interview, between primaries and convention, probably good timing for @HillaryClinton," tweeted David Axelrod, a former senior adviser to President Barack Obama who served as the chief strategist for his two presidential campaigns. "Best to get it behind her."

Clinton is currently the front-runner for the White House with polls showing her leading presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

In a tweet on Saturday, Trump said it was "impossible for the FBI not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. What she did was wrong!"

He also criticized Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, for meeting privately with Attorney General Loretta Lynch earlier this week, which Lynch later said she regretted, though she said they did not discuss the investigation.

"What Bill did was stupid!" Trump tweeted.

The FBI is investigating whether anyone in Clinton's operation broke the law as result of a personal email server kept in her Chappaqua, New York, home while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. One of the questions is whether they mishandled classified information on the server.

Clinton and her staff have struggled to respond to accusations that her use of the server in violation of State Department protocol means she is untrustworthy. Trump has said the investigation should disqualify her from being president.

"@HillaryClinton campaign statement says She "voluntarily" met w @FBI for 3.5 hours this morning - yeah, lots of people volunteer 2 do that," tweeted the Republican National Committee's communications director, Sean Spicer.

WEEK OF TENSIONS

FBI Director James Comey said in testimony to Congress in March he felt pressure to complete the investigation quickly. Adding to the uncertainty over Clinton is the FBI's refusal to say who is the target of its investigation.

Republican lawmakers have called for an independent investigation, saying they do not trust the Justice Department to handle the inquiry with impartiality. Republicans, including Trump, intensified their criticism of the process on Thursday after news emerged of Lynch's meeting with Bill Clinton.

Lynch said she would accept whatever recommendations the career prosecutors working on the case made about whether to prosecute Clinton.

The FBI probe and the partisan fight over the server have added an extra layer of uncertainty to one of the most tumultuous presidential races in recent memory. Trump, a political novice once dismissed by the Republican establishment, will likely emerge this month as the party's nominee and has set his sights on Clinton, who he has labeled "Crooked Hillary."

Clinton held a nine-point lead over Trump in a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

(Editing by Mary Milliken)

Vietnam, South Korea, Mongolia back United Nations watchdog for LGBT rights

Participants at Vietnam's Pride march in Ho Chi Minh in 2015. Pic: Facebook/Viet Pride

 2nd July 2016 

THE only Asian countries to back a United Nations mandate to safeguard gay and transgender people from violence and discrimination all around the world are Vietnam, South Korea and Mongolia. The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) voted on Thursday to appoint the independent monitor.

The Geneva-based UNHRC debated the issue for nearly four hours before agreeing to appoint an “independent expert” to identify what causes violence and discrimination towards the LGBT community, and work with governments to find ways of protecting them.

Vietnam, South Korea and Mongolia voted in favor of the mandate, the only three supporters from the Asian region to do so. The rest of the 23 members to support the mandate were from Europe and Latin America.

Six countries abstained from the vote, including the Philippines, India and South Africa, while 18 opposition votes came from mostly from Muslim and African countries, as well as China and Russia.

SEE ALSO: 190 Chinese LGBT groups release joint statement condemning Orlando shooting

According to the Washington Post, the resolution included a last-minute amendment as a nod to countries where homosexuality is not widely accepted, which said “the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind”.

However, it added: “It is the duty of the States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

Tanzania gives hunting permit to a firm despite video of animal abuse

Warning: The video above contains graphic images.

By Kevin Sieff June 29

NAIROBI—The trophy hunters’ transgressions were all caught on tape — capturing baby zebras, running over an impala with a truck, watching wildebeests writhe and bleed before killing them, letting children participate in the hunt.

It was an appalling display that led the Tanzanian government in 2014 to suspend Green Mile Safari, a hunting company that catered to wealthy tourists from the United Arab Emirates. But last month, to the shock of conservationists and U.S. officials, that company was quietly welcomed back to Tanzania just in time for hunting season.

The story of Green Mile, which is partially owned by one of the wealthiest men in Abu Dhabi, is a window into the shadowy world of big game hunting in a country where biodiversity has crashed in recent decades. 

In Tanzania, hunters can pay thousands of dollars to kill nearly any animal, even elephants, whose population has fallen from 110,000 in 2009 to just over 43,000 at the end of 2014. A lion can be killed for $8,000, a leopard for $6,000.

Hunters argue that the money raised from those hunts supports conservation and that they can be done sustainably. But the images from Green Mile’s video — part of a macabre advertisement for the company — show just how poorly regulated hunting in Tanzania can be, with wildlife illegally captured, abused, tortured. In one scene, a hunter tackles a baby zebra and puts his arm around its throat, one of many violations of Tanzania’s wildlife laws.

"I want to take a picture with him," the man says in Arabic. "Take a picture of me with him."

[The real reason for the catastrophic collapse of Tanzania’s elephant population]

Yet even with those images public and a flurry of protestations from the U.S. ambassador, the Humane Society of the United States and Tanzanian lawmakers, Green Mile has been given another hunting permit. One reason, some argue, is that 48 percent of the company is owned by the wealthy and well-connected Sheikh Abdulla Bin Mohammed Bin Butti al-Hamed, a member of the U.A.E.’s ruling family who has held several top positions in its government.

Al-Hamed has flown friends and family to the safari property. He’s even featured in the video — holding a live a wart hog by the head.

“He loves hunting, so he wants the company to exist,” said Yahya Kishashu, a strategic advisor to Green Mile, in an interview.

Kishashu defended al-Hamed and the company, saying that the video “was recorded by clients because they had no clue they were doing anything wrong.”

Both Kishashu and Tanzanian government officials said the hunting guide in the video— paid by Green Mile and responsible for following wildlife laws – should be punished, not the company as a whole. That guide “was not doing his job,” Kishashu said.

Maj. Gen. Gaudence Milanzi, the principal secretary of Tanzania’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, which regulates the country’s hunting permits, also blamed official “game scouts” who were responsible for keeping the clients in line.

“We should be punishing these individuals, not the company,” he said — even though one of the company's owners was participating in the illegal hunt.

In a letter to Tanzania’s attorney general and obtained by The Washington Post, U.S. Ambassador Mark Childress wrote that he was “shocked” that Green Mile had been given a license “after committing a series of very serious violations of the Wildlife Conservation Act.”

Green Mile had been given a concession of land originally allocated for 30 years to a safari company owned by the Houston-based Friedkin Cos. The land was taken from Friedkin just a year after that 30-year pledge was made.

Childress wrote in his letter that the Tanzanian government’s decision “would cause grave damage to our mutual interest in deepening U.S. investment in Tanzania.”

Milanzi said the natural resources and tourism minister did not have the right to suspend a hunting company. But the country’s Wildlife Conservation Act says that “the minister shall cancel the allocation of the hunting block if he is sure there is sufficient evidence that the person has committed any offense.”
Milanzi acknowledged that offense had been committed.

“You see the video, and it’s clear that what they did was wrong,” he said.

In 2014, the Tanzanian government had called Green Mile's hunting practices a “gross violation” of the country’s laws. Removing the company was considered a major victory for conservationists in the region,
So why bring Green Mile back — especially if it endangers the country’s relationship with the United States, which is scheduled to give Tanzania $575 million in 2017?

“I don’t doubt there’s a substantial amount of money for the ministers involved,” said David Hayes, the former deputy secretary of the interior from 2009 to 2013 and now the chair of the U.S. Wildlife Trafficking Alliance.

"I am worried there are all signs of corruption,” said Zitto Kabwe, head of the Alliance for Change and Transparency, an opposition party.

[The death of Cecil the lion and the big business of big game trophy hunting]

As wealth mounted in the UAE, some of the country’s businessmen began purchasing hunting concessions in East Africa that would cater to UAE tourists. Tanzania was one of their first stops. In 1992, the Ortelo Business Co. began flying clients to the Loliondo area near Serengeti National Park, where people hunted freely on over 50,000 acres. They returned with planes full of the animals they killed.

It’s not just UAE companies and hunters who are known for violating wildlife laws. Last year, an American dentist working with a Zimbabwean guide caused an uproar when he shot and killed a lion known as Cecil.

Two men working with the guide were accused of using bait to lure the lion out of a national park. That incident stoked outrage at the existence of big game hunting in Africa, and revenue from sanctioned hunting is down across much of the continent.

Now, Green Mile's reinstatement has raised further questions about how big game hunting is managed in parts of Africa.

“It is appalling that the Tanzanian government has reinstated the hunting license and concession of a trophy-hunting company known for committing egregious acts of animal cruelty," said Wayne Pacelle, the chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States.

Tanzania has attempted to improve conservation efforts and to promote tourism in the Serengeti region for non-hunters, who come to see the massive migration of animals across East Africa. It has worked to combat wildlife poachers.

Now, some Tanzanians worry what Green Mile’s return means for that conservation agenda.

“How can the government stand in the world and show that it fights for conservation while the same government issue permits to hunt to a company like Green Mile?” Kabwe asked.

'Civil war' in immune system can fight disease

By James Gallagher-1 July 2016

The immune system can be trained to attack itself to reverse a devastating autoimmune disease, in animal studies.

US researchers treated Pemphigus vulgaris in mice by instigating civil war within the immune system, and say the approach could work in people.

Experts said the treatment, published in the journal Science, was creative and successful and they "loved it".

Autoimmune diseases result from the body's defences turning rogue and attacking healthy tissue.

In Pemphigus vulgaris, some B-cells start producing antibodies that attack the glue holding skin cells together.

The result is severe blistering of the skin as well as the lining of the mouth, throat and genitals. It can be fatal.

Image copyrightSPL

The disease can be treated by using drugs to calm down the whole immune system, but that can leave the patient more vulnerable to infection.

Fight fire with fire

Using the immune system as a weapon to fight disease is already delivering remarkable results in cancer.

One approach is to re-engineer T-cells, which normally specialise in destroying infected cells, to instead attack cancerous cells.

In one study using these modified T-cells, 90% of terminally ill leukaemia patients went into remission.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania refined the technique to change the targeting mechanism on T-cells so they attacked only the part of the immune system causing Pemphigus vulgaris.

The experiments on mice showed the characteristic blistering could be prevented, without any impact on the rest of the immune system.

'Incredibly exciting'

One of the researchers, assistant professor Michael Milone, told the BBC News website: "I think it's an incredibly exciting time; we have the tools to manipulate immunity that we've never had before.

"Immunotherapy is changing the treatment of cancer, and we're just at the beginning for autoimmunity."

He believes the approach could also work in similar diseases where there is an obvious antibody causing the problem, such as Myasthenia gravis.

However, other autoimmune diseases such as lupus, type-1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis have very complicated causes that will not be easily treated.

Associate professor Aimee Payne said the therapy could work in patients, but wanted to do more animal research first.

She said: "At this point, we've shown the same data as cancer colleagues did," but added there was concern about doing harm when the disease was not terminal.

"Our goal is to cure it in dogs," she said. "If we can do that, then it overcomes the barriers to patients enrolling in trials."

Loving it

All T-cells have a targeting mechanism that allows them to identify enemies in the body.

Scientists modify the T-cells by fusing a new targeting mechanism on to them to create "chimaeric antigen receptor T-cells" or CAR-T cells.

In Pemphigus vulgaris, the body wrongly produces antibodies to attack a protein called desmoglein, which is normally the glue that holds skin cells together.

The US research team used desmoglein to guide their CAR-T cells to only the white blood cells making the troublesome antibodies.

Prof Danny Altmann, from the British Society of Immunology, told the BBC News website: "I love it, I'm not easily pleased, but CAR-T cell technology has been a wonderful innovation.

"They've done it in a very creative and rather successful way. And this is more than just a mouse paper in Science; it's quite a short hop to being transplantable to a clinical trial."

However, he warned any treatment that resulted was likely to be very expensive.

Follow James on Twitter.

Abducted Tamil man found dumped with severe torture injuries

on: July 01, 2016

A Tamil man who was abducted allegedly by Sri Lanka’s intelligence operatives in the early hours of Wednesday from a Church in Mannar, has been found dumped last night with severe torture injuries, relatives and police said.

Santhiyogu Anton Dani was abducted from Uyilankulam church premises in Mannar in the early hours of Wednesday, days after his family had been frequented by the intelligence officers in search of him since mid-May.

His wife, Anton Mathuvanthy in a complaint with Mannar Police and Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission (HRC) said her husband had been abducted while being in the protection of the Uyilankulam Church.

The father of two was found dumped blindfolded at an isolated place at Nochchikulam Wednesday night around 11.30 with severe torture injuries. Photographs exclusive made available to Ceylonews show apparent burnt injuries all over his body – a trademark for Sri Lanka’s torture.

The 38-year old man is now receiving treatment at the Mannar hospital under police protection.

The latest case of abduction and torture has taken place ironically on the same day when Sri Lanka promised the UN Human Rights Council to implement in full the UN resolution, which also demands Sri Lanka to end ongoing torture and abduction by the government security forces, in addition to probe the past incidents.

According to his wife Mathuvanthy, he has been burnt with heated metals and badly beaten up. During several hours of torture, he has also been hung by his neck and finding it difficult to talk as a result.

Wanni district Parliamentarian Charles Nirmalanathan has also visited him at the hospital.

Anton has told his wife that the abductors had walked into his room in the church, tied his hands and gagged his mouth, before bundling into a vehicle and driving him away to an unidentified location where he was tortured.

He has also told his wife he had seen another person being badly tortured by his abductors.

Santhiyagu had been arrested previously in 2001 on suspicion of having links with the devastating attack on the Katunayake International Airport by the Tamil Tigers on July 24, 2001. Having gone through severe torture then, he was later freed by a Sri Lanka Court without any charges.

He has been living with his family in Pallimunai, Mannar since then. Mannar police said they are conducting investigation in this regard.

It was only yesterday that President Maithripala Sirisena joined the walk organized by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka under the theme “Stop Torture”.

Minister of Law and Order Sagala Ratnayake, Chairperson and Commissioners of the Human Rights Commission, human rights activists, school students and many others joined in the walk.

A Human Rights activist in Colombo said that President is empowered to take much more swift concrete action than walking to end torture and culture of impunity.

The President Participates in Anti-Torture Demonstrations

Basil Fernando-July 1, 2016

The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRC SL) marked the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture in a rather unusual and impressive way. It organized a demonstration with participants carrying placards that said, “Stop Torture”. The president of Sri Lanka, Maithripala Sirisena, was among the demonstrators. There were also other officials, including senior police officers, who wore armbands with the words “Stop Torture” on them. Schoolchildren were also among the participants.

Symbolically speaking, this demonstration is of great significance for many reasons. The struggle to eliminate torture in Sri Lanka was a protest movement started by a few civil society organisations about fifteen years ago. It was initially a small movement, but as time went by the demand for ending police torture in particular became widely discussed. A number of organisations collected the narratives of victims of torture and presented the narratives to all relevant authorities. These narratives were also sent to the relevant UN agencies and these agencies consistently intervened with the Sri Lankan government, emphasizing on the government’s obligation to stop torture. Now there is a large body of literature, available both on print media as well as on the internet, providing graphic details of torture taking place in almost all police stations in Sri Lanka.

With the mass pressure growing, HRC SL adopted a policy of zero tolerance for torture in around 2006. While the adoption of the policy was commendable, nothing practical was really done to achieve this goal. Dealing with police torture remains one of the most difficult tasks, not only for organisations like HRC SL, but also for the government itself. On many occasions, the government made many promises at the UN forums to bring torture to an end but they did almost nothing to achieve this.

The complaints of torture gradually grew as people were encouraged by the increased discussions on the elimination of torture. It was this improvement in the capacity of the victims to speak out that really made a difference in challenging one of the most entrenched practices of the state use of violence: the use of torture at police stations and other places. One of the results of the victims’ persistence in pursuing their complaints of torture was the prosecutions undertaken by the government against the perpetrators of torture. The records of these cases provide a vivid narrative of the manner in which torture is practiced and also the efforts undertaken to deny the practice of torture, not only by the perpetrators but also by the high-ranking police officers. However, some police officers had to pay for their use of torture and one such case is that of the torture and subsequent assassination of Gerald Perera by a group of policemen attached to the Wattala police station. An Assistant Subinspector and one of his assistants was found guilty of killing Gerald Perera and were sentenced to death by the Negambo High Court. There are many other cases which have dragged on before the High Courts for many years.

Despite of all this, there was no significant reduction in the use of torture. At the demonstration mentioned above, it was stated that HRC SL has received over 400 complaints from victims of torture at various police stations in Sri Lanka. The National Police Commission has also received over a thousand complaints. The United Nations Rapporteur against Torture and Ill-Treatment, who visited Sri Lanka recently, stated in his preliminary report that torture is widely practiced at the police stations in Sri Lanka.
While it is a commendable gesture for the president of Sri Lanka, Maithripala Sirisena, to participate in this demonstration, and thereby publically showing his disapproval of the use of torture in criminal investigations, it also reveals a significant contradiction.

The President of Sri Lanka is the head of the state. The policemen working at police stations are directly under the control of the government. However, the police defy the government’s policy and instructions regarding the use of torture and ill-treatment. Under such circumstances, what would normally be expected of a government is to take firm actions against its own officers who refuse to carry out the government’s stated instructions. What a government is expected to do in such occasions is to ACT. What the Sri Lankan government has so far demonstrated is that it is either unwilling or incapable of acting to ensure that the officers who disobey its orders are punished.

The core of the issue of torture is the question as to why the government is unable to take effective action against those police officers and their superiors who refuse to obey the government’s order to stop the use of torture and ill-treatment. A closer study of the problem clearly demonstrates that the policing service is blatantly of the view that the use of torture and ill-treatment is an indispensable tool. Their argument seems to be that if the government wants us to stop the use of torture and ill-treatment then we don’t know of any other way to carry out our obligations in dealing with crimes. The government is aware of this strong resistance by the police to stop the use of torture and ill-treatment. The government is therefore afraid to enforce its own policy and instructions because there could be a conflict with its own law enforcement agency.

The police officers, for their part, express the view that they are not equipped with modern methods to deal with crime, such as scientific investigation capacities, as there has not been any attempt to modernize the police service in Sri Lanka. The improvement of education, skill-development, and also the availability of facilities, such as forensic laboratories and the like, are not made available to them. They also point out that, in the recent past, they had to obey orders of politicians who got them to do things which they were incapable of disobeying. In short, there is an accusation that the policing service has been corrupted by the misuse of it by politicians. There is a further complaint that, for the officers of the lower ranks below the office of the Officer-in-Charge of the police station, service conditions have been very poor, with rather low wages and stagnation at the same position without promotions for many long years. The high-ranking officers find that the mobilization of the lower ranks has become difficult because lower ranks suffer from an enormous sense of frustration, and therefore they could in various ways sabotage the functioning of the policing institution.

There certainly seems to be a crisis in the exercise of command responsibility within the policing system. The very fact that one Deputy Inspector General of Police has been sentenced to death for serious offences (for the death of the businessman Mohamed Siyam) and some others are facing serious charges before the courts shows that, among the very top ranks of the police, there is a crisis relating to their attitude to the law. One of the key officer ranks that could stop the use of torture and ill-treatment at police stations is the Assistant Superintendants of Police (ASPs). There is an ASP in charge of every police station. According to the police orders and regulations, the supervision of police stations is directly under the charge of ASPs. Torture cannot take place at a police station without the approval of this practice by the relevant ASP. The admission that torture and ill-treatment are practiced widely means that these ASPs are failing to carry out their obligations. In a strategy to eliminate torture, it should be a primary goal to ensure that the ASPs carry out their obligations.

It is commendable for HRC SL to try to mobilize the support of the people towards the aim of eliminating torture. It is also good of the President of Sri Lanka to participate in that demonstration. However, both the HRC SL and the government must now face up to the task of ensuring that Sri Lanka’s premier law enforcement agency, the policing service, is made to obey the law of the land. The practice of torture is a violation of the Sri Lankan law, expressed in the CAT Act No 22 of 1994. Under this law, any government officer who is found guilty of committing the crime of torture should be punished with a prison term of not less than 7 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000. Anyone who disobeys the law should surely not be allowed to serve within the premier agency that is supposed to enforce the law. It is to be hoped that this demonstration will result in some practical soul-searching and a genuine effort to transform gestures into real actions and tangible change.

An Evening With Jayampathy: A Response To Hoole

By S. Krishnananthan –July 1, 2016

S. Krishnananthan

The article of Prof. Ratnajeevan Hoole in the Colombo Telegraph, “An evening in Jaffna with Hon. Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne”, has many inaccuracies and distortions and as the Chair of the meeting I should clarify what was actually said.

Dr. Wickramaratne was in Jaffna as a resource person for a workshop for senior officers of the Northern Provincial Council on “Provincial Administration and Finance” conducted by the Institute for Constitutional Studies. Whenever he visits Jaffna he makes it a point to meet the members of the Jaffna Managers’ Forum and this was another such occasion. The persons who accompanied him were the other resource persons who had come for the workshop and not “LSSP cohorts” as Prof. Hoole describes.

Dr. Jayampathy quoted Dr. Colvin as saying, “When a constitution is made, it is not made by the Minister of Constitutional Affairs”, meaning that the final product depends on the strengths of the various political forces involved. Dr. Nihal Jayawickrama, who was the Secretary of the Ministry of Justice at that time, has said that the first draft prepared by Colvin did not have the phrase ‘unitary state’. But Felix Dias Bandaranaike had insisted on a ‘unitary state’. Dr. Jayampathy explained that the basic resolution approved by the Constituent Assembly was for Buddhism to be given its ‘rightful place’ but, again, the rightists succeeded in giving Buddhism ‘the foremost place’ in the final version. The balance of power within the Constituent assembly during 1970-1972 was clearly against the nonracial forces. With regard to Dr. Hoole’s reference to a Professor of Sinhala who helped Dr. Colvin with the translation, it was true that Prof. P.E. E. Fernando helped in the translation.

According to Dr. Hoole, Dr. Jayampathy said that the Tamil MPs contributed to the lack of legitimacy of the 1972 Constitution by being absent at the final vote. What he actually said was that the United Front failed to respond to MP Dharmalingam’s request to at least abolish Kachcheris and establish elected bodies at District level if it could not go outside the unitary state. Yet, the Tamil MPs continued to participate and kept away only after there was no agreement on the language issue. Dr. Jayampathy blamed the United Front for this and said that if the Tamil MPs stayed on, the 1972 Constitution would have had greater legitimacy even if the Tamil MPs would not have finally supported it.

Read More

STATEMENT ON HRC 32: TNA REVISIONS INCLUDED IN THE SRI LANKA’S OFFICE OF MISSING PERSONS (OMP)

01/07/2016

( TNA welcome the report presented by Zeid and wants International participation in TC mechanisms)

Issuing a statement to mark the 32 session of the UNHRC the TNA says that the Sri Lanka Government has included some  its extensive revisions tot he draft.  TNA commends the government for its constructive engagement on the Bill. Further the TNA expresses its concerns about the very slow pace of implementation with respect to a number of human rights issues in Sri Lanka. In particular, delays in releasing private lands illegally occupied by the military; the continued use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and the government’s failure to repeal it; the breach of undertakings to release those held under the PTA; and the continuing surveillance and harassment of civilians in the North and East.

Full statement follows:

(01. July 2016. /Media Release by TNA.)

The Tamil National Alliance welcomes the oral update of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Human Rights Council at its 32nd Session on the implementation of Resolution 30/1. The oral update in our view, captures accurately the opportunities and challenges for reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka. We are grateful to the High Commissioner and his Office for their continued engagement in this matter.

We are however concerned about the very slow pace of implementation with respect to a number of human rights issues in Sri Lanka. In particular, delays in releasing private lands illegally occupied by the military; the continued use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and the government’s failure to repeal it; the breach of undertakings to release those held under the PTA; and the continuing surveillance and harassment of civilians in the North and East. Delay in the resettlement of displaced people in both the North and East, and in the restoration of normal life by providing then with housing, livelihood opportunities and other facilities continues to be a matter of concern and is a great impediment to the process of reconciliation and the return to normalcy.

With respect to the reconciliation mechanisms proposed by the government, we welcome the tabling of the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) Bill in Parliament. The government consulted us on the Bill, and we are pleased that several of the extensive revisions we urged have been included in the gazetted text. We commend the government for its constructive engagement on the Bill. We look forward to further amendments being moved at the committee stage, and to the early passage of the law through Parliament. A law on the lines contemplated by the Bill, if implemented sincerely, could bring relief to families of the forcibly disappeared who are in desperate need of answers. The OMP must represent a dramatic break from the experience of failed Commissions, including the current Paranagama Commission which lacks credibility. We reiterate that justice for crimes committed in the past by both sides is a necessary precondition to meaningful reconciliation. In this regard, we reiterate the importance of the full implementation of operative paragraphs 6 and 7 so us to ensure trust and credibility. We are particularly encouraged by the number of countries that continue to urge Sri Lanka to fulfill its commitments. Resolution 30/1 represents the solemn commitment of Sri Lanka to its own citizens, and to the Tamil people who we represent, and must be implemented.

We also note the High Commissioner’s observations on the importance of crafting a new Constitution that serves all citizens of Sri Lanka and the support that this proposition has received from several countries. An acceptable resolution to the national question through adequate constitutional arrangements is fundamental to the process of genuine and effective reconciliation and to the attainment of justice with equality and permanent peace by all people in Sri Lanka.  We will continue to remain engaged with all parties towards this end, with a view to addressing the longstanding national question that has plagued Sri Lanka.

-Tamil National Alliance