SRI LANKA: Fourteen year old male Cadet and ten other boys sexually abused by senior students at the Rantambe Military Camp

March 22, 2017

Dear Friends,

According to information received by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), a 14 year old, boy X, and 10 other boys were sexually abused at the Rantambe Military Camp between 16th-23rd February 2017. Boy X together with a group of 23 male students from the Pilawela Maha Vidiyalaya, Pilawela, Kundasale School in the Kandy District, participated in a training program organized by the Military Camp. Returning home after training, the boy shared with his parents that he was sexually abused and video-graphed at the scene. Although the parents made formal complaints to the principal, the OICs of the Wattegama and Hasalaka Police Stations, a proper investigation has not been carried out. Sometime later, the students responsible for the attack were arrested and produced before the Mahiyanganaya Magistrate’s Court. As usual, the police failed to submit the proper evidence leading to their release on bail. The parents state that they have been denied justice.

CASE NARRATIVE:

According to information received by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), Mr. N.G Rohitha Sarathchandra (42) and Mrs. T.G Priyangani (39) of No: 4/3, Hathamuna, Pilawela, Kundasale in the Kandy District, are married and have a boy, aged 14. He is presently studying at the Pilawela Maha Vidiyalaya, Pilawela School, Kundasale in the Kandy District. The name of the child is withheld for obvious reasons and we will refer to him as Boy X.

Boy X, is participating in the Cadet Program in school as one of his extra-curricular activities. There are a few dozen boys taking part in this special program. Cadet Master, Captain Samatha Perera, brought 23 boys to the Rantambe Army Camp for the Cadet Training Program, held from 16th to the 23rd of February 2017.

Once they returned home on 24th February 2017, Boy X, reported what happened to his parents. During the training period he, along with 10 other students, were all sexually abused by 3 three senior students of their school. They were named as Fonseka, Janith and Banda. He also said that these three senior students video graphed scenes while they sexually abusing the boys.

According to Boy X, during the cadet training program, 10 students were subjected to inhumane treatment and torture as they tried to hit back at their seniors’ illegal behavior. They were tied to a bed, stripped naked, their private parts were joked about and they were assaulted with cups and sticks. They were given only a little food mixed with human spittle by the 3 senior students.

On 27th February several parents of the victims, went to see the principal of the school, Mrs. Udeni Dunuwila. She said that she cannot do anything about the incident and that she is not responsible for the attacks. Boy X’s parents called the police emergency service telephone No: 11. Police officers of Wattegama Police Station arrived. Victims and suspects were all taken to Wattegama Police Station. The video recording was viewed by the police and statements were taken down from suspects and victims. All victims were taken to Manikhinna Government Hospital, were not examined but merely questioned and sent home.

The suspects were held at the Wattegama Police Station. Parents of the victims were asked to go to Hasalaka Police Station as the incident happened in that police division.

On 28th February, the parents met the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Hasalaka Police Station, and verbally made a complaint to him. The OIC laughed at them. He said "these are minor matters, don't worry" and only recorded the names of the suspects and the victims. They were then asked to return home.

Later they learned that officers of the other Police Station at Wattegama had taken steps to produce the 3 suspects before the Mahiyangana Magistrate’s Court. But they did not take the proper steps when submitting the necessary evidence and the findings of their investigations. Of particular note, is the fact that they failed to inform the magistrate about the video recording of the sexual abuse. And in addition, no mention was made of the illegal behavior which is a punishable crime under the Sri Lankan Penal Code. Considering the meager facts submitted by the police, the Magistrate had to release the suspected students on bail. According to the victims’ parents, the officers handling the case mislead the Magistrate. 

They told the judge that as investigating police officers they considered this matter as a joke carried out by senior students on junior students.

The victims’ state that the principal of the school, Mrs. Udeni Dunuwila, and the Cadet Master, Captain Samantha Perera turned a blind eye to the incident. Police officers said it was only a joke. However, the parents strongly protested their attitudes, saying the issue was that their children were sexually abused for 6 days and treated callously.

On 2nd March the incident was reported in the national media, in the highest circulated newspaper on the Island, "Lankadeepa". Even in that news report it was erroneously stated that the school principal telephoned to the police emergency service No: 119. Victims’ stated that the facts given were inaccurate. Both law enforcement agencies and the media are trying to protect the culprits and those officers who subverted the law. Why?

The young boys, victims, are demanding justice for the indignities perpetrated on them. They are asking for a prompt, effective, impartial, and independent investigation into the crime.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write to the authorities listed below expressing your concern about this case. Request an immediate inquiry into the allegations of not investigating the crime of sexual abuse by the police. Demand prosecution of those proven to be responsible under our criminal law system. All officers involved should be subject to an internal investigation for breach of Police Departmental Orders.

The AHRC will also write a separate letter to the Chairman of the UN Child Rights Committee in this regard.

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mr. Pujith Jayasundara
Inspector General of Police
New Secretariat
Colombo 1
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 440440 / 327877
E-mail: igp@police.lk

2. Mr. Jayantha Jayasooriya PC
Attorney General
Attorney General's Department
Colombo 12
SRI LANKA
Fax: +94 11 2 436421
E-mail: ag@attorneygeneral.gov.lk

3. Secretary
National Police Commission
3rd Floor, Rotunda Towers
109 Galle Road
Colombo 03
SRI LANKA
Tel: +94 11 2 395310
Fax: +94 11 2 395867
E-mail: npcgen@sltnet.lk or polcom@sltnet.lk

4. Secretary
Human Rights Commission
No. 36, Kynsey Road
Colombo 8
SRI LANKA
Tel: +94 11 2 694 925 / 673 806
Fax: +94 11 2 694 924 / 696 470
E-mail: sechrc@sltnet.lk

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

Fonseka’s claim on hit squads

2017-03-24

• Gotabaya denies existence of any hit squads during his tenure as the Defence Secretary 
• Mano Ganesan speaking at a function in Colombo told that he had a list of 551 persons who had been abducted
• Secret units independent of the army command structure
• He seems to think that the people, especially the journalists have totally forgotten the relationship between him and the media
• One has to collate and compare the claims made by both the topmost officers

The debate during the last lap of the war between the Army Commander, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka and the Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa during the same period over the death squads allegedly used against many including journalists seems to be a mere coincidence with the ongoing United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions. 

However, the demonstration in the North over the disappearances of people at a time when the UNHRC was at sessions in Geneva is not accidental.  

Tamil organizations here as well as abroad and the interested parties such as the Britain’s Channel 4 usually launch their demonstrations and issuing of new documentary films in a manner that they would coincide with the UNHRC sessions, especially the March sessions, in order to draw the attention of the leaders of the world’s human rights body and the countries interested in the matter.  
Joining the debate between the two war veterans who spearheaded the successful military campaign against the dreaded LTTE, Mano Ganesan, the Minster of National Coexistence, Dialogue and Official Languages while speaking at a function at Kathiresan Street in Colombo revealed that he had a list of 551 persons who had been abducted during the tenure of Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the Defence Secretary. The newspapers had quoted Tamil National Alliance (TNA) spokesman and Parliamentarian M.A. Sumanthirana saying that Gotabaya Rajapaksa could not absolve himself from the responsibility for the disappearance of people during his service period. Newspapers had also quoted Deputy Minister Sujeeva Senasinghe  accusing the Rajapaksa’s of the same.  

Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka had told the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) that there had been a special unit under the former military intelligence chief Kapila Hendavitharana to attack the media during the time when Sunday Leader Editor Lasantha Wickramatunga was killed. He had stated that the special unit took orders from the Defence Secretary. He had also stated that he was unaware about the security situation in the Colombo Division because that was a subject assigned to Major General Ajith Perera. According to Fonseka the special unit that attacked the journalists and other dissidents was outside of his authority and was controlled by Rajapaksa through Hendaviharana.  

While denying the existence of a special unit for targeting journalists as stated by the former army commander, Gotabaya Rajapaksa had responded that it was Fonseka who should answer for excesses committed by the troops that were under his orders and questioned what actions the latter took if he knew that there were hit squads.  

It must be noted that the former Army Commander said about the existence of an army hit squad at a time when so many army personnel had been arrested over attacks on journalists and another former army officer had allegedly committed suicide after claiming responsibility for the murder of Lasantha Wickramatunga. So far a number of army personnel, almost all of them attached to the army intelligence unit, had been apprehended by the CID for the killing of Wickramatunga, disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attacks on senior journalist Keith Noyarh and Rivira Editor Upali Tennakoon who worked earlier as the Editor of Divaina as well.   

Gotabaya denies the existence of any hit squads during his tenure as the Defence Secretary. But nobody can deny the occurrence of the incidents mentioned above as well as the attack on senior journalist and activist Poddala Jayantha during the Rajapaksa rule. Sirasa studio in Pannipitiya was burnt and Siyatha office was also attacked then. Udayan newspaper office in Jaffna came under attack several times. So many Tamil journalists were killed during this period. Many journalists left the country due to the threats to their lives during the same period. These were not fiction, but facts.   
One may argue that just because these incidents took place during President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure in which Gotabaya was so powerful that he was second only to the President, they cannot be held responsible for them. Yes, for an argument’s sake it is true. But the question remains as to why the then government failed to bring the culprits of at least one of these cases to book, whereas almost all arrests were made in respect of these incidents just months after the regime change in January 2015.   

Keith was assaulted as far back as 2008, Lasantha was killed in 2009, but nobody was arrested until the regime change. Sri Lankan police are not so weak or lack capacity. The best case in point was the arrest of the mastermind of the attack on the Joint Operations Command (JOC) in Colombo on June 21, 1991 from a hideout in Talawakelle just within 24 hours using a clue of a chassis number of the lorry that had gone to the hands of several people before it was taken over by the LTTE.   
One from the Rajapaksa camp might again argue that it is the police that investigate into such incidents and arrest people and the government cannot be held responsible for their actions. But the people from the same camp accuse the current government leaders for arresting “war heroes” for these incidents and “patriotic politicians” for voicing against the government. The argument - it is the police who arrest people not the government - should be applicable to both situations. 

Therefore, the then government and the Defence Secretary cannot wash their hands off completely by refusing at least to take the moral responsibility for these attacks against journalists.  
On the other hand, Fonseka might be correct when he said that there had been secret units independent of the army command structure. But his claim that he, the army commander who was at war with an enemy who had spread his tentacles even into the heart of Colombo was unaware of the security situation in the Capital city is interesting. He seems to think that the people, especially the journalists have totally forgotten the relationship between him and the media during the last lap of the war. There had been several demonstrations in Colombo during the Rajapaksa regime by the journalists against the attacks on their colleagues during which slogans were shouted against the army commander as well. Responding to these slogans Gotabaya warned the journalists for accusing “his commander”. Fonseka even called some journalists “traitors.”   

However, Fonseka’s claim that there had been hit squads must be taken seriously and if proven true he must be commended for disclosing it. However, one has to collate and compare the claims made by both the topmost officers of the defence establishment during the war to get a clear picture of the situation that threatened the journalists during the last regime.   

My (Typical) Pera Story

By Sarath Bandara –March 22, 2017

My name is Sarath Bandara and I was born, the eldest of three children, in Radagama, about 10 km from Anuradhapura. My parents were teachers in the local school, my father an Arts graduate from Peradeniya and my mother teaches in the primary classes. I began schooling in my parent’s school as my father’s friends in the Education department could not help me enter Anuradhapura Central because 10 km was too far away. However I found later that there were many students in the school who lived even further away, but got admission through political influence or by paying money. The advantage of being admitted straight away to a big school in a city was that one not only had good teachers but could continue there even if one did badly in the Grade 5 scholarship examination.

I could only hope that I would do well in the Scholarship examination and get into Anuradhapura Central, something I was able to do because I think of the attention and commitment of my teacher parents. Most of the students in my school did not fare too well and so had to continue in the village school. Prospects for University education for them were low, as they had to do well at the O/L to move out, very difficult as there were no good teachers in Science, Mathematics or English in the school. 

Studying at Anuradhapura Central was not very easy as I had to leave home before 6 in the morning and could not stay behind for sports as the last bus left at 4.  However, thanks to being in that school, I obtained 6 As but only Cs in Mathematics and English at my O/L examination. There were only one or two Bs and no As in these subjects as even big schools in our area cannot get good teachers in Science and Mathematics to stay on. My O/L results were released when I was 17 and I could begin my A/L only at 18 and sit for it only when nearly 21. So I was really surprised to hear that our SAITM nangis could enter Medical school at 16.

In my first attempt, my Z-score was too low for Medicine, something which my mother was very keen I should do. In my second attempt, I put in lot of effort spending most weekends in tuition classes at Anuradhapura. Since my parents could not afford this, I did O/L tuition in science for students in my village to pay for it. I did very well in my second attempt obtaining three As, qualifying for medicine with a rank allowing me to choose my University. My father was overjoyed that I could enter his old University, Peradeniya rather than the nearby Rajarata University. With the delays in release of results and University admission procedures, I was 25 by the time I entered Peradeniya. When I got there I realized the District Quota was sometimes unfair with many students from big schools just outside Kandy like Poromodulla Central entering with low Z-scores because they were from Hanguranketha, Nuwara Eliya district although they were close enough to attend tuition classes in Kandy. However there were also students from deprived areas like Moneragala who were able to enter though District Quota.

I was lucky in that being from Anuradhapura, I could get hostel facilities but unlucky in that I could not apply for Mahapola as my parents combined teacher salaries were too high. This meant that I had to find some other source of income as my parents with two more children to support were finding it rather difficult. I was rather wary about staying in the hostel having heard and read about the rag. However the rag appeared to be less for medical students as our seniors too busy with work, although I must admit that if I did not agree to be in the rag, my hostel stay would have been unpleasant. I had no alternative as I could not pay five times as much for a room. Only those who travel from homes around the University could avoid being ragged but even they would lose out as they would be prevented from participating in sports and batch activities. However the medical faculty rag was fairly mild with a few seniors catching me alone and scolding me in bad language, forcing us having to share meals with four or five others in the canteen and walk two by two like schoolchildren when leaving the Faculty. Ragging in the hostel was also faculty based, so that ragging of medical students were less.

Read More

Cabinet sub-committee to sell Hambanthota Harbour

March 22, 2017 by

The agreement relevant to hand over Hambanthota Harbour to China Merchants company was presented to cabinet yesterday (21st). However, due to objections raised by the Ministry of Ports and Shipping the President appointed a sub committee to consider the agreement.
Earlier too an agreement was compiled but due to opposition from trade unions in port, other trade unions, masses and political parties the Ministry of Ports and Shipping expressed its objection in the cabinet and the government had to withdrew the agreement. Later, the agreement was amended and has been presented to the cabinet.
However, due to objections from the Ministry of Ports and Shipping presented by its acting Minister Nishantha Muthuhettigama the cabinet could not approve the agreement yesterday too.
A cabinet sub-committee headed by Minister Sarath Amunugama has been appointed to consider the objections raised. The other members of the sub-committee are Ministers Susil Premajayanth, Patali Champika Ranawaka, Faizer Musthapa and Arjuna Ranatunga.
According to the agreement presented yesterday ‘China Merchants’ would get 90% of the shares and Sri Lanka Ports Authority would get only 20%.
It is further reported that the clauses included in the agreement include many complications and if the agreement is to be implemented many new laws would be necessary and it would be necessary to amend the Port Authority Act.

Megapolis hits red alert warning on disaster responsiveness

Experts say ‘first things first’

Ms. Dayalanie Abeygunawardena, COO Janashakthi Insurance

by Sanath Nanayakkare-March 23, 2017, 9:21 pm 

Awakening to the intense need of flash-flood controls and disaster-meeting capacity in the proposed western Megapolis; foreign consultants, local experts and engineers are going back to risk management basics saying 'first things first'.

They have begun exploring ways for disaster responsiveness, giving it the priority over the ambitious plans of the Megapolis' roads, bridges, light rails and dynamic cities designed to achieve the country's aspiration of becoming a global hub by 2025.

In this backdrop, foreign consultants and JICA together with scores of local engineers and experts in land reclamation, irrigation, water resource management, flood control, climate resilience and a leading insurer of the country had a seminar in Colombo on Tuesday to discuss key bottlenecks in safe drinking water, drainage, sewerage, solid waste, pollution, relocation of residents, and proposed Megapolis infrastructure which would be highly vulnerable to the effects of flooding which exacerbates on any given day by climate change and sea level rise.

Ms. Dayalanie Abeygunawardane, COO Janashakthi General Insurance Ltd. requested the experts and policymakers to act fast on disaster responsiveness in the proposed western Megapolis, or otherwise, insurers would be compelled to pass on expensive high-risk premiums to their clients who take out insurance for their commercial establishments, warehouses, logistical facilities and even residences in the 'booming' Megapolis.

"As insurers we have seen first hand the economic, financial and emotional devastation flash-flood victims go through when flood waters and avalanches of mud sweep into their business establishments and houses, completely destroying their assets and belongings. During the tragic May floods in Sri Lanka, the insurers compensated Rs. 15 billion on claims. As you are aware there were so many hapless victims who hadn't had any insurance and as a result, extreme bad luck was thrown at them. So, please focus your attention on mitigation of such climate threats and risks," she said.

The experts and engineers exchanged their views on proper design and maintenance of micro and macro drainage systems, flood retention areas near the river banks of Kalu Ganga and Kelani Ganga as well as plans with effective lead-times to respond to flash floods.

The experts also focused on the overall risks management capacity of the implementing agencies, robust resettlement measures and strong communication and public awareness efforts to minimize both social and more general stakeholders’ risks associated with Megapolis development, to facilitate its smooth implementation.

The seminar was addressed by Minister Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, architect Surath Wickramasinghe, engineer Dr. Kitsiri Weligepolage, engineer S.P.C. Sugeeshwara Timothy Hannan- team leader, Climate Resilience Project, World Bank, Firzan Hashim, Asia Pacific Alliance for Disaster Management, engineer Upali Delpachitre, Hiroki Hashimoto, JICA Sri Lanka Office, engineer Maj. Ranjith Gunatillake and Ms. Dayalanie Abeygunawardane, COO Janashakthi General Insurance Ltd.

The event was hosted by the Chamber of Construction Industry Sri Lanka (CCI).

Why do agricultural value chains fail? Part (IV): Misaligned incentives 

While the beginning of the fertiliser subsidy provides incentives for farmers to apply fertiliser to increase the yield, the latter part of the subsidy prompted them to overuse

Introduction

Thursday, 23 March 2017

The prime objective of the policies towards agriculture is to ensure sustainable agricultural production and food security. Sustainable agriculture deals with economical, environmental and social sustainability of the agricultural efforts while food security is focused on accessibility, affordability and nutrition.

Why do agricultural value chains fail.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Rasmea Odeh accepts plea deal avoiding jail

Palestinian activist Odeh will be stripped of US citizenship and forced to leave country, but she will not serve prison time

Odeh was tortured in Israeli prison (MEE)

Ali Harb-Thursday 23 March 2017

Palestinian activist Rasmea Odeh accepted a plea deal that would end her long legal battle with the US government.

As a part of the agreement, Odeh would avoid prison time but also lose her US citizenship and leave the country.

In 2014, Odeh was convicted of unlawful procurement of US citizenship and sentenced to 18 months in prison. That conviction, however, was overturned by an court of appeals last year.

As a Palestinian who has dedicated her life to the cause of liberation, it is impossible for Rasmea to expect a fair trial in US courts.

-The Rasmea Defense Committee 

Odeh was charged because she failed to disclose on her US naturalisation application that she was jailed for 10 years in Israel after a military court found her guilty of involvement in a 1969 super market bombing in Jerusalem. She says the Israeli case was based on a forced confession obtained by torture that included sexual assault.

She won appeal in the US case because the judge had omitted evidence of torture in Israel from her 2014 trial. The defence wanted to argue that Odeh suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which affected her mental state while answering the naturalisation form questions.

The Rasmea Defense Committee said in a statement that avoiding jail was a “victory” for Odeh.

The committee cited the slim chances for acquittal in the new trial, which was set for May.

“As a Palestinian who has dedicated her life to the cause of liberation, it is impossible for Rasmea to expect a fair trial in U.S. courts,” the group said in a statement.

The prosecution had added an indictment that frames the accusations against Odeh as terrorism, rather than immigration fraud.

The Defense Committee also said the prosecution may be more vicious under the "regime of racist Attorney General Jeff Sessions".

"There is the great likelihood that a jury would be prejudiced by hearing the zionist Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Tukel call Rasmea a 'terrorist' and her supporters 'mobs and hordes,' as he has done many times before," the statement said.

There was also the fear that Odeh would be held by immigration authorities after serving her sentence if she gets convicted.

“Under this current, racist political climate, and facing 18 months or more of imprisonment, as well as the possibility of indefinite detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Rasmea has made the difficult decision to accept a plea agreement,” the Defense Committee said.

Odeh’s supporters had organised a political movement around her case, holding protests outside the courthouse in Detroit each time she appeared before a judge.

They believed the charges against her were politically motivated -- a “witch hunt” aimed to deal a blow to Palestinian activism in the United States.

US Judge Gershwin Drain will set a date to consider the plea agreement. Odeh’s supporters have vowed to gather in Detroit to stand with the Palestinian activist on what could be her last day in US court.

Israeli allegations against Omar Barghouti “fabricated,” boycott movement says

Omar Barghouti (Intal/Flickr)

Maureen Clare Murphy-22 March 2017

Israel’s detention of Omar Barghouti on Sunday is the “latest desperate chapter of repression and intimidation” against the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement co-founder, the civil society coalition that guides the movement stated on Wednesday.

Israeli media have reported that Barghouti, who lives in the coastal city of Akka in present-day Israel, is suspected of tax evasion. The Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee accused the Israeli government of “fabricating a case” against him.

Barghouti and his wife were detained for 16 hours on Sunday and Barghouti was being interrogated for the fourth consecutive day, the committee said on Wednesday.

The committee said the investigation of Barghouti was part of Israel’s “systematic efforts to criminalize the BDS movement, intimidate activists and stop free speech.”

Barghouti “has for years been subjected to intense threats, intimidation and repression by various arms of the far-right Israeli government, particularly after it considered the movement a ‘strategic threat’ to its entire system of injustice against Palestinians,” the committee added.

Last year the Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz reported that Israel had established a “dirty tricks” or “tarnishing” unit which would target BDS groups.

The committee said that the case against Barghouti was an attempt to “tarnish his image and intimidate him.”

Threats against Barghouti

In the past year, Barghouti has been subjected to a travel ban and open threats by Israel’s top ministers.

During a “Stop the Boycott” conference held in Jerusalem last March, Gilad Erdan, Israel’s public security and strategic affairs minister, vowed that boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) activists “will know they will pay a price for it.”

Singling out Barghouti, Erdan, who is responsible for shaping Israel’s response to the global BDS movement, added, “We will soon be hearing more of our friend Barghouti.”

During the same conference, which was attended by EU and US diplomats, Israel’s intelligence minister Yisrael Katz called for the thwarting of the BDS leadership, using the same Hebrew term used by the military for “targeted killing,” or extrajudicial execution.

Israel’s interior minister Aryeh Deri told conference attendees that he was considering revoking Barghouti’s residency permit.

In response, Amnesty International expressed its concern for the “safety and liberty of Palestinian human rights defender Omar Barghouti, and other boycott, divestment and sanctions activists, following calls alluding to threats, including of physical harm and deprivation of basic rights, made by Israeli ministers.”

Barghouti is due to travel to the US in April to receive the annual Gandhi Peace Award given by the Connecticut-based organization Promoting Enduring Peace.

“It is in this context that the Israeli tax department’s investigation of Omar and his wife, Safa, must be understood,” the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee stated.

“After failing to intimidate them through the threat of revoking Omar’s permanent residence in Israel, and after the effective travel ban imposed on him proved futile in stopping his human rights work, the Israeli government has resorted to fabricating a case related to Omar’s alleged income outside of Israel to tarnish his image and intimidate him.”

Attempts to undermine BDS

Israel has pressured governments and legislatures to adopt laws and policies aimed at restricting BDS, and its intelligence agencies have launched “black ops” to sabotage the movement.

Meanwhile, Israel’s global standing continues to deteriorate, according to its top strategists.

Earlier this month, Israel reacted with outrage after the publication of a UN report that concludes Israel is an apartheid state and urges national governments to “support boycott, divestment and sanctions activities and respond positively to calls for such initiatives.”

Last year the European Union stated that while it objects to BDS, it recognizes the right of its citizens to boycott Israel.

Three member states, Sweden, Ireland and the Netherlands, already explicitly recognize the right to boycott Israel.

The United States – Israel’s principal ally and bankroller – backed the right to boycott in November.

This month Israel passed a law barring entry or residency to non-Israelis who advocate for a boycott of the state.

Gilad Erdan, the minister tasked with combatting the boycott, this week proposed compiling a database on Israeli citizens who support BDS.

The move is “not at all surprising,” Mahmoud Nawajaa, coordinator with the Palestinian BDS National Committee, said on Tuesday.

“Israel’s repressive efforts to suppress the BDS movement further illustrate the justice of our cause and will thus only strengthen worldwide support for our nonviolent struggle for our freedom and rights.”

A former Russian MP has been killed in the centre of the Ukrainian capital.

23/03/2017

Denis Voronenkov, a key witness in a treason case against former leader Viktor Yanukovich was shot dead outside a hotel in Kyiv.

The assailant, who was armed with a pistol, later died in hospital after being shot by Voronenkov’s bodyguard. His identity has not been disclosed.

Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko said the killing is an ‘act of state terrorism’ by Russia. Voronenkov had spoken out against Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.

The Kremlin has responded to the news.

“Regarding the reaction of the Ukrainian authorities and media, who, within an hour after the incident already have put the blame on the Russian Federation…. This puts an end to any unprejudiced and objective investigation of this murder,” Maria Zakharova, Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman said.

Relations between Moscow and Kyiv are at an all-time low after the annexation of Crimea, followed by the outbreak of separatist fighting in the east of Ukraine, in which more than 10,000 people have lost their lives.

Schumer: Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch nomination

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s pick to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, should have to get 60 votes to secure his confirmation and if he fails in that regard it'll be time to "change the nominee." (Reuters)

By Ed O'Keefe, Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow March 23 at 4:24 PM

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings ended Thursday on a confrontational note, with the Senate’s top Democrat vowing a filibuster that could complicate Gorsuch’s confirmation and lead to an overhaul in the way the U.S. Senate conducts its business.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he will vote no on President Trump’s nominee, and asked other Democrats to join him in blocking an up-or-down vote on Gorsuch.

Under Senate rules, it requires 60 votes to overcome such an obstacle. Republicans eager to confirm Gorsuch before their Easter recess begins April 7 have only a 52-senator majority. They have said Gorsuch will be confirmed, even if it means removing the filibuster option and allowing Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed to their lifetime appointments with a simple majority vote.

Schumer’s decision was not unexpected, but increased the tension over the battle to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant since Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly in February 2016.

“If this nominee cannot earn 60 votes — a bar met by each of President Obama’s nominees, and George Bush’s last two nominees — the answer isn’t to change the rules. It’s to change the nominee,” he said.

 Judge Neil Gorsuch continued with his third day of Supreme Court nomination hearings on March 22, answering broad questions but rankling Democrats with his refusal to state specifics. Here are the highlights from the day. (Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

Among recent Supreme Court nominees, President Barack Obama’s choices of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan each received more than 60 votes. Samuel A. Alito Jr., chosen by President George W. Bush, was confirmed 58-42 in 2006, but 72 senators voted to defeat a possible filibuster.

It is not clear that Democrats have the votes to block Gorsuch and to keep Republicans from changing the chamber’s way of doing business. But Schumer’s announcement is likely to further politicize an already divided Congress.

In the last 47 years of Supreme Court nominations — spanning the appointments of the 16 most recent justices — only Alito was forced to clear the 60-vote procedural hurdle to break a filibuster.

In a Senate floor speech, Schumer said that Gorsuch “was unable to sufficiently convince me that he’d be an independent check” on Trump. He said later that the judge is “not a neutral legal mind but someone with a deep-seated conservative ideology. He was groomed by the Federalist Society and has shown not one inch of difference between his views and theirs.”

The Federalist Society, a conservative legal group, was one of two organizations that provided a list of names to Trump to consider for his Supreme Court nomination. One of the group’s top leaders, Leonard Leo, is on leave from the organization as he advises Trump on the Supreme Court confirmation process and other picks to fill vacancies on the federal appeals courts.

Schumer’s opposition was widely expected, given his leadership of a party facing increased pressure to block all of Trump’s nominees and policy decisions. But Schumer didn’t signal that his entire caucus is joining him in opposition — a sign that he is leaving political space for certain Democrats to find ways to work with Republicans, if necessary. Several Democrats are facing opposition from conservative organizations bankrolling a multimillion-dollar ad campaign designed to bolster Gorsuch.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer on March 23 said it was “truly disappointing” that Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced that he would seek to filibuster the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.(Reuters)

In addition to Schumer, Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and Robert Casey (D-Pa.) also announced on Thursday that they would filibuster Gorsuch. Both are up for reelection next year. Casey is one of 10 Democratic senators running next year from states that Trump won in the presidential election and who are being pushed by Republicans to work with them on the president’s priorities.

The Judicial Crisis Network, which is spending at least $10 million on TV ads to convince Democratic senators, called Casey and other Democrats opposing Gorsuch “totally unreasonable” because “they will obstruct anyone who does not promise to rubber stamp their political agenda from the bench.”

Senior Republicans have vowed that Gorsuch will be confirmed no matter what — a veiled threat to Democrats that they might use the so-called nuclear option to change the way senators confirm Supreme Court justices.

“If Judge Gorsuch can’t achieve 60 votes in the Senate, could any judge appointed by a Republican president be approved with 60 or more votes in the Senate?” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said this week.

In 2013, Democrats angered by GOP resistance to Obama’s nominees changed the chamber’s rules so that executive branch nominees and picks to serve on lower federal courts could be confirmed with simple majority votes. Supreme Court nominations were not included in the rules change.

Much of the Democratic resistance to Gorsuch centers on the GOP’s decision last year to block consideration of Judge Merrick Garland, Obama’s choice to replace the late Antonin Scalia.

But moderate Democrats being asked to support Gorsuch have said they are hoping that both parties can come to an agreement that leads to Gorsuch’s confirmation and the preservation of current Senate traditions. Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), seen as the Democrat most likely to support Gorsuch, said he needed to hear more from the nominee but was warning Democrats not to filibuster if it meant risking the nuclear option.

“I’m gonna go talk to him. I haven’t completely made up my mind. I’m gonna go talk to him next week, then I’ll make my decision,” he said. “But I just think the Senate is on a slippery slope.”

Polls show more Americans support than oppose Gorsuch’s nomination, though many have no opinion. Most recently, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last month found 32 percent supporting Gorsuch, while 20 percent were opposed and nearly half said they don’t know enough or have no opinion (48 percent). Gorsuch so far has earned less public support than past nominees.

But support for Democratic attempts to block Gorsuch varies. A Quinnipiac University survey last month found that 65 percent of registered voters believe Senate Democrats should allow a vote on Gorsuch’s nomination; 25 percent said they should prevent such a vote. A CNN-ORC poll found 51 percent of adults believe Senate Democrats would be justified in blocking an up-or-down vote if “all or most of the Democrats in the Senate opposed Gorsuch’s nomination.”

After two days of answering senators’ questions, Gorsuch was not present on Thursday as civil rights leaders, conservative activists, professors, judges and former clerks debated whether he belonged on the high court.

On the final day, there were many empty seats in the hearing room, including on the dais as senators dropped in and out to cast votes.

Opponents expressed concern about Gorsuch’s record on civil liberties, election laws and women’s reproductive rights. Gorsuch’s approach “reflects a narrow view of civil rights and a deep skepticism of protecting those rights in the courtroom,” said Kristen Clarke, head of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Gorsuch’s former law clerks and other attorneys countered criticism that as an appellate judge he has favored corporations and employers over individuals. They cited his sympathy and respect for litigants and rulings to protect the rights of religious minorities and prisoners.

U.S. District John Kane, a fellow Colorado judge, assured the committee that Gorsuch knows that his social, political and religious views have no place on the bench.

“Gorsuch is not a monk, but neither is he a missionary or an ideologue,” Kane said.

Human rights advocates raised concerns about Gorsuch’s tenure at the Justice Department during George W. Bush’s presidency, when he worked on cases related to the detention of terrorism suspects. Gorsuch helped draft language designed to support Bush’s claims of executive authority on matters of torture and the treatment of detainees.

Gorsuch told the committee this week that he was merely acting as an attorney for his then-client.

“Judge Gorsuch was closely involved in developing and defending these claims,” Jameel Jaffer, head of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told the committee.

“It is not the case . . . that Judge Gorsuch happened to be a government lawyer at a time when the government — his client — endorsed torture and a sweeping view of presidential power. The government endorsed those things first, very publicly, and then Judge Gorsuch chose his client.”

Whether Gorsuch would be willing to stand up to overreach by the president as the ninth justice, Jaffer said, is particularly important at a time when Trump has put in place an executive order banning travel to the United States by immigrants from six majority-Muslim counties and has said he would consider prosecuting U.S. citizens in the military commissions at Guantánamo.

The committee also heard a highly personal account directly from Jeff Perkins, the father of a child with autism whom Gorsuch ruled against in 2008. Perkins called the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit “devastating,” requiring one parent to move to another school district to get his son, Luke, the education he needed.

[Supreme Court sets higher bar for education of students with disabilities]

“Judge Gorsuch felt that an education for my son that was even one small step above insignificant was acceptable,” Perkins said.

Gorsuch’s 2008 decision came under scrutiny on Wednesday after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in another case that the standard Gorsuch applied for assessing the educational benefit for students with disabilities was too low.

Deanell Reece Tacha, a former 10th Circuit judge, defended Gorsuch’s position in the 2008 case, saying he was following long-standing precedent in applying a standard that was also used by most other appellate courts. She called Gorsuch the “gold standard in public service.”

Scott Clement and David Weigel contributed to this report.