Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Abortion: Religion vs Feminism Debate

By Faizer Shaheid-2017-09-13

For a long period of time abortion was proven to be an unending topic of debate and discourse with never a conclusive answer. The truth is abortion is a double-edged sword that seemingly gives and deprives at the same time. It almost always boils down to one common, fundamental and integral question that proponents and opponents never can quite agree on. When does life really form?
Of late, the topic has come under enormous debate, with a growing feminist movement strongly criticizing religious leaders who, had and have, openly purported to halt any change in the law in Sri Lanka, and attitude towards abortion. The intervention of religious bodies in the lawmaking process in the past has had more often a negative effect on the progress of society. In the subject of jurisprudence, one would often have witnessed the influence of divinity in the lawmaking process throughout the middle ages.

An extremely popular jurist who propounded the notion of natural law in the middle ages was Thomas Aquinas. He was a Friar and a Catholic Priest whose theological views had a tremendous influence on how laws were formed. He felt that everything in the terrestrial World was created by God, and as such all man-made law must have an unwavering conformity with God's law. As such, he observed that any man-made law that could not have parity with God's law should be immediately struck off, and if not struck off, then humans shall have the right to disobey such laws.

Equals

Despite the continuing significance of religious influence in the lawmaking process, the influence in itself has witnessed a decline since the advent and rapid rise of various human rights networks. The feminist movement has partnered with the human rights movements in order to secure a place for women. Although I do not fully endorse the feminist ideology, as an equalist, I believe that a man and woman ought to be considered equally before the law and ought to be guaranteed the same or similar rights in the eyes of the law. In stating that, I wish to iterate that formal equality is far more just than the substantive equality that feminists usually ride on.

On the topic of abortion, I wish to state that I am neither a feminist nor a religionist.

Legal stance

Be it as it may, abortion in Sri Lanka is mostly illegal under the Sri Lanka Penal Code. Section 303 of the Penal Code specifies that any person, who knowingly causes a pregnant woman to miscarry a child, or in other words, abort a child, may have to face a penalty of up to three years in prison and/or a fine. An exception is permitted if such an abortion is performed in good faith and with intention to save the life of the pregnant woman.

According to Section 304, if the offence of causing a pregnant woman to abort was done without her consent, he or she can be sentenced up to 20 years in prison. If an attempt to cause a woman to abort resulted in the death of the pregnant woman, that person is also liable to be imprisoned for a period of up to 20 years according to Section 305.

Any act which may prevent a child being born alive or causing a child to be born with deformity which may result in death will be punished with imprisonment up to 10 years. This is in accordance with Section 306 and Section 307.

Under these laws, a woman who on her volition chooses to abort the child will be treated with the same level of harshness. However, a woman in the early stages of pregnancy may be treated more leniently than a woman who is in a more advanced stage of pregnancy. Therefore, abortion is justified and permitted only in instances where the mother's life is at peril, in which case the law attaches greater value to the life of a mother than that of the child.

It is also important to note how the law in the Penal Code uses terms such as 'Woman with child' and 'quick with child' to distinguish between a woman who performs abortion during the early stages of pregnancy and during a stage of pregnancy where the foetus has properly developed and able to move. If the foetus is able to move, the law imposes graver punishments. This manner of interpretation depicts how the law recognizes the graver implications on the life of a foetus after it has been developed to an extent.

Policies Worldwide

Under the general standards of policies on abortion, there are certain grounds on which abortion is permitted in different countries. Although abortion was mostly shunned, many countries have increasingly shifted their views on abortion and varied their laws on the basis of some grounds. Abortion laws vary on grounds of whether the life of the woman is at risk, to preserve physical wellbeing and health in general, to preserve the mental health, if the woman has been raped or if conceived through incest, and in foetal impairment, for economic and social reasons. In some countries abortion is available on request.

Over several decades of debate, almost all countries in the world permit abortion if there is risk of losing the life of the woman. Only South Sudan, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Montenegro and the Holy See do not recognize the right to abort a child in the event of risk to the mother's life. A United Nation's study titled, 'World Abortion Policies of 2013' indicates that this constitutes 97 per cent of the entire world.

Many of the countries also recognize the risks imposed on physical and mental health of the pregnant woman. Although they are considered on separate grounds, most countries that recognize physical health also consider the mental health and recognize abortion, just the same. However, mental health is considered to a lesser extent than physical wellbeing of the woman. Therefore, the percentages of countries that permit abortion on grounds of physical and mental wellbeing are 68 per cent and 65 per cent respectively.

Only 51 per cent of the countries recognize rape or incest as grounds to abort a child, and 50 per cent on the ground of foetal impairment. However, what is most important to note is that 30 per cent of the countries worldwide permit abortion on request. By 2011, the UN report suggests that, 71 per cent of developed countries had permitted / recognized abortion on request, while 16 per cent of the developing countries appeared to have not even come close to considering it. Countries such as Tunisia, China, South Africa, Singapore, Spain, France, Cuba, USA and Canada among others have all permitted abortion on request. It is also important to note that UK recognizes abortion under all circumstances, but refuses to permit abortion on the ground of rape or incest or on mere request.
Sri Lanka only recognizes abortion on the grounds of risk to a woman's life, and no other ground shall stand valid regardless of circumstances.

Recent Developments

The law has remained unchanged to a large extent despite recommendations by the Medico-Legal Society of Sri Lanka (MLSSL). A study was performed in 1973, after which a recommendation was submitted to enlarge the number of grounds permitted for abortion. The MLSSL recommended that Sri Lanka ought to permit abortion on grounds of grave injury caused to a person physically and mentally, where pregnancy was a result of rape or incest and the child, if born, would suffer from severe deformities. However, the recommendations never materialized.

After 1973, the recommendations took a back seat, especially in considering the religious sensitivities of many of the Sri Lankans. However, the experts had constantly recommended the need to legitimize abortion on the aforementioned grounds. Especially, in view of the fact that the rate of fertility and population growth in Sri Lanka are considered to be growing. The current fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman and the population growth is roughly 1 per cent per annum. Although this rate is not a high rate, the rate of growth does not appear to be complementing socio-economic development.

The fact that a majority of unnecessary pregnancies have resulted from poorer families who have found difficulty in sustaining children effectively has proven to be a problem. Many such children have turned out to be school dropouts or have emerged as petty criminals. Whilst this is the case in lower income households, the higher income households have managed the problem more effectively.

Awareness

Awareness among the educated has proven to be fairly successful. Therefore, the more affluent households usually resort to preventive measures with the use of contraception pills, and more often by the use of protection such as condoms to ensure protection from their sexual misadventures. However, in the event a pregnancy ensues, women from the higher income households have had little difficulty in terminating their pregnancies.

The World Health Organization (WHO) in its report on Sri Lanka recognizes that such women often visit a psychiatrist on a complaint of severe mental trauma with suicidal tendencies. The psychiatrists then tend to recommend an abortion to save the life of the woman, after which, the pregnancy is terminated in private by a qualified medical practitioner.

The report also recognizes that women from lower income households do not have the luxury of aborting a child legally using the free healthcare system in Sri Lanka, and cannot afford the expensive private healthcare.

Those from the lower income households therefore, often refer to 'back-door abortionists' under 'primitive and unhygienic conditions' which then result in 'high maternal mortality' and 'chronic ill-health'.

Prof. K. K. Karunathilake of the Social Science Unit of the Kelaniya University had recently claimed that an average of 658 abortions take place illegally on a daily basis. These statistics were revealed at a conference held at the Health Education Bureau. At the same conference, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Dr. Mangala Dissanayake also pointed out that 10-12 per cent of maternal deaths were a result of poorly performed illegal abortions.

For these reasons, the Government had pushed for legalizing abortion through the Justice Ministry and the Health Ministry. While recommendations were in order to enable abortion legally in the event of rape (Includes statutory rape) or incest and serious foetal impairment. Although the physical and mental wellbeing of the mother was not put forward in the recommendations, the legitimizing of abortions can indeed be considered a way forward.

Consent ?

While it is generally considered as to the conditions in which abortion should be permitted, the decision to abort cannot be vested entirely on the pregnant woman.

While feminists have consistently argued that a woman should have rights to her own body and all changes in her own body, a pregnancy is not a result of a woman's action alone.

Various arguments have been placed, with hard-line feminists even claiming that men appear to be stigmatizing the issue of abortion when attempting to dictate how a woman should use her body. If gender based discrimination were seen to be true, then the above is certainly a form of gender based discrimination.

In law for every pregnancy borne out of a marriage, the consent of the husband is mandatory, if the woman is to seek an abortion legally. The ruling in the case of Planned Parenthood v Casey becomes mandatory in the discussion of this topic. This is an American case where Courts deviated from the ruling in the case Roe vs. Wade, in stating that the State can regulate abortions in the first trimester or any point prior to the point of viability as long as it does not impose an undue burden on the woman and her right to seek an abortion. The problem with this ruling is it is central to the law and rights in the USA, which may not necessarily apply in every state.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) does not recommend abortion as a mode of family planning although each nation reasons differently based on their own principles and laws.
Pregnancy out of wedlock

The UNFPA looks into the area of abortion, with an aim of eliminating the need for it, through improved family planning. Therefore, it is reasonably argued that family planning is essential when considering an abortion, but should an abortion become necessary, the right to abort a child borne from marriage should only be permissible with the consent of a husband.

Sexual misadventures in this day and age are a common phenomenon and it is quite common for matters to occasionally get out of hand. Contraception pills and condoms are regularly advised, but on occasions, spontaneous cravings overrule the emotional wellbeing of a person, which then result in unforeseen complications. Regardless of what religions may preach, almost every person becomes an infidel whilst copulating.

Regardless of whether pregnancy was previously desired, the wellbeing of the family unit and the best interests of the child to be born must be taken into consideration when looking into the birth of a new child. As much as a child brings joy to a family, the socio-economic factors need to be considered over religious desires. The emotional ambivalence of the impregnated mother must first be stabilized prior to imposing religion on the woman. After all, a well brought up child was never the result of a mentally unstable mother.

However, in instances such as rape, incest or any pregnancy that is not borne out of wedlock, there can be no person who can legally bear responsibility of the child. As a result, it shall be the sole discretion of the mother in choosing whether or not a life needs to be borne from the pregnancy.

The only instance where the law may intervene is to prevent any sort of abortion after the foetus has been properly developed. While different countries regulate this period differently, the least a country may consider is the antepartum period of pregnancy which occurs between 24-26 weeks of the gestational age of the foetus. By this point, any abortion becomes too risky to perform and will impose health hazards on the mother and the child to be born. It is therefore, the responsibility of the law to prevent any such abortion after a certain period of time, unless abortion proves to be a lesser of the two evils.

While abortion is a topic that shall and will always be up for debate, most countries are growing to increasingly support family planning initiatives and assist persons with a desire to abort an undesired child. Sri Lanka needs to follow suit considering the socio-economic factors in the country, and the need to ensure the general health of the masses.(faizer@live.com)

(The writer is a law tutor and an independent researcher of laws. He holds a postgraduate degree in the field of human rights and democratization from the University of Colombo and an undergraduate degree in Law from the University of Northumbria, United Kingdom)

The Abortion Debate: Mismatched and Misplaced?

Image courtesy Asia Society

DINESHA SAMARARATNE on 09/13/2017

I once came into contact with a woman on account of a professional relationship we had. We had met to discuss her prolonged absence from work. With a reserved demeanour and a soft voice she claimed that she had to run her father’s shop back home as he had not been well and hence she said that she had not been able to leave home. After the third conversation that I had with her, she explained the actual reason for her absence. She had been pregnant and her boyfriend’s mother had taken her to a ‘doctor’ so that she could have an abortion. She said she had suffered from bleeding for some time, that she was unwell for a long time thereafter and had lost interest in life. According to her, her parents had no idea about what she had gone through.

Sara, a domestic worker, mentioned in passing to me that she thought taking ‘the pill’ was the reason for her excess weight. We got talking and she eventually told me how she was introduced to ‘the pill’. When she conceived for the second time, she went to a clinic and underwent an abortion as she thought would not be able to afford to care for another child and that she would have to stop working if she had that child. Her husband works as a ‘nattami’. Sara is a Catholic. After the abortion, she went to the nearest Catholic Church to confess her ‘sin’. The priest spoke with her, directed her to the Family Planning Association and since then she has been using ‘the pill’ as contraception.

The above are anonymised real life accounts of two women who have undergone abortion in a country where the law prohibits it except where the life of the mother is in danger. The statement by the Catholic Bishops Conference condemning the Government’s decision to legalize abortion under specified conditions has revived the debates and conversations regarding abortion, its ethics and the role of the state in its regulation. According to news reports on the 3^rd of September the Government has decided to withdraw its proposals for reform due to religious and cultural reasons. Be that as it may, the issues that have been debated on raise several questions that require serious reflection.
In this article I offer some reflections based on which I take the following position in this debate. I hope that by sharing these reflections I will draw attention to a wider range of concerns that should be taken into account in determining the way forward.

Research on abortion in Sri Lanka suggests that most abortion seekers are married and that the primary cause for unwanted pregnancies is the failure to use effective contraception
Proposed reforms do not relate to the issues identified in such research. Rather they address social concerns surrounding conception of life
Scientific evidence is not conclusive as to when a life independent of the woman who conceived it begins and philosophical views are divided on when personhood begins
The law often makes utilitarian, value based choices for society including choice regarding the value of life and when life beings or ends. The same is true of abortion laws
Whether one likes it or not the abortion debate is a debate about two lives at the very least, their value and their rights
Sri Lanka must drastically improve sex education and access to effective contraceptives in order to prevent unwanted/unplanned abortions
The regulation of abortion should not be based on social circumstances but rather on an inverse relationship between a woman’s autonomy and the growth in the personhood of a new life
Even if the law were to be amended to permit abortions in any form that does not mean that abortion itself is something to be celebrated. It is something that should be considered as a last resort. As a society if we believe that abortion is not desirable, we should seek to provide more support for women who face this difficult decision.

Prevailing Law

Abortion has been criminalized in Sri Lanka since 1883. Under sections 303 to 306 of Sri Lanka’s Penal Code, voluntarily causing miscarriage is a crime punishable with up to 3 years of imprisonment. If the woman dies due to an act carried out with the intention to cause a miscarriage the punishment is up to 20 years. If such miscarriage is caused without the consent of the women the punishment is up to 20 years of imprisonment. The only exception to these criminal offences is where the miscarriage is ‘caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman.’
Not much is known about the level of awareness among the public regarding these laws. In a study carried out 2014 among 271 households in Thimbirigasyaya, researchers found that legal literacy regarding abortion laws were poor. Only 11% knew the law accurately. Their attitudes regarding the legalization of abortion was that more than 50% held the view that abortion should be permitted for rape (65%), incest (55%) and lethal foetal abnormalities (53%). Only 4% thought it should be permitted at the request of the woman.

Proposals for liberalizing abortion

The current proposal is to decriminalise abortion in certain instances: rape, statutory rape (where the woman is under 16 years of age), incest, and where the foetus has congenital deformities. Attempts have been made to reform these laws in the 1970s, in 1995 and in the present moment as well.
While these proposals seem to be a practical method of demarcating boundaries its implementation might not be so practical. Even if one were to assume that the legal system is efficient and fair (which it is not, as evident in different studies that have been carried out in Sri Lanka), would a legally valid determination re incest or rape be available based on which abortion could be permitted? Generally, it takes at least ten years for a Court to conclude a criminal trial – clearly these time frames do not match. Moreover, is abortion to be available at any point in the pregnancy in these circumstances? What procedures are to be adopted in determining congenital deformities? What are the implications of these reforms to the medical profession? For instance, if a doctor refuses to perform an abortion would such doctor face civil or criminal liability? More information should be made available in the public domain in this regard in evaluating these proposed reforms.

Prevalence of abortion in Sri Lanka

Anecdotal evidence and studies conducted in Sri Lanka over the years clearly establishes that the prohibition of abortion by law has not prevented women opting for the same. A study in 2000 suggests that 741 abortions are carried out per 1000 live births in Sri Lanka. 12.5% of all maternal deaths are attributed to illegal abortions making it the third most common reason for such deaths in Sri Lanka.

Research carried out in two abortion clinics in Colombo in 1997 show that more than 90% of the clients of that clinic were married women. More than half of them already had had one or two children. Most of them were at the early stage of their pregnancy. The reasons for the abortion among the married women included the pregnancy being too soon after the last delivery, poverty and foreign employment. Shame and fear were given as reasons by the unmarried women and the other reason given was that the father of child was not able/willing to marry the client. Most of the clients are reported as not having used a contraceptive method at the time of pregnancy. The authors of the study suggest that for a majority of the clients that were interviewed, abortion is used as a method of contraception, pointing to the need for improved family planning services.

A more recent study (2014) notes that use of contraceptives have increased in Sri Lanka from 32% in 1975 to 68% by 2006-7. However, abortion continues as a method of birth control at a rate of 45 per 1000 women. The women who participated in the 2014 study were women who had undergone unsafe abortions and women who had delivered children following an unintended pregnancy. In this study it was found that lack of access to reliable information was one factor that pushed women to undergo unsafe abortions. From the women who delivered their children though the pregnancy was unintended, religion and ethical belief were given as factors that prevented them from opting for abortion more than the illegality of abortion.

Birth Control and Education on Reproduction

The ineffective use of birth control methods seems to be the main reason for abortion in Sri Lanka. In a study published in 2007 for which data had been gathered from 306 abortion seekers, 74% had been using a contraception method at the time of conception. Of the women who were using contraception, traditional methods (‘safe period’ and withdrawal) were being used by 74% thereby suggesting that information and decision making in selecting and using birth control is not as effective as it could be in Sri Lanka. Furthermore 68% of this group stated that they had no knowledge of emergency contraception methods. Drawing on these findings it has been pointed out that proposals for liberalizing abortion in Sri Lanka will not reduce the incidence of abortions as the factors leading women to seek abortion are not addressed by the proposed reforms. The proposals seek to permit abortion in instances of rape, incest and congenital deformities of the child – i.e. pregnancies under special circumstance. Most abortion seekers however are woman who seem to be becoming pregnant under ‘regular’ circumstance such as married women conceiving a third child. The mismatch between the proposals and reality is stark.

Irrespective of whether abortion laws are to be liberalized or not, Sri Lanka should focus on strengthening its reproductive health related services in general and sex education in particular. Sex education must be ensured at school level so that children grow up equipped with the knowledge and attitudes that is necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Women and Abortion

Electing for an abortion has been recognized, with conditions, as part of a woman’s reproductive rights. In KL v Peru decided in 2005 by the Human Rights Committee (which is the Committee that monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) the Committee held that the refusal to carry out an abortion where the woman was carrying an anencephalic foetus was a violation of several human rights. In this case, the woman delivered the baby who died four days later. The Committee decided that the refusal to carry out an abortion was a violation of the woman’s right to be free from torture including mental torture, and the right to privacy. In 2015, the woman was granted compensation by the Peruvian government for the violation of her human rights. In June 2017, the Human Rights Committee held that Ireland had violated the right of a woman to be free from torture, right to privacy, and freedom from discrimination in the case of Whelan v Ireland where the woman was denied abortion of a foetus that was diagnosed with a fatal foetal impairment. While some countries such as Canada recognise a woman’s right to abortion at any point in the pregnancy, several other countries recognise a conditional right – which means that the woman’s right to an abortion reduces and is eventually eliminated as the pregnancy advances; based on circumstances of the conception; or based on health factors.

But the claim that women have a right to abortion is being challenged by different quarters. Of these, the most compelling argument is that abortion amounts to murder and should therefore continue to be a criminal offence permitting it only when it is a threat to the mother’s life. The following questions and issues are relevant in evaluating this claim.

When does life being?

The advancement of science and technology has meant remarkable transformations in the field of human reproduction but it has not been particularly helpful in determining whether there is a particular point at which life begins. Fertilization itself does not happen in an instance but from the time the egg is fertilized it can be argued that the fertilized egg becomes a distinct organism (distinct from the egg or the sperm) which has the genetic makeup to develop into a human being. The ‘personhood’ of this living organism takes various forms throughout its life time. After birth it ranges from infancy to youth to adulthood to old age. Similarly, the stages before birth would range from a zygote to a foetus. The point to note here is that personhood is not a stage in life that humans enter into and exist in clearly defined terms but is rather a stage that we evolve into and out of. So life ought to be recognised as such even when it does not demonstrate ‘personhood’ – a person with intellectual disability or a person in a coma are examples that illustrates this point. If rights are accorded to human beings on the basis that they have an inherent right to it and not because they earn it – it becomes difficult to deny such rights to a human life pre-birth. However the only international human rights document that takes this approach is the Inter-American Declaration on the Rights and Freedom of Man which recognises that life begins at conception.

This is why the debate on abortion is actually a debate about the choices society makes about when it recognizes a life, the autonomy it chooses to afford to a pregnant woman and the value it attaches to different types of life. Religious belief, cultural beliefs and practices, economics, politics weigh in significantly in these decisions. Regardless of the position that we take on how law should regulate abortion – I do think it is necessary to recognise that life beings before birth. Not recognising this can have grave implications for protection of life in other instances including in old age and in relation to disabilities.

Law and Life

It is helpful as this point to note that law heavily regulates our notions of life; when it begins and when it ends; the value of life; hierarchies in the value attached to life; and then of course the quality of life. It is not only abortion that can result in loss of life, and particularly loss of vulnerable or voiceless lives. A country’s criminal justice system in and of itself, at a widespread and cross generational level can bring about similar outcomes. A casual glance at the prevailing realities of Sri Lanka’s access to justice particularly in criminal justice is a case in point. So while valid questions may be raised as to whether a zygote/embryo/foetus should have a right to life, those questions and concerns must be viewed as being connected to the other ways in which law (and its practice) impacts on fundamental questions about life.

Politics of Abortion

The liberalization of abortion has often been welcomed as an advancement of women’s equality and as recognition of women’s reproductive rights. The liberalization of abortion means that the law will recognise the woman’s right and freedom to make choices with regard to whether she will carry through with her pregnancy. Catherine Mackinnon, a path breaking feminist legal scholar, writing in the 1970s about abortion laws argued that relegating abortion to the private sphere – i.e. giving the woman ‘the choice’ within a larger patriarchal context where women continue to be unequal and discriminated against, could often lead to further victimization of women. Recognising a woman’s right to privacy in this context she argues assumes a freedom and equality in the private sphere for a woman while the reality is different. In her own words ‘abortion promises women sex with men on the same terms on which men have sex with women… sexual liberation in this sense does not so much free women sexually as it frees male sexual aggression.’ Therefore if the objective is to improve respect for women’s equality and freedom in reproduction, the abortion debate must be seen as linked to other issues. The spread of underage marriage of the girl child, the stigma attached to pregnancy of ‘unmarried’ women, the applicability of personal laws that are discriminatory of women and the prevalence of sexual harassment and domestic violence are some examples.

A Debate with no winners

Whichever way the abortion debates move, it is a debate without winners. We are aware of how an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy affects a woman’s life. We are also aware of the lack of support women experience in rearing their children even where pregnancies are planned and expected. Not allowing women who have been subject to rape or incest the freedom to decide whether they wish to have an abortion seems unacceptable. It is possible that some women chose to abort pregnancies where the child has a congenital defect because they feel that the rest of their family would be affected in serious ways in terms of care and availability.

However if you believe that one measurement of a society’s commitment to social justice and equality is the way in which it protects its vulnerable and marginalised, and if you believe that life does being at birth – then accepting abortion under the law becomes difficult.

Selective Dispensability of Life in Proposed Reforms

The logic of the proposals for liberalisation of abortion in Sri Lanka are not aligned with a recognition of women’s rights. None of the conditions that are proposed are in fact proposals that are being made in the interest of women’s equality. I say this for the following reasons.

This is the most problematic aspect of the current proposal at a normative level. It assigns a negative value to life that is ‘abnormal’, or ‘unacceptable’ life that is conceived in conditions of rape or incest and life that is conceived by girls under the age of 16. In a society that hardly recognises the human rights of persons with disability however, the proposal to permit abortion in cases of congenital deformities is not surprising. Persons with disability are generally invisible in Sri Lanka and this proposal seeks to ensure that their invisibility becomes a matter of policy.

In the case of rape, incest or statutory rape, the rationale seems to be that the woman had no choice in conception. But there are other underlying concerns – a child born out of such circumstances is considered to be unwanted, stigmatised and outside of the conventional institution that is allowed to procreate – i.e. marriage. It can be argued therefore that the current proposals for liberalisation of abortion do not really uphold women’s right to privacy or right to reproduction. Rather these proposals reflect problematic assumptions that are made about the value of life, who has the right to procreate and who has a right to ‘be born’. Any law that seeks to promote women’s rights should allow for abortion on more ‘liberal terms’. That is to say that the scheme should be based on a woman’s choice and the decision that society makes about when it would introduce a near absolute protection on human life before birth.

Law as Lowest Common Denominator

Law almost always reflects some kind of belief – whether religious or not. The debate on abortion in Sri Lanka is also a debate as to whose belief should be reflected in this particular law. Exchange of ideas on social media suggests that there are at least two views – one which favours the prevailing law due to religious reasons and the other which supports the proposed reforms. The latter group rejects many of the ‘religious’ views on this matter. I do think that both these groups have to reflect on the extent to which they wish to impose their view on the rest of society.

Another way to look at this issue is to recognise that all things considered, the law is not a helpful tool which can help society in this regard. Abortion continues today regardless of criminal sanctions against it. However, that does not necessarily mean that one has to have a qualified view as to when life should be given legal protection. Those who strongly oppose abortion should engage meaningfully in making their own choices and in helping society to improve in how these choices are made. But we do live in a society in which we have come to realise that we need to respect individual choices – sometimes even if we think their choices are wrong and harmful to society. As much as I am a proponent of human dignity and equality, in making this argument, and as much as I believe that life begins at conception, I am compelled to make a ‘pro-choice’ argument for another reason.

Pregnancy is a miracle – every single time – regardless of its circumstances and regardless of the health, ability of the life thus conceived. But it is a miracle that requires tremendous commitment, courage, and capacity on the part of the woman who has to bring forth that life or to raise that child. The implications of a pregnancy are lifelong for a woman. Society as a whole or individuals like me should not be given the privilege of using the force of law on any woman (regardless of her social circumstances) in limiting her choices at that point or to force a particular course of action.
(This article has benefitted from comments received by friends and colleagues).

Why is Human Rights Watch urging engagement with Israel’s banks?

Israeli banks are deeply and voluntarily involved in Israel’s theft and colonization of Palestinian land, a war crime under international law.

Ali Abunimah- 13 September 2017

Mahfouz Abu TurkAPA images

Israeli banks claim that Israel’s laws require them to be involved in the colonization of occupied Palestinian – and Syrian – land in violation of international law.

But Human Rights Watch has concluded in a new report that there is nothing in Israeli law that forces the banks to provide many financial services that aid the theft of Palestinian land for Jewish settlements.

While welcoming the report, human rights defenders are criticizing its recommendation that international investors “engage” with Israeli banks, rather than simply divesting.

Omar Barghouti, a founder of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign for Palestinian rights, praised the Human Rights Watch analysis as “truly remarkable,” but called this recommendation “really problematic.”

All five big Israeli banks – Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, First International Bank of Israel and Israel Discount Bank – are heavily involved in settlements.

By providing services to settlements, Israeli banks “violate their international law responsibilities to avoid contributing to human rights and other abuses, including unlawful land seizures, discrimination against Palestinians and de facto annexation of the West Bank by Israel,” Human Rights Watch said in a statement. “Without these banking activities, settlement maintenance and expansion would be more difficult.”

Human Rights Watch emphasizes that Israel’s colonization is a war crime that entails serious violations of human rights.

Given such concerns, the United Methodist Church in the US and the Dutch pension fund PGGM have already divested from Israeli banks.

But major European financial institutions – even some that have divested from other firms complicit in the occupation – have yet to do so.

Dozens of organizations, political parties and trade unions recently urged French insurance giant AXA to dump its investments in Israeli banks.

Willful participants

“In Human Rights Watch’s view, the context of human rights abuse to which settlement business activity contributes is so pervasive and severe that businesses cannot fulfill their human rights responsibilities if they continue carrying out activities inside or for the benefit of settlements, including financing, providing services to, or otherwise supporting settlements or settlement-related activities and infrastructure,” the report states.

It debunks claims made by Israeli banks that they are required under Israel’s “anti-discrimination” laws to provide such services.

But Human Rights Watch concedes that Israeli law does require the banks to maintain accounts “for settlement entities and residents of settlements” – a fact that has prompted criticism of the report’s recommendations.

“After proving that Israeli banks are deeply complicit – out of their own volition – in Israel’s war crimes and serious human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territory, Human Rights Watch should have called for or at least suggested ending all financial transactions and investments in these banks, not ‘engaging’ them without a deadline,” BDS co-founder Omar Barghouti told The Electronic Intifada.

The recommendation smacks of the discredited “constructive engagement” policy towards apartheid South Africa that President Ronald Reagan and other opponents of sanctions on that racist regime promoted in the 1980s.

But Sari Bashi, Human Rights Watch’s advocacy director in Jerusalem, denies that the open-ended call to “engage” with the banks could provide an excuse for delays.

“On the contrary,” she told The Electronic Intifada, “we offer investors information that we think will help them reach a decision.”

How to be “settlement-free”

“As a general matter, around the globe, Human Rights Watch is neutral on the issue of divestment and related forms of shareholder activism,” Bashi stated. “However, we believe that investors have the responsibility to assess and ensure that their investments do not contribute or support violations of human rights or international humanitarian law.”

She said that institutional investors should “ensure that their business relationships are free from settlement-related products or investments,” and if the banks failed to respond adequately, the institutional investors should take whatever action they see fit.

But Barghouti counters that the recommendation to engage “gives the patently false and misleading impression that investors can verify that their funding is not contributing to or assisting settlement activity while Israeli banks continue to do business in and with settlements.”

Given the fungibility of financial investments – which means that money invested in one place will free up money to be used somewhere else – there are only two ways investors can really verify that their investments are truly “settlement-free,” according to Barghouti: either the investors withdraw all their investments from the complicit banks, or the banks cease their complicity by completely ending their operations and business in and with the settlements regime.

According to Barghouti, Israeli banks’ involvement in serious violations of human rights are moreover not limited to their role in the settlements. For example, Israeli banks provide services to and promotemanufacturers of weapons used against Palestinians and Lebanese.

Yet by focusing solely on the settlements, Barghouti said the report “gives another false impression that Israeli banks may meet their obligations under international law if they end all their business in and with settlements. This is obviously not true.”

“Misleading”

John Veron, of Article 1 Collective, a group that promotes the use of international law to hold human rights violators accountable, told The Electronic Intifada that the report is “a valuable contribution to the discussion on Israeli banks’ complicity in violations of human rights.”

But Veron also considers Human Rights Watch’s recommendations that investors engage with the Israeli banks troubling.

“They wrongfully suggest these investors are able to meet their human rights responsibilities through engaging with Israeli banks based on Israeli domestic law,” Veron added. “This ignores the fact that it is international law and international human rights law which should be guiding institutional investors in their engagement with Israeli banks.”

Under the definition used by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Israeli settlements are not just brick-and-mortar buildings, but “encompass all physical and non-physical structures and processes that constitute, enable and support the establishment, expansion and maintenance of Israeli residential communities” in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

The same reasoning would apply to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights of Syria.

According to Veron, the inclusion of “physical and non-physical structures and processes” in the definition of settlements makes it clear that the provision of financial services is “to be understood as an integral part of the Israeli settlements, and thus an integral part of the war crime” of settlements.

Veron added: “Based on Human Rights Watch’s report, institutional investors can come to only one conclusion: to meet their human rights responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, institutional investors have to divest from Israeli banks.”

Despite the criticisms, Barghouti said the Human Rights Watch report provides “an irrefutable argument that Israeli banks are voluntarily, not legally obligated to be, involved in grave violations of international law.”

“This should convince more institutional investors in Israeli banks to follow the principled and courageous example of the United Methodist Church and the massive Dutch pension fund PGGM by ending all investment in Israeli banks,” Barghouti added. “They are a pillar of Israel’s regime of occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid.”

'I think there will be war': Iraqi Kurds fear new conflict after referendum

Official fears violence after 25 September independence vote, as disputes grow in areas controlled by Kurd forces outside original KRG borders

Referendum supporters rally in Kirkuk, one of several disputed regions under KRG control (Reuters)

Tom Westcott-Wednesday 13 September 2017

ERBIL, Iraqi Kurdistan - Fears of fresh conflict in northern Iraq are bubbling to the surface weeks before Iraqi Kurds hold a contentious vote on independence, with warnings of war over disputed, ethnically mixed border regions and reports of Shia forces pushing Kurd officials from a town to prevent voting.

The Kurdistan Regional Government, or KRG, has refused repeated requests from Baghdad, the US and regional powers to postpone its 25 September referendum, saying it would only do so if an alternative was presented by Iraq's central government.

Tensions have risen in areas liberated by KRG forces outside the region's original 2003 borders, including the city of Kirkuk. On Monday the KRG's president, Massoud Barzani, said "any attempt to change the reality using force" in Kirkuk "should expect that every single Kurd will be ready to fight".

We will face border problems... I definitely think there will be another war, and soon

- Jutyar Mahmoud, referendum commission member

Dr Jutyar Mahmoud, a member of the region's independence referendum commission, told Middle East Eye that disputed territories such as Kirkuk were the focus of fears of a new conflagration after the referendum.

"We will face border problems in the near future and I definitely think there will be another war, and soon," he said.

He described Iraq as "militarily weak", after three years of battling the Islamic State (IS), during which time forces have suffered extensive losses, particularly in the recent nine-month fight to liberate Mosul.

A greater threat, he said, was posed by Iraq's other army - the Iranian-backed paramilitary Hashd al-Shaabi, or Popular Mobilisation force.

"The Hashd are another threat and maybe Iran will push them to fight us," Mahmoud said, adding that Iraq's prime minister Haider al-Abadi "doesn't control the Hashd but Iran can".

Jutyar Mahmoud considered the Hashd a greater threat than Iraq's regular army (AFP)

Hostile acts

His comments preceded bouts of recent unrest in some of the contested border regions. On Saturday, local Arabs pulled the KRG flag from a council building in Mandali, in the province of Diyala, and staged an armed, albeit peaceful, protest in the town.

The next day, the town council sacked the Kurdish mayor and overruled a previous vote which agreed to the town's participation in the referendum, according to the Kurdish news service Rudaw. Claims that the Hashd were involved was denied by a well-placed source, who said such actions were not in line with the force’s policies.

The source told MEE that if local fighters affiliated with the Hashd were involved, they were representing themselves not the Hashd al-Shaabi.

Also on Saturday, Kurdish Turkmen were urged to boycott the referendum by eight Turkmen parties in Kirkuk, who repeated Baghdad's line that the vote is unconstitutional.

In Sinjar, 2,000 Yazidis have joined the Hashd, according to the force’s spokesman Ahmed al-Asadi.

Yazidi refugees living in camps said the move was prompted by dissatisfaction with the Kurdish peshmerga forces for failing to protect them from IS in 2014, and what they said was ongoing neglect and marginalisation of Yazidis under the KRG.

Adding to extant tensions are limitations of voter eligibility. Although northern Iraq has long been ethnically-mixed, Arabs relocated under former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's Arabisation schemes are not eligible to vote in the referendum, said the KRG referendum commission's Mahmoud.

Voting in the disputed territories would also be limited to areas controlled by the peshmerga, Mahmoud said, adding that Hashd forces had made it clear that they would not accept ballot boxes being placed in any areas under their control.

Kirkuk's tinderbox

Both the peshmerga and Hashd forces were meanwhile maintaining a strong military presence in several disputed territories, including Kirkuk province.

Several thousand Turkmen Hashd fighters reportedly control what Hashd spokesman Asadi said was the lion's share of the province, but he insisted any talk of war was political bluster.

"The Hashd al-Shaabi was founded to ensure the stability and security of Iraq, not to ignite sectarian or regional wars," he told Middle East Eye.

The affairs in Kurdistan are not going to lead to a war

- Ahmed al-Asadi, a Hashd spokesman

"Anyone who promotes these ideas about war between Iraq and Kurdistan are outsiders intent on destabilising the security and stability of Iraq.

"The affairs in Kurdistan are not going to lead to a war and such talk is nothing but a passing political tempest to satisfy some political matters for some Kurdish politicians.

"We view Kurdistan as an Iraqi land and we will defend it as we continue to defend all of Iraq."

Asadi said "brotherly ties" between Hashd fighters and the Kurds had been proved by how they stood united in one trench to defend Iraq in the battle against IS.

Baghdad, the US and regional powers have urged the KRG to postpone its referendum (Reuters)

Brotherly ties

Dr Kemal Kerkuki, a peshmerga commander stationed near IS-occupied Hawija, echoed this sentiment, saying the chance of war with Iraq was "very, very narrow, if not impossible" - but was keen to reiterate the strength of the peshmerga.

"The peshmerga forces are always ready to defend our lands and I think the fight against IS has shown the whole world what our forces are capable of," he said.

"However, we are determined to use the referendum and all democratic tools in our negotiations with Baghdad for an amicable divorce."

The referendum is a tool to defuse war and intra-city conflicts in the newly liberated areas

- Kemal Kerkuki, a peshmerga commander

Kerkuki insisted defeating IS remained a priority for both the KRG and Baghdad, and said there was ongoing cooperation between Iraqi and peshmerga forces.

Having swiftly defeated IS in Tal Afar, Iraqi forces are now preparing to begin their operations to retake Hawija, in one of the many disputed areas along the border regions between the KRG and Iraq.

Kerkuki admitted there were recurrent problems between rival Iraqi forces but remained adamant that the referendum would help resolve rather than exacerbate problems in the border regions.

"The referendum is a peaceful and democratic tool to solve the chronic problems between the Kurdistan region and Iraq," he said.

"The referendum is a tool to defuse war and intra-city conflicts in the newly liberated areas, particularly the so-called 'disputed areas'."

The Trump Team’s Accusations About Comey Are Prototypical Abuses of Power

They are particularly pernicious because of the White House’s attempts to involve the Justice Department.
The Trump Team’s Accusations About Comey Are Prototypical Abuses of Power

BY SUSAN HENNESSEY, BENJAMIN WITTES-SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 - 6:25 PM

This afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, from the White House podium, declared that former FBI Director James Comey may have “violated federal law” in sharing memos documenting his conversations with the president. She said:

The memos that Comey leaked were created on an FBI computer while he was the director. He claims they were private property, but they clearly followed the protocol of an official FBI document. Leaking FBI memos on a sensitive case, regardless of classification, violates federal laws, including the Privacy Act, standard FBI employment agreement and nondisclosure agreements that all personnel must sign. I think that’s pretty clean and clear that that would be a violation.

While conceding it was “not up to [her] to decide,” Sanders opined, “the facts of the case are very clear” and that “the Department of Justice has to look into whether something’s illegal or not.”

This follows Sanders’s accusation Monday that Comey had given “false testimony,” another matter she suggested that the Justice Department should “look at.” Then on Tuesday, she said that Comey’s “actions were improper and likely could have been illegal” and that while the ultimate decision to investigate Comey was for the Justice Department to make, “I think if there’s ever a moment where we feel someone has broken the law, particularly if they’re the head of the FBI, I think that’s something that certainly should be looked at.”

Life is too short to rebut every individual outrage or idiocy to emerge from the White House. But Sanders’s remarks bear attention because they are clearly part of a coordinated plan to maliciously besmirch an individual. After her first comment, Sanders had a day to think about it before making her Tuesday remarks. After those, she had a day to think about it before making today’s comments, which appeared to come from a prepared text. So this is not an impulsive, on-the-spot type slime job.

This is a deliberate, planned effort of the type that reflects the Trump White House’s considered views of how it should respond to Comey. That is, with months to think about the matter, the White House has decided that it wants to respond to Comey’s testimony by falsely accusing him of criminal activity — and to offer no evidence to support its slanders.

It is a prototypical abuse of power — and particularly pernicious because of the White House’s attempts to involve the Justice Department in the project.

Sanders’ comments aren’t the first time the White House has attempted to suggest criminality on Comey’s part. In June, Comey acknowledged during Senate testimony that he had prepared contemporaneous memos documenting his conversations with President Donald Trump — including the president’s efforts to persuade him to drop the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Following his dismissal, Comey said he shared those memos with a friend and instructed that individual to share the memos with members of the press. The revelations of Trump’s conduct led to the appointment of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller.

Shortly following Comey’s testimony, Trump tweeted, “Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication…and WOW, Comey is a leaker!” Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, then made statementscharacterizing the disclosures as “unauthorized” and saying the materials in questions were “privileged.” He then, unprompted, said, “We will leave it the appropriate authorities to determine whether this leaks should be investigated along with all those others being investigated.” The conservative press snapped to attention and began running Comey leaks stories, including false ones that suggested the memos were classified.

And a few days ago, the Wall Street Journal ran a story noting that Trump’s lawyers had argued before Mueller that Comey was an unreliable witness: “Another memo submitted the same month outlined why Mr. Comey would make an unsuitable witness, calling him prone to exaggeration, unreliable in congressional testimony and the source of leaks to the news media, these people said.”
Sanders acknowledged today that she is “certainly not an attorney.” Indeed she is not. Her comments evince no more legal literacy than they do decency or propriety. Susan and Tim Edgar previously addressed the issues of possible legality back in June:

The information wasn’t classified. It didn’t plausibly include any “national defense information.” Therefore, the Espionage Act is inapplicable.

As Steve Vladeck notes, the only even remotely plausible statute under which Comey’s conduct might be criminal is 18 U.S.C. § 641, barring the conversion of government property. But, as Vladeck also notes, in U.S. v. Morison (as well as Carpenter v. U.S.) courts determining whether information qualifies as property focus on the financial value. There’s no argument at all here that Comey’s memos had financial value.

Sanders now posits a legal theory that the earlier piece never even bothered to consider: that Comey has violated the Privacy Act. It’s hard to fully unpack Sanders’s allegation here, but in general, the Privacy Act bars the disclosure of any record — on the contents of any record — which is contained within a federal system of records that identifies a specific individual without his or her prior written consent. While we do not know precisely what Comey’s memos contained, they do include identifiable references to the president and his staff. The problem here is that the mere fact these memos were prepared on an FBI computer doesn’t make them records within the definition of the act. For Privacy Act purposes, records are things like fingerprints, educational, medical, investigative records, or financial data associated with individuals. It’s hard to even understand the argument for how Comey’s memory about his conversation with the President qualifies as a record, even if he jotted it down while in his office. And Sanders does not event attempt to describe whose Privacy Act rights might be at issue.

Sanders mingles this theory with the notion that the memos were related to an ongoing investigation as well as the idea Comey wrote were FBI property and that he had an obligation to respect his employment agreement. This second claim is more plausible — though unclear — and sharing such material outside the bureau might, if Comey were still working at the FBI, theoretically be grounds for some kind of administrative action against him. Preserving leverage to prevent such disclosures might have been a great argument for not firing him. But it doesn’t make the disclosure illegal, let alone criminal. It also doesn’t make the disclosure unethical or immoral. Here’s a hint for the president in the future: If you want your employees to keep your confidences on nonclassified matters, a good rule of thumb is that you shouldn’t fire them and then lie about them in public.
Sanders is not the only member of Trump’s team advancing this particular line of attack. Today, Trump attorney, Jay Sekulow, tweeted:

We can answer that question for him: No, it won’t.

Casting aspersions on the behavior or veracity of key witnesses is more norm than exception in defense lawyering. What is different here is that Trump is using the office of the presidency to bully, defame, and discredit his credits and bolster his own defense. Frivolously accusing individuals of crimes and then threatening them with Justice Department action by stating that the Justice Department should investigate their conduct is not acceptable White House behavior. It is not merely a gross civil liberties violation with respect to the individuals. It also threatens the integrity of law enforcement, by effectively directing law enforcement action against a disfavored individual — in this case, one who has already given derogatory testimony about the president and is expected to do so in the future. It’s what Trump threatened to do throughout the campaign when he promised prosecution of his opponent.

This is what it looks like when the White House itself plays in these waters. It’s the stuff of petty strongman dictatorships for the president to pronounce an individual guilty of a crime without having to proffer any evidence, offer a legal theory, or convince a jury.

European parliament calls for investigation into 'Azerbaijani Laundromat'

MEPs say Baku tried to ‘influence European decision-makers through illicit means’, as Council of Europe calls for legal action over defiance over ECHR

MEPs at the European parliament. They have demanded a ‘comprehensive’ investigation in Azerbaijan after an amendment to a report on corruption. Photograph: Patrick Hertzog/AFP/Getty Images

Jennifer Rankin in Brussels-Wednesday 13 September 2017 18.53 BST

The European parliament has called for an investigation into revelations by the Guardian and media partners that Azerbaijan ran a secret $2.9bn (£2.2bn) slush fund to pay influential Europeans to paint a positive image of the authoritarian regime.

MEPs have demanded a “comprehensive” investigation into “attempts by Azerbaijan and other autocratic regimes ... to influence European decision-makers through illicit means”, following a last-minute amendment to a report on corruption.

In a separate move, the head of the Council of Europe, Thorbjørn Jagland, called for unprecedented legal action against Azerbaijan over its refusal to release a political prisoner in defiance of the European court on human rights.

The Council of Europe and ECHR are not part of the EU, but the coincidence in timing shows how political repression and corruption in Azerbaijan is rising up the agenda of Europe’s institutions.

Jagland’s intervention centres on opposition leader Ilgar Mammadov, who was jailed for organising and taking part in demonstrations in 2013. Judges at the ECHR found he was jailed for criticising Azerbaijani authorities but the government has refused to release him.

At a meeting of Council of Europe ambassadors on Wednesday, Jagland called for the launch of legal proceedings against Azerbaijan for flouting ECHR court judgments – an unprecedented step in the 68-year history of the Council of Europe.

“We cannot have political prisoners in Europe and we cannot have a situation in which Azerbaijan continues to deprive Mammadov of his liberty against the judgment of the highest court – which clearly stated his arrest and detention were arbitrary,” Jagland said in a statement released to the Guardian. “The time has come for Azerbaijan to think hard about its obligations as a member of the Council of Europe and whether it still wants to fulfil them.”

Azerbaijan signed the European convention of human rights in 2001 but its refusal to implement ECHR rulings has contributed to a slow-burning crisis for the court.

Jagland wants to invoke the Council of Europe convention’s article 46.4, which could ultimately lead to Azerbaijan being ejected from the human rights body. This “nuclear option” has never been used before and would require action from European foreign ministers, following a court assessment.

The politics of the oil-rich country were also being debated in the European parliament, when MEPs voted to set up a corruption investigation by 349 votes to 290, with 42 abstentions. “Following the recent ‘Azerbaijani Laundromat’ revelations, attempts by Azerbaijan and other autocratic regimes in third countries to influence European decision-makers through illicit means [the European parliament] calls for a comprehensive parliament investigation,” the text stated.

The amendment was tacked on a report on corruption and human rights in non-EU countries. Drafted by Catalan MEP Jordi Solé, the amendment had been seen as a long shot unlikely to surmount opposition from the large centre-right and liberal blocs.

In theory, the investigation could be wide-ranging as the amendment calls for a broad inquiry into “the influence exerted by such regimes”, but it remains to be seen whether it will even get under way.
The European parliament has set up ad-hoc investigations into tax avoidance in Luxembourg,
the Panama papers and the “Dieselgate” emissions scandal, but other calls for action have fallen on stony ground – for instance, a vote in favour of a European-Israeli-Palestinian parliamentary forum went nowhere.

Failure to set up an investigation would damage the credibility of the European parliament, which struggles to make its voice heard on foreign policy, where it has limited powers.

Solé said his group would push for “swift establishment” of an investigation. “We will insist that it thoroughly looks into the various responsibilities of all those involved in this massive money laundering and corruption scandal, including European banks, and holds them accountable,” he said.

“The parliament needs to ensure that it has adequate safeguards in place to protect itself from such forms of pressure, which, ultimately, undermine our democratic credibility.”

No members of the European parliament have been implicated in the Azerbaijan laundromat revelations, where bank records showed multiple payments to former members of the Council of Europe’s parliamentary assembly, Pace.

One is Eduard Lintner, a German ex-MP and member of the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party to Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democrats. Another is the Italian former chair of the centre-right group in Pace, Luca Volontè.

Belgian media said on Tuesday that the trail led back to two Belgian politicians. A joint investigation by L’Echo and De Tijd found that Liberal MP Alain Destexhe and former politician Stef Goris had set up a not-for-profit election observation organisation that received $800,000 between 2012 and 2014 from Lintner. Destexhe denies being involved in the management of the organisation, while Goris said he did not receive any money from Azerbaijan.

Destexhe is the author of a Pace report on human rights in Azerbaijan that has been criticised for not mentioning corruption.