Sri Lanka Must Not Reintroduce The Death Penalty

Neelan Tiruchelvam and Sithie Tiruchelvam

By Pitasanna Shanmugathas –JULY 13, 2018

Pitasanna Shanmugathas

On June 15th 1999, Dr. Neelan Tiruchelvam gave a speech in Parliament condemning the proposal by the Kumaratunga government to reintroduce the death penalty. 

In light of the recent announcement on the part of the Maithripala Sirisenagovernment to reintroduce the death penalty, “with plans to execute 19 death row prisoners convicted of drug-related offences,” Neelan’s words, in condemnation of the death penalty, seem more relevant now than ever before. 

“The last hanging in this country took place in 1976. Although the death penalty remains part of our statute book and death sentences are passed, they are automatically commuted. In view of the disturbing incidence of gruesome crime and the increase in crime, it has been proposed that the death sentence should apply in a limited number of circumstances.  I refer to the statement that has been issued by the Presidential Secretariat with regard to this matter. It states that the death penalty will now be carried out in accordance with a procedure where it will seek the recommendations of the trial judge, the Attorney-General and the Ministry of Justice as to whether such a sentence should be executed. I would like to express my strong moral opposition to this measure.  

Firstly, in a society where the sanctity of life continues to be debased, it is morally wrong to enforce the death penalty even in these limited circumstances. 

Secondly, the UN Commission on Human Rights recently passed a resolution asking all countries that have the death penalty in their statute books to refrain from implementing it and to suspend operations with regard to the death penalty. So after the last hanging in 1976, Sri Lanka now goes back in history, and against the trend of international public opinion, to revive the death penalty. It would, in my respectful view, be a retrograde step.

Thirdly, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty ever served as an effective deterrent against crime. There has been a large body of scientific studies on this and, up to date, there has been no credible evidence on this point. 

Fourthly, even in the United Kingdom, there have been instances where the death penalty was imposed on persons who were subsequently found innocent of the crimes. Given the imperfections of our system, it would be a terrible mistake to implement so severely a penalty in these circumstances. 

Read More

Can President Maithri actually implement capital punishment? HRCSL Chairperson Dr. Deepika Udagama sends a written reminder

By Gangani Weerakoon-JUL 15 2018

President Maithripala Sirisena, last week, said that he would sign required orders to execute capital punishment for convicted drug traffickers who carry out large scale drug smuggling operations while in detention. The President’s office quoted the President as saying that although there are certain opinions regarding capital punishment in a Buddhist society, if large number of criminal acts spread in such a society despite religious sermons, it will be necessary to take some timely actions to control crime.
Cabinet Spokesman Dr. Rajitha Senaratne had said the death penalty is to be initially implemented on 19 large scale drug offence convicts.

He said that Cabinet approval had been obtained to implement the death penalty on repeat offenders related to large scale drug offences.

The move, as expected came under attack by many civil factions on the grounds that the world in the modern era is increasingly looking at ways of deviating from ‘barbaric’ methods of punishing criminals. Interestingly, many religious leaders, mainly chief Buddhist monks representing both Malwatte and Asgiriya Chapters and Archbishop Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith who vehemently opposed Government’s attempt to partially legalize abortions, praised President Sirisena and his Government for the ‘brave’ step to be taken.

The posts of two ‘hangmen’ are still vacant as the previously selected two executioners did not report back to work even after receiving training. Now the Government will have to start the hunt for two hangmen if it is to carry out capital punishment as planned and no one is sure about the time it will take in recruitment and for the training period. Capital punishment was carried out in Welikada and Bogambara prisons earlier and the gallows, as reported earlier by prisons officials, need renovations. In addition, the rope use to hang convicts is not available locally and according to officials needs to be imported from Pakistan. As a whole, it is unlikely that President Sirisena will be able to carry out capital punishment as planned before the end of his first term, considering the time-consuming process involved.

Sri Lanka has a history of suspending and reviving death penalty. The British restricted the death penalty after they took control of the island in 1815 to the crimes of murder and “waging war against the King”.

Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, in his first Cabinet meeting after being elected in 1956, decided to suspend the death penalty for a period of three years.

In April 1958 the Suspension of the Capital Punishment Act was passed by both Houses of Parliament. During the second reading, the Minister of Justice informed the Senate that the Government proposed to appoint a commission to examine the whole issue thoroughly, and this commission was appointed in October 1958.

According to a published article by Anne Ranasinghe in 2003, the Chairman was Dr. Norval Morris, Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Adelaide, and the other members were Sir Edwin Wijeyeratne, a former Minister of Home Affairs; Professor T. Nadarajah, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Head of the Department of Law at the then University of Ceylon; and S. Canagaraya, was the Secretary of the Commission.

The Commission made a careful study of every aspect of the death penalty and its report was published just two weeks before the assassination of Prime Minister Bandaranaike. However, the decision by Prime Minister Bandaranaike to suspend death penalty was revoked and the Government decided to reintroduce it soon after his assassination in 1959.

The United National Party Government modified the use of death penalty in 1978 Constitution. Under the new arrangement, death sentences could only be carried out if authorized by the trial judge, the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice. If there was no agreement, the sentence was to be commuted to life imprisonment. The sentence was also to be ratified by the President and this clause, according to legal experts, effectively ended executions.

Sri Lanka as a country probably started raising concerns about the full horror of the death penalty after the execution of infamous Dedduwa Jayathungalage Siripala alias Maru Sira at Bogambara Prison on 5 August 1975. The night before his execution, prison guards gave him Largactil in strong dosage in an attempt to prevent him escaping, but this caused him to collapse and his hanging was botched because the short fall caused by his slumped position, caused him to strangle to death instead of breaking his neck and killing him instantly

The last man to be hanged in Sri Lanka was from Tissamaharama on 23 June 1976.

President Chandrika Kumaratunga made several attempts to re-introduce the death penalty. In March 1999, after spurts of violence near the end of her first term in office, she stated that the Government would be reintroducing the death penalty. However, she was forced to back down in the face of overwhelming public protest. The issue hung in the balance, with all death sentences from then on being neither commuted to life nor carried out. After discussions were held regarding the matter, the motion that commuted all death sentences to life in prison was revoked in January 2001.

On 19 November 2004, High Court Judge Sarath Ambepitiya was gunned down as he arrived home from work. He had a reputation for handing out tough sentences. The assassination immediately prompted Kumaratunga to effectively reinstate capital punishment.

The Government decided to reinstate capital punishment in 2004 for cases of rape, drug trafficking and murder after the assassination of High Court judge Sarath Ambepitiya.

Apart from international human rights agencies denouncing Sri Lanka’s decision to reintroduce capital punishment,

Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission on Friday (13) wrote to President Sirisena raising concerns over moves to implement the death penalty on convicts involved in drug trafficking.

Commission Chairperson Dr. Deepika Udagama said in the letter that the death penalty is a serious human rights violation.

Udagama said that the Commission does not feel implementing the death penalty can address the issue of drug trafficking.

The Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission also notes that implementing the death sentence will only contribute negatively to a society where the public have lost faith in the justice system.

The Sri Lanka Human Rights Commission also reminded the President of a set of recommendations issued in 2016 which called for the abolition of the death penalty in Sri Lanka in keeping with Sri Lanka’s commitment to a more humane society consonant with human rights principles and values.

Dr. Udagama in a previous letter dated

1 January 2016 wrote to President Sirisena stating that: The Human Rights Commission wishes to bring to Your Excellency’s and the Government’s attention its recommendations regarding the abolition of the death penalty, which the Commission views is imperative for Sri Lanka in recognition of the growing global recognition that the death penalty seriously violates several human rights including the right to life and freedom from cruel and inhuman punishment and is an extreme and irreversible punishment and is ineffective as a deterrent to crime. Sri Lanka should demonstrate its commitment to the sanctity of life and fundamental human rights principles by joining the more than 100 nations in the world that have abolished the death penalty thus far. Another 60 countries do not carry out death sentences in practice.

International human rights obligations of Sri Lanka clearly discourage the death penalty. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the sanctity of human life by affirming that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, whilst Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights strongly suggests that abolition of the death penalty is desirable.

Your Excellency’s attention is drawn to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly by resolution 44/128 of 15 December 1989 which calls for the abolition of the death penalty. Its Preamble declares that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights. In keeping with Sri Lanka’s commitment to improving human rights protection in the country, we recommend that Sri Lanka accede to the Protocol and take steps to abolish the death penalty.

Whilst appreciating that, from 1976, successive Governments in Sri Lanka have not implemented the death penalty, the Commission notes that courts continue to impose the death penalty under several statutes which provide for the imposition of the death penalty, including the Penal Code and the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance as amended by Act No. 13 of 1984.

In view of international and comparative jurisprudence, the Commission agrees with the position that the death penalty amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and fails to respect the sanctity of human life. The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has held that although there is no express fundamental right to life, nevertheless that such a right is implied in the 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka. Article 11 of the 1978 Constitution prohibits without any reservation torture as well as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

The Commission seeks to place before Your Excellency and the Government the following factors which should be considered in abolishing the death penalty:

Death Penalty as deterrence to crime  

Many proponents of the implementation of the death penalty have urged its implementation as deterrence to crime. However, it is our view that it is an effective justice system and a just social order that led to a reduction in crime, as is seen in countries which have some of the lowest crime rates. There is no empirical data, to show that death penalty has caused a reduction in crime or has a deterrent effect on crime.

Risk of miscarriage of justice and irreversibility of capital punishment

Despite constitutional safeguards, including the appeals process and recommendations being called from the trial judge, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, it is the view of the Commission that there is always the risk of innocent persons being executed for crimes which they did not commit.

It is the view of the Commission that in view of the serious flaws which exist in the criminal justice system coupled with Sri Lanka, unlike other countries, not having a process permitting the reopening of a criminal case after exhaustion of the appeals procedures, there is a serious risk of a miscarriage of justice. Although due process in criminal proceedings is guaranteed by the Constitution and statutory law, there is always the possibility of human error distorting the final outcome.

The Commission wishes to place before Your Excellency that there have been several instances, in countries including those of the developed world, where also due to new investigation techniques and development of technology, fresh evidence has surfaced or doubts raised about the integrity of evidence many years after conviction. In the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom there have been several occasions where people wrongly convicted have been released from death row or prison decades later, the most recent being a US man who was released in November in Louisiana after serving 23 years in prison for several crimes, because the judge found he did not obtain a fair trial. The lead investigator and the judge in the original trial said they believe his conviction was a “miscarriage of justice”.

Similarly, the Commission notes there are allegations of prosecutorial misconduct leading to conviction of the innocent in Sri Lanka. Such an instance is highlighted in the Supreme Court Judgment of Wijepala vs Attorney General (2001) 1 SLR 42.

Accused not being properly defended

The Commission is also of the view that the chances are that accused from underprivileged circumstances would be more prone to be subjected to the death penalty than those who have the financial means to hire competent counsel. There is a possibility of certain accused being convicted not due to their guilt but due to being improperly defended. In the High Court where accused are financially unable to retain counsel, the State assigns counsel from the private bar at random, who often tend to be young, untrained, inexperienced and not sufficiently remunerated.

For all of the above reasons the Human Rights Commission recommends that Sri Lanka ratifies the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and abolishes the death penalty forthwith.

The death penalty should be substituted with periods of imprisonment that befit the seriousness of each crime. Accordingly, we recommend that commutation of periods of imprisonment for such crimes also be done according to a national policy that takes into consideration the serious impact of such crime on society.

Isn’t it time to hang politicians, too? 

July 14, 2018, 2:08 am

There are new employment opportunities opening in the country – for hangmen.

The prison authorities are already calling for applications for two hangmen. Why stop at two? There are so many persons involved in drug trafficking in our prisons,  engaged in a fruitful business from within those walls. Why not many more hangmen, (and even "hangwomen"), to make it gender equal? It will give a big boost to President Sirisena’s hangman’s noose thinking, and a new Janapathi Mara Thondu strategy.

What we have today from presidential quarters is largely copycat policy making. President Sirisena could not have missed the news of the seven murderers, members of the Aum Shinkriyo Cult, recently executed in Japan, who killed 13 and injured thousands in the Tokyo subway attacks in 1995. That office would also have of the Indian Supreme Court confirming the death sentence on the four rapist/killers of the Indian student Nirbhaya in 2012, which led to huge Indian protests and call for tougher action against rape.

So, it is time for Sri Lanka to catch up.  It will be possible to make people forget, or get their minds away from all the broken promises of the Sirisena common candidate – and get interested in the Hangman’s Noose. This is the Mara Thonduva in politics today.

There are many relevant things that the new Mara Sirisena, who got cheers from his fellow Cabinet Maruvas, supporting his call to carry out the death penalty for convicted drug traffickers who continue their business from prison.

The Cabinet Maruvas should read what the Senior DIG Police on Crimes, Organised Crime, Narcotics Range and Commandant STF said at a seminar on Transitional Organised Crime in Sri Lanka – Dar Side of the Hub, in Colombo this week. As the Daily News reported it: "In many countries, there are specific crime prevention laws that enable prisons to serve as correctional facilities, but, in Sri Lanka, we follow a prison system where a drug addict who is sent to prison for a minor drug offence, eventually leaves prison with a PhD in narcotics having made alliances with other hard core drug operators, within prison, who would have recruited him into their wider network by the time he is released."

Mr. President, that is something you should chew on for some time, and tell your Cabinet cheer maruvas to also chew on this reality.

Doesn’t this show that if the death penalty has to be revived in this country, it must be done on those running our prisons today? Is this President, with a Green Prime Minister, not heading a government that maintains a University of Crime in our prison system, which is capable of awarding PhDs in narcotics crimes? Who should really go to the gallows?

Is it wrong to think that all this manipulation of the prison system to please the convicts there is the result of political influence and interference?

Do the politicians who are suddenly raising their voices calling for the death penalty for convicted drug traffickers give any thought to how much they are responsible for the breakdown of our legal system and the incarceration process?

Is it a big secret that those with important political connections who are condemned to prison by the courts, lead a life of luxury in those confines – which do offer them considerable comfort, and facilities, that other prisoners are denied? Are we unaware of the politicians, including a recent minister, who spent all his prison time in the Merchants Ward of the National Hospital, Colombo, till the same judge who sentenced him for contempt of court, rescinded his judgment.

There were very good reasons adduced by the SLFP founder, leader, and then Prime Minister SWRD Bandaranaike, to call for the abolition of the death penalty. He obtained the full support of the Sangha-Veda- Guru- Govi- Kamkaru followers for it. It was also strongly proposed and supported by the left parties - the LSSP, CP and MEP. SWRD was assassinated shortly after, and the death penalty came back. His assassin Talduve Somarama was hanged (he died as Peter); but our society did not rush to bring back the hangman’s noose as it applied earlier. The last hanging here was in 1976, over 40 years ago. Therefore, what is this sudden nonsense to bring it back on anyone, whether imprisoned drug traffickers or any others, without thinking of modernizing our entire legal and judicial system in keeping with political, scientific and cultural thinking of today?

When there is such Cabinet supported interest in the death penalty today, is it not time to think of calling for the Hangman’s Noose – the Mara Thonduva – much better than the ‘madu valigey’, to deal with politicians? Those becoming more powerful each day with broken promises, crooked business deals, making  a mockery of tender procedures, and growing richer and more powerful by the day though their crimes against the people. It is time the people gave thought to hanging crooked politicians, not in the gallows, but in public.

In a country that prides itself with a long history of religion, it is helpful if the Buddhist thinking on Compassion is considered in depth by those promoting the death penalty on repeat drug traffickers. The depth of Buddhist teaching must help in restoring them to society, and certainly against deciding against a final termination of life, with  no chance for a change.

Interestingly, religion has moved into this debate, with the Catholic Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith being publicly supportive of the death penalty on repeated drug traffickers. It is good to remind the Cardinal that most advanced Christian countries do not have the death penalty, today. The predominantly Catholic Italy does not have it since 1948. The Vatican had it for many centuries, but never practiced it there. After the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has been staunchly opposed to the death penalty.

The Catholic Church’s thinking is now even better. Marking the 25th anniversary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in 2017, Pope Francis said the death penalty, no matter how it is carried out, ‘is, in itself, contrary to the Gospel". He said Capital punishment "heavily wounds human dignity" and "It is, in itself, contrary to the Gospel, because a decision is voluntarily made to suppress a human life, which is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of whom, in the last analysis, only God can be the true judge and guarantor".

Let us hope the Cardinal in Colombo gives a little more thought to what the Pope has said at the Vatican; and, that President Sirisena does not get more encouragement on Mara Thondu thinking, because of the Cardinal’s support.

Divorce law in Sri Lanka: Fostering animosity, not relationships

 Wednesday, 11 July 2018

The agony and anxiousness that a divorce proceeding in Sri Lanka inflicts on spouses is widely known and there are many who can speak to it. It is a proceeding usually faced in silence. Once it is done with, we want to forget it, we don’t want to relive it, and we want to get on with the next stage of building our lives after a divorce. As a result, these stories and experiences remain untold.

While this piece was penned, the Supreme Court added its voice to the state of divorce law in Sri Lanka. The Court in SC Appeal 123/14 felt compelled to uphold a decision not to grant a divorce and commented: “This is a sad case which has seen the parties locked in a long and bitterly-contested battle over whether they should remain married or not. The wife sought this divorce in 2001, when she and her husband were both in their early forties. The fact that this appeal was fought by both of them suggests that the unhappy marriage which led to this action being instituted has continued to remain so during the 17 years in which this case has traversed the Courts. It seems that the rancour between the spouses continues unabated. This litigation has seen the plaintiff and the defendant into their late fifties and has to have exacted its heavy toll on both spouses and their children.”

This Supreme Court judgment is the latest voice in an age-old call for reform of the General Marriages (Registration) Ordinance No. 19 of 1907. As a country, we choose to continue subjecting one of the most personal decisions of ending a marriage relationship to the most public adversarial form of adjudication.
The law is wholly unsuited to the task

While two people are technically free to enter into a marriage, they are not free to end it. The law cares very little about your marriage except to ensure that it is recorded. By reducing the barriers to marriage, we signal our encouragement as a society of the marriage relationship.

However, the law cares very deeply if you try to end your marriage. Numerous barriers are setup, the most telling one being that the two people cannot end their marriage of their own accord. Instead, the law hands over this decision to a judge.

It is not enough that the law removes the right of individuals to decide that they want to end the relationship, the two individuals are also pitted against each other by framing divorce proceedings as an adversarial contest. This unnecessarily complicates a difficult, often traumatic personal and social experience, of deciding to separate. It introduces a legal blame game, reinforces animosity towards each other, and creates winners and losers where there ought to be none.

The law requires such a degree of black or white that it is wholly unsuited to the task of determining the end of a relationship between two people. The law tells a judge to look at the facts and the intention and decide whether or not the relationship was abandoned.

The fact that the two individuals went to the police station together after an allegedly brutal attack by the husband, and the fact that the wife continued to cook for the husband and he paid for some household expenses, were interpreted as ‘cohabitation’ and that the marriage had not been ‘deserted’. Therefore, the contextual realities and contradictions that play out in marital relationships, do not find a place in the law.


Ending a marriage in Sri Lanka

In our country we cannot choose to dissolve a marriage by citing irreconcilable differences. We can only seek a divorce by blaming the other person of adultery, impotency or malicious desertion. It is remarkable that those who get married are unaware of the process involved in getting out of the marriage. It has taken people by surprise to realise that, unlike placing a signature and being married, divorce insists on legal papers, a courtroom, a blame game and lawyers’ fees.

Today in Sri Lanka, divorce proceedings are conducted in open court. We don’t value the privacy of those going through a divorce, and embarrassment is a tool wielded in this open process. There are instances, where the man will agree to being the one at fault, so that the woman has a ‘clean’ record and her prospects of a future marriage are not in jeopardy. This reaffirms gender stereotypes – of it being okay for men to be adulterers or desert a marriage, while a higher standard of faultless behaviour and a good reputation is expected of women.

In an attempt to escape the experience of getting divorced, litigants in the District Courts, some lawyers and judges recognise a practice of ‘uncontested’ divorce. This is where spouses, both with the intent of avoiding the agony to come, agree that one will file the case and the other will not contest it, thereby leaving the judge with little option but to grant the divorce on the basis that basic grounds for divorce are technically satisfied. To ensure that there is no contest, the least objectionable ground of malicious desertion is usually put forward.

People are choosing to avoid the long-drawn-out blame game, in what appears to be an attempt to be kinder to themselves, with one party willing to take some blame because the law requires its pound of flesh and bring divorce proceedings to a close as soon as possible. Even this uncontested process, because of the adversarial nature of the court, fosters uncertainty and suspicion. Pitted against each other, even though they may have both agreed to the final outcome, there are a host of fears of ‘what will the other side do or say in court’.
Looking for a better way

It is obvious that Sri Lankans are looking for a better way. A way which protects one’s dignity and respects individual choice. A way that does not promote feelings of bitterness and lead to a future of deep suspicion of marriage itself. A way by which both individuals feel equal in the already difficult decision to end a relationship, and be able to invest in themselves and their futures during and after a divorce.

Isn’t it time to do away with the fault-based divorce laws of Sri Lanka? To introduce the ground of ‘irretrievable breakdown’ and the broader understanding of relationships that it brings? It could be a process that is presided over by a judge but not in a court room. The role of the judge only to ensure that the legal consequences of the divorce are explained and understood, and legally-binding orders are made where necessary as to property and children.

With a system like this, only instance of dispute will relate to property or custody and access to children, and will be subject to arbitration by a judge. These cases too ought to be private matters heard in closed-door proceedings and not in open courts.


Reform of laws

The usual counter-arguments to a call for reform of divorce laws are: making it easier to divorce, will lead to more divorces; divorces reflect a broken society that has failed to keep the institution of marriage intact. The simple response is that our society has failed to foster meaningful relationships, least of all marriages.

Strict divorce procedures adds an element of legal violence on a relationship that has already frayed. It does nothing to help individuals revive their relationship, but fosters fear, hatred, anger and bitterness. If, as a society, we are truly interested in fostering meaningful relationships, dismantling the current legal framework governing divorce is only one small step.

Investing in our education system to inculcate strong communication skills, respect and equality between genders, voluntary pre-marital programmes, providing and popularising opportunities for counselling and working on relationships is probably where our attention should be diverted. Instead, we are forcing people within a marriage to stay together without creating any means to help them out of a difficult situation.

Reform of the General Marriage Ordinance of Sri Lanka to introduce the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage was proposed as far back as 1959. It also introduced the concept of matrimonial courts. However the proposals were never adopted. The Law Commission of Sri Lanka proposed similar reforms in 2005, making public a draft law – the Draft Matrimonial Causes Bill. Recently, a Committee convened by the Ministry of Justice proposed, as recommended by the Law Commission, that a single ground for divorce of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage replace the current fault based grounds for divorce in the General Marriage Ordinance.

Currently, Sri Lankan Muslim women are advocating for equality and dignity in marriage and divorce. Interestingly Muslim personal law is the only legal framework that allows for mutually agreeing to a divorce (Mubarath divorce). Even the English law which our General Marriage Ordinance is based on, moved away from fault-based divorce in 1996.

Introducing mutual consent and dignity into our understanding and experience of marriage and divorce in Sri Lanka has been a long time coming. It is more interesting to understand where the resistance lies to this long-standing reform agenda. Is it the political leaders held hostage by conservative, patriarchal or religious views? Is it the legal profession itself? Or is the political and legislative system of this country engaged in anything but meeting the expectations of its people?

Gaza artist takes on Trump

Mahmoud al-Moqayad and “The Cry of Jerusalem” in his studio on the rooftop of his home.

 Mohamed Shurrab

Fidaa Shurrab-12 July 2018

How can an artist capture the anger of a people when the most powerful politician in the world tries to discard their rights?

Mahmoud al-Moqayad may have succeeded in doing just that. After Donald Trump delivered a grave insult to Palestinians by announcing that the US was recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Mahmoud responded with a remarkable painting.

Titled “The Cry of Jerusalem,” it appears to depict a storm hitting the city. Despite the air of both magic and menace, the Dome of the Rock stands tall; its gold contrasts with the dominant shades of blue, red and black.

The Dome of the Rock and the neighboring al-Aqsa mosque – one of Islam’s holiest sites – have come to symbolize resistance and resilience.

“I followed the news about Trump’s decision and I thought that everyone must stand against it,” said Mahmoud. “I always believed in the strength of art and I decided to make a painting that expresses how Palestinians reject Trump’s declaration. I chose those sharp colors to indicate that we will keep fighting until we gain back Jerusalem and our occupied lands.”

The first major solo exhibition of Mahmoud’s paintings was held in Gaza City earlier this year.

Inspired and proud

It featured a collection of work inspired by Palestinian history and culture and by the struggle for freedom. His subjects range from traditional weddings to memories of the Nakba, the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Aged 25, Mahmoud was born in Gaza. Married and with a child of his own, he still lives with his parents in Jabaliya refugee camp, where he grew up.

At the age of 1, Mahmoud was diagnosed with severe hearing loss.

“When we first learned that Mahmoud was deaf, we were very sad,” said Mahmoud’s mother, Subhiya, 45. “We did not know anything about this disability, and we were afraid that Mahmoud would have to stay at home with no opportunity of a decent life.”

But his parents adapted. They learned of a kindergarten for children with special needs – part of the Atfaluna Society for Deaf Children – and at the age of 5 Mahmoud was enrolled.

It was at this age that his family and teachers began to notice his drawing ability. Mahmoud preferred color pencils, paper and his own imagination to playing with the other children, his mother recalled.

The school encouraged him and worked on developing his skills.

In grade three, Mahmoud won first prize in a drawing competition for school students held by the Islamic University of Gaza. It is something he still remembers with pride and it gave him the confidence to carry on, he told The Electronic Intifada in sign language.

But nothing was to come easy to Mahmoud. During one Ramadan when he was 8, he was playing with the kids in the neighborhood when a firework that he was unable to hear misfired and hit him.

He lost his sight in one eye and much of the sight in the other.

Mahmoud has refused to allow himself be defined by his disabilities.

“I will continue,” he told The Electronic Intifada, “despite my disabilities and our poor conditions, to pursue my dream.”

In 2008, he got his first break, taking third place in the Palestine International Award for Excellence and Creativity.

In 2010, he featured in a competition organized by Gaza’s al-Quds TV channel. And since then, he has enjoyed steady progress.

In 2013, he participated in an exhibition in Turkey sponsored by the Trabzon municipality. In 2015, the cultural organization Rawasi of Palestine for Culture and Arts included his work in an exhibition of different Gaza artists.

“Great dedication”

Mahmoud uses both oil and water-soluble paints, though the former is his preference.

This year’s solo exhibition came after he impressed officials during a project to paint murals around the Gaza Strip. Atef Asqoul, the culture ministry’s general director, said Mahmoud proved to be among the best of 25 artists involved in the project and wound up responsible for most of the murals in the northern Gaza Strip.

“Mahmoud is a talented artist with great dedication to his art,” said Asqoul. “He has proved to the whole community that having a disability is not a stigma.”

“I have a God-given gift,” Mahmoud told The Electronic Intifada. “I do not take ideas from anywhere else, I just pick up my brush and start painting what I feel inside.”

Like everyone else in Gaza, Mahmoud has been affected deeply by Israel’s siege and occupation.

There are few resources in Gaza or from the ministry of culture to support and promote local talent, said Asqoul. Gaza’s inhabitants have to prioritize survival rather than expression.

Mahmoud al-Moqayed’s paintings hang on a wall in his home.

 Mohamed Shurrab

As a result, the official said, most artists rely on foreign funding or recognition to have any hope of making a life from their art.

But travel is not a given for Palestinians in Gaza. While Mahmoud made it to Turkey in 2013, he was unable to go to Moscow earlier this year for an art exhibition because of the closure of the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt.

“I will pursue my dreams. I want my work to be famous worldwide. And I will keep highlighting Palestinian suffering, aspirations and resistance in my work,” Mahmoud said.

“We deserve a better life where we can achieve our dreams without the obstacles imposed by the occupation.”

Fidaa Shurrab is a writer and freelance translator based in the Gaza Strip.

Israeli forces kill Palestinian teenager at Gaza protest

Othman Heles is the 138th Palestinian to have been killed since the beginning of the Great March of Return

Israeli forces shoot tear gas at Palestinian demonstrators in eastern Gaza on 13 July 2018 (MEE/Mohammad Asad)

Friday 13 July 2018 

Israeli forces killed a teenage boy in Gaza on Friday, as Palestinian demonstrators marked more than 100 days of protests since Great March of Return began.

The Gaza health ministry identified the slain boy as 15-year-old Othman Rami Heles, adding that he had been shot by Israeli snipers east of Gaza City.

The ministry said 68 other demonstrators had been injured as of 7pm local time.

An estimated 30,000 protesters were gathered on Friday evening in five separate locations along the fence separating the Gaza Strip from Israel.

Heles is the 138th Palestinian to have been killed by Israeli forces since the start of the protest campaign in late March.

The Great March of Return began on 30 March, calling for an end to the 11-year Israeli-led blockade on Gaza and for Palestinian refugees’ right of return to the lands that their families fled during the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.

Friday’s demonstration came days after Israel shut down Kerem Shalom, the Gaza Strip’s only commercial crossing, and reduced the designated fishing zone to six nautical miles on Monday.

Israeli authorities tightened the siege in the Palestinian enclave in an attempt to pressure Hamas, whom it blames for the Great March of Return - an allegation that the campaign's organisers have rejected.

Heat, tear gas and snipers have not deterred protesters (MEE/Mohammed Asad)

Israeli officials have been outraged by some demonstrators’ use of kites and balloons set on fire, which they fly over the separation fence into Israel, claiming that the kites have sparked fires damaging some 7,000 acres of farmlands and forests.

But Palestinians view the inexpensive flying devices to be a tool of resistance against the well-armed Israeli forces stationed behind the fence that have killed scores of peaceful protesters and wounded thousands. No Israeli casualties have been recorded.

Despite the difficulties of showing up week after week facing Israeli snipers and tear gas in the summer heat, with burning tyres a constant backdrop, demonstrators told Middle East Eye of their determination to continue.

“We will not back down,” said Anas Daoud, a physically disabled 18-year-old protester. “Yes, I am tired, it is exhausting for my health on the rough road, and it is difficult to move in this area with the shooting and the tear gas, but it is a necessary sacrifice.”

Mohammed Hijla came out to protest with his wife and three children.

“We came to the March of Return with our families to send a message to the world from the ground,” he told MEE. “Our children will remember our rights, and they are the ones that ask us to come to the March of Return.”

-Additional reporting from Gaza by Mohammed Asad.

US indicts 12 Russians for hacking DNC emails during the 2016 election

Deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein announces that 12 individuals have been charged as part of the investigation into Russian interference
Rod Rosenstein holds a news conference to announce the indictments on Friday in Washington DC. Photograph: Leah Millis/Reuters


Jon Swaine in New York and Andrew Roth in Moscow-Fri 13 Jul 2018

A dozen Russians were criminally charged on Friday with hacking and leaking the emails of senior Democrats during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

Grand jury indictments against the 12 alleged Russian intelligence officials were announced by Rod Rosenstein, the deputy US attorney general, at a press conference in Washington.

“The internet allows foreign adversaries to attack America in new and unexpected ways,” said Rosenstein. Lamenting what he called “partisan warfare” in the US around the ongoing Russia inquiry, Rosenstein said: “The blame for election interference belongs to the criminals who committed election interference.”

The charges were filed in Washington by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, who is investigating Russian interference in the election and possible collusion with members of Donald Trump’s campaign team.

They were announced just as Trump arrived at Windsor Castle to meet the Queen, and as he prepared to meet Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, on Monday. Rosenstein said he had briefed Trump on the developments.

Rosenstein said those charged were operatives of the GRU, a Russian military intelligence agency. He said they had “corresponded with several Americans through the internet”, including an associate of the Trump campaign.

Roger Stone, a longtime adviser to Trump, previously acknowledged that he had exchanged messages with one of the online personas accused on Friday of being a front for Russian intelligence, but he denied knowing that true identity.

Stone told the Guardian on Friday that his correspondence about the hacked documents was “benign based on its content, context and timing” and “provides evidence no of collaboration or collusion”.
Russia inquiry: how Trump's inner circle could bring him down – video explainer

Thousands of emails taken from the accounts of staff at the the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, were published by outlets including WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign.

The leaks threw the Democratic party into turmoil. The disclosure of embarrassing internal memos prompted the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chairwoman, on the eve of the party’s convention in July 2016.

US intelligence agencies concluded that the accounts were hacked as part of a wide-ranging operation ordered by Putin to damage Clinton’s bid for the presidency and assist Trump’s campaign.

Trump has consistently tried to cast doubt over the conclusions of the intelligence agencies that he now controls, and highlighted denials from Putin about the election interference. He continued on Friday to dismiss Mueller’s inquiry as a “witch-hunt”.

The indicted Russians were on Friday also accused of hacking into the computer systems of American state election authorities and of companies that produced software used by states for running elections. Rosenstein said there was no evidence of any vote tallies being affected.

The Russians used techniques including “spearphishing” and spying software, before publishing the emails through well-known online accounts including Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks, which purported to be independent American and Romanian hackers. Rosenstein said both personas were in fact operated by the GRU.

In February this year, Mueller’s team filed criminal charges against 13 Russians and three Russian companies for interfering in the presidential campaign, using social media and coordinating with low-level Trump campaign activists.

Rosenstein said at the time that the Russians had waged “information warfare” against the US during the 2016 campaign, with the aim of “spreading distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general”.

Mueller’s team has also charged Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, with financial crimes. Three other Trump campaign aides have pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

The Kremlin did not immediately respond to questions about the US indictment, which was released just as an aide to the Russian president was briefing reporters on Monday’s summit between Putin and Trump.

The two leaders will hold a closed tête-à-tête on Monday morning, followed by a larger meeting between the two delegations. Yuri Ushakov, the aide to Putin, did not bring up the hacking accusations while discussing a list of likely topics for Monday’s talks.

The indictment targeted 12 Russian military officers in two cyberwarfare units in the Military Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, up to the rank of colonel. The Russians are charged with conspiracies against the US, aggravated identity theft and money laundering.

Both GRU units are based in Moscow and traditionally charged with deciphering foreign military communications. Publicly available documents and contracts confirm that one of those indicted, Viktor Netyshko, heads the 85th Main Center for special service.

The GRU has been accused of standing behind Fancy Bear, one of two hacking groups accused of infiltrating US political parties during the 2016 elections.

The United States has already sanctioned six officers from the GRU leadership, including Igor Korobov, the directorate’s head. None of those officers were included in Friday’s criminal indictment.

White House Wants to Know Political Leanings of Job Applicants at the U.N.

New questionnaire asks about public statements, support for politicians.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres and U.S. President Donald Trump at U.N. headquarters in New York, on Sept. 18, 2017. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images)

BY COLUM LYNCH-

 JULY 13, 2018, 2:39 PM

The White House has begun vetting U.S. citizens pursuing jobs in the United Nations and other international organizations, in what appears to be a widening effort by the Trump administration to determine the political affiliation of Americans seeking work on the international stage.
The vetting is being conducted by officials at the White House Office of Presidential Personnel, who are asking American candidates for U.N. jobs to fill out a new questionnaire as part of the application process.

The form inquires whether the candidate has ever spoken publicly about political issues, addressed Congress, supported a political candidate, or appeared on major cable news networks like Fox and CNN. It also requests disclosure of social media accounts.

“Have you ever maintained a blog? Written an opinion piece that appeared in a traditional newspaper like the Wall Street Journal or New York Times? Written for an online publication like Breitbart, Newsmax, or Mother Jones?” asks the questionnaire, a copy of which was obtained by Foreign Policy. “Have you given speeches on a controversial issue?”

Though some of the questions might be standard for some American diplomatic jobs in the U.S. government, others suggest the form is a kind of political litmus test for the candidates, according to several State Department and U.N. officials.

It marks the first time in decades that the White House has inserted itself so aggressively in the U.N. vetting process, and it appears to be targeting applicants for even midlevel and lower-ranking jobs, which have no political component.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The disclosure comes less than a month after FP revealed that a political appointee in the State Department’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Mari Stull, had been compiling a loyalty list of U.S. citizens at the United Nations and the State Department.

“There’s a pattern here of testing loyalty. It’s really unnerving people,” said one State Department official. “Is this just due diligence or is it something more nefarious that all centers around what they think of Trump?”

The form contains no questions designed to assess candidates’ technical fitness for a U.N. post or whether they have relevant experience in their field. Instead, it focuses on the candidates’ public statements and writings that might reveal their political leanings.

“Have you ever appeared on a political podcast? Talk radio/local radio?” the questionnaire asks. If so, “please provide as much information as possible regarding the program such as the name of the show, the host, the date it was aired/posted, the broadcaster and (if applicable) the hyperlink to the program.”

Under the terms of the U.N. charter, international civil servants are supposed to pledge their loyalty to the world institution and are prohibited from seeking or receiving “instructions from any government.” U.N. member states, meanwhile, pledge to “respect the exclusively international character” of U.N. staff and desist from seeking to “influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities.”

Brett Schaeffer, an expert on the United Nations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said some governments have ignored that principle, including China, Cuba, and Russia, which promote politically acceptable candidates for the lowest-level U.N. career jobs.

He said White House involvement in the application process could be seen as a sign that the United States is more actively trying to encourage American nationals to seek jobs at the United Nations, particularly mid- and lower-level positions. Congress has long raised concern about underrepresentation of U.S. nationals in these jobs.

“The fact that the administration is doing so now I think just reflects a belated attention to an issue that has been an irritant for both Congress and the State Department for a long time.”

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have traditionally put forward candidates from their own parties for the most senior jobs at the United Nations. But those candidates have not been subjected to a such a detailed inquiry into their political activities and public statements.

The new policy would also expand the category of candidates subject to political vetting, requiring midlevel and junior civil servants to fill out the questionnaire.

“It’s outrageous to check the loyalty of someone under consideration for a normal, career appointment to a nonpolitical post,” said Larry Johnson, a retired U.N. lawyer. “U.N. staff are required to be independent and accept no instruction and no influence from their governments.”

The questionnaire asks potential candidates whether they have ever run for political office, served on a local or state political party committee, or addressed a political conference hosted by the Conservative Political Action Conference, the Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee, or any other political organization.

“Have you given speeches on a controversial issue?” it says. “To the best of your ability, please list any speech that you have made in support of a candidate, policy issue, or before a political organization. If you are able, please provide a link to or transcript of the speech.”

The questionnaire also asks hopefuls to provide hyperlinks to any current or past social media accounts, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest, and warns them against scrubbing their online identity.

“Please note, that it is better not to go through your accounts and delete posts prior to the vetting process as the offending posts are often recoverable by the press in another form.”

FP reporter Robbie Gramer contributed to this report.

Donald Trump in Britain: President lands as protests begin

Jon Snow-12 Jul 2018Presenter

Mr Trump described the UK as “a pretty hot spot right now with a lot of resignations.” But despite all the mass protests planned for his visit he declared “people like me there.” We analyse his visit, trade, the special relationship and witness the pomp and ceremony.

Welcome to Blenheim Palace where President Trump will touch down for a black tie dinner hosted by Theresa May. Earlier Mr Trump described the UK as “a pretty hot spot right now with a lot of resignations.”

But despite all the mass protests planned for his visit – the first of which are currently taking place outside Winfield House, where the President spent the afternoon – he declared “people like me there.”

We analyse his visit, trade, the special relationship and witness the pomp and ceremony.

Mr Trump flew to Britain after a somewhat chaotic 28 hours at the NATO summit in Brussels, where he characteristically claimed victory over his demand for the allies to increase their defence spending.

‘Balloon’ Protest in London – Signifies Growing Global Anger Against The US Under Trump!

By Mohamed Harees –JULY 12, 2018

Lukman Harees

‘From the dawn of history the oppressor has always insisted that oppression was good for the oppressed’-  Moorfield Storey

The huge ‘Baby Trump protest’ balloon, scheduled to float above  the capital city of London during the proposed Trump’s visit this week may be considered by some as childish. However, in the eyes of most, it is absolutely brilliant; ‘Trump Baby’ is deemed to be a moment of weaponised humour in a broad, colourful and beautiful protest movement. A balloon – or rather a giant, orange inflatable the size of a two storey house thus  becomes their weapon of choice against this demagogue American President. In the face of this growing angry mood in London against Trump, his UK itinerary appears to be planned out carefully to avoid the capitaland all of this ‘Baby Trump’ and the London protests/ demonstrations as much as possible. Of course, overlooking this stark reality prevailing among the masses to exercise their right of protest by such peaceful means against Trump’s visit, sadly there are also Islamophobia sections of the  British Media ,which shamelessly tries to focus on the Muslim Mayor of London blaming him for taking the decision to allow this balloon on the London skies(which is not true). Max Wakefield, in an article (inews.co.uk 08/07/2018), discusses the underlying rationale for flying the balloon. 

‘..With his malevolent face of undisguised rage, enormous yellow quiff, securely fastened nappy – and really tiny hands – Trump Baby symbolises the essential facts about The Donald. A man of willful and breathtaking ignorance, he wanders in the self-reflecting hall of mirrors of a terrible infant’s psyche, blinded by his own brilliance. Bereft of morality, but rich in privilege, his crazed and cowardly self-love whimsically whips, taunts and abuses anyone it can lay its (tiny) hands on, concocting lies, hatred and violent group-think to feed the beast…This is the inner life of the most powerful man on earth. Now, when Trump visits the UK he will be greeted with this grotesque, floating and unavoidable vision of himself as viewed from the outside. And he will be pursued out of the country by our echoing laughter…’

The Sunday Mail, a Scottish tabloid, published a headline that read “Send him home to think again,” a play on a Scottish anthem. The editor said ‘Trump was “a threat to international stability, and he has a tenuous relationship with the truth,” adding, “We want to let him know that we don’t appreciate what he stands for”. Further, a “Carnival of Resistance” involving throwing rubber boots at a Trump doll is also being envisaged. Meanwhile, protesters across Britain are organizing themselves to play a cat-and-mouse game with Trump as he embarks on a four-day visit to the country, avoiding the areas of protests. Campaign groups including trade unions, environmental campaigners, organizations representing Latin Americans, Muslims and asylum seekers, and even a group opposing Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, have organized a packed schedule reflecting an angry national mood against the psychopath in the White House more than the White House itself. As Prof. Scott Lucas, of  the University of Birmingham quipped in a press interview ‘The man is the focus here. Trump has generated “the greatest amount of unease and tension against a single individual as opposed to an administration.”. Ironically, a petition last year to prevent Trump meeting Queen Elizabeth, on the grounds that an official state visit would “cause embarrassment to Her Majesty,” gathered more than a million signatures.

However, the discontent with Trump and his psychopathic antics are not limited to UK alone. It has become a world wide phenomena; certainly a European one. Across much of Europe, anti-Americanism appears to be on the rise. Majorities in most of the European countries polled by Pew during the Bush years believed that the US, was looking out for its own interests and not taking into account the interests of other nations. Back then, America’s poor global standing was linked to fears of unconstrained U.S. power and its disregard for international norms or multilateral cooperation. Recent polls show further plunging ratings for America, and European leaders are once again critical of Washington’s foreign policies. Commentators are issuing dark warnings about the fate of the transatlantic alliance. 

Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, has said that Europe can no longer rely on the US and that it must “take destiny into its own hands.” Donald Tusk, one of the European Union’s top officials, took him to task in May, when he tweeted “Looking at latest decisions of @realDonaldTrump someone could even think: with friends like that who needs enemies. But frankly, EU should be grateful. Thanks to him we got rid of all illusions. We realise that if you need a helping hand, you will find one at the end of your arm”, providing an inkling  of how European leaders are trying to come to terms with his arrogance and artificial policy shifts for example on issues like the Iran nuclear deal. The EU leaders were also unable to persuade Trump not to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, and his decisions to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to move the United States Embassy there, were made despite European and the wider world opposition. Tusk also appealed to US ahead of the forthcoming NATO summit: ‘Dear America ,appreciate your allies.After all, you do not have that many.’

It is no secret that Trump has an instinctive animus against the European Union and NATO, supporting Brexit vote in UK. He also reportedly told President Macron that France also should consider leaving EU too, and interestingly falsely claimed recently that the EU was created “to take advantage of the US”. While he is looking to improve relations with Russia, there has been thus an alarm at the deteriorating climate with his allies in Europe. Some have expressed fears for the future of NATO itself, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel has indicated that Europe may no longer be able to rely on its US ally. Trump also announced that he was pulling the U.S. out of the Group of Seven’s official statement of common values and even accused Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the host of the G-7 conference, of “false statements”..

Western leaders who till now, tended to decide that the best way to address their concerns with him was to embrace his ways to varying degrees, have realized that the approach has hardly produced results; in fact, on almost all issues the West, particularly Europe, have had an interest about—from climate change to trade to Iran—the Trump administration has differed. However, some signals are now becoming visible that Europe is beginning to look further. It has finalized a free-trade agreement with Canada, and even closer to having one with Japan, while being in negotiations with Australia and New Zealand, and the Mercosur bloc of South American countries. EU is also getting more closer to Russia too, hitherto considered a virtual pariah in European capitals because of its’ adverse policies in Ukraine and Syria, and charges of undermining the electoral systems in several Western nations, and even getting close to China too. They came together recently as a united front on the Iran nuclear deal as well as when US withdrew from the Paris Accord on environment as well. 

Read More