The Arkive
 
|| Year Gamma: London: Friday: July 13: 2018 ||
First Published: September 24: 2015
The Humanion

 

 

The Humanion UK Online Daily

 

As the Mother Earth Belongs to Every Single Human Being of the Humanion Regine Humanics Foundation Ltd and The Humanion Belong to All for We are a Human Enterprise: A Not for Profit Social Enterprise: Support Your Daily Quality Newspaper and Let Us Build an Institution That Will Flow with Time with the Rainbow Peoples of This Earth Far Into the Flowing Future: Support The Humanion: Support Regine Humanics Foundation

 

 

 

 

 

Jurisprudence

Democracy is Not the Rule of the Majority: Rather, It is the Rule of Law That Holds the Majority and Minority in an Equilibrium of a Unity by Virtue of Its Judiciousness Rather Than by the Sheer Force of the Many

|| Jurisprudence Arkive Year Alpha and Year Beta ||

No parliament has the right nor can it command nor demand such a right to pass any law that dictates personal morality which belongs entirely, fully, comprehensively and inalienably with the Agency of the Human  Mind what is termed in law as The Person. The Person enters into political membership of the State without compromising its absolute integrity of being a whole and nothing but the whole Person.   This does not require much discussion for this is the fundamental basis of Jurisprudence. The State even cannot take away The Person's Membership of the State:Citizenship: let alone his:her right to make own moral choices. In this no such law can be 'legitimately' passed by any Parliament that requires or forces a Person to opt out of his:her personal morality and commits acts against his:her personal morality such a law that requires doctors to prescribe lethal medication prescription for someone, even if in severe pain and suffering, to kill himself:herself nor can such law force anyone to take part in that self annihilation even if they have to watch and observe or even prepare the person committing suicide.

Jurisprudence
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why are Companies Let to Take Citizens Exercising Their Fundamental Democratic Rights to Court So That Their Rights Could Be Curtailed by Injunctions: This Can Not Be Let to Continue and The Humanion Invites the Parliament’s Relevant Committee to Urgently Investigate This Alarming and Unacceptable Practice Being Abused: UKOG Back Off




|| June 26: 2018 || ά. No wonder Mr Keith Taylor, the Green MEP for the South East is supporting six 'brave and courageous' women from Sussex and Surrey due at the High Court on either July 02 or 03 to 'defend their right to peaceful protest' against UK Oil and Gas:UKOG. The entire Houses of Parliament should support these citizens, in this case, all women, for as citizens they have the fundamental democratic, civic and lawful rights to peaceful and legitimate protest against activities by any one or any agency, that is detrimental to public health and safety and that endangers and curtails human, civic and fundamental rights. For exercising these very rights neither any person nor any agency or body can take people to court to get injunctions sanctioned against them so to curtail and infringe on their rights.

In a democratic society this can not be let to continue to happen. The Humanion invites the Parliament’s, both Houses, relevant committees to launch joint urgent inquiry to investigate as to how these practices are increasingly being used by desperate companies against citizens so that they can move forward with changing this abuse of ‘protocol’. As for Mr Keith Taylor MEP, he is vocally and actively supporting the campaigners from across the South East and London, who are joining forces in support of these defendants and they will be outside the High Court to support them in their fight against UKOG's bid for a ‘chilling and anti-democratic’ injunction.

This manner by which UKOG has gone to court and applied for injunctions against a ‘class of people’, termed as ‘persons unknown’, is at best, downright ridiculous and, at worst, absolutely dangerous since this could, hypothetically, apply to all citizens of the locality concerned as soon as they join any protest against UKOG. The Parliament must ‘rise' from its seats in horror of this ‘Machiavellian’ but corporate ‘abuse’ of the Judiciary. The Parliament must rise to the challenge of challenging this abuse of the Judiciary in this manner by companies seeking to curtail and infringe citizens’ democratic and fundamental rights.

Mr Taylor, has supported the defendants throughout the process. Ahead of the hearing, he said, "UKOG is so desperate and their business model so unsustainable that instead of securing a social licence for their destructive operations, they'd rather drag local residents to the High Court, in the hopes of securing an anti-democratic injunction against their fundamental rights.
I continue to, wholeheartedly, support the six courageous residents taking up the fight in the High Court and wish them the best of luck in the fight for our rights, our environment and the future for our children and our children's children.

On the details of the injunction itself, one of the defendants, Ms Natasha Doane, who lives in Surrey, said, "I am concerned that the injunction, if, granted, would be likely to have a serious deterrent effect on local people being able to continue campaigning in opposition to UKOG’s activities.

From reading the injunction, it is very difficult to understand what is covered by the description of ‘persons unknown’ and how previously legal acts could in the future be considered ‘illegal’ and in what conditions this would come into effect and what the consequences would be."

Ms Lorraine Inglis, of the Weald Action Group, said, “This is a blatant effort to silence peaceful protest. The defendants decided to come forward on behalf of all of us, who object to this industry’s greedy attack on our environment including a healthy climate.

These oil companies are trying to change Government policy to fast-track their plans through the planning system, at the same time, as shutting down the opportunity for opponents to have their voices heard.”

UKOG has drilling sites across the South East, including, Broadford Bridge in West Sussex and Horse Hill in Surrey, both mentioned in the injunction. It, also, has a significant stake in the proposed drilling site at Leith Hill in Surrey and a planned new site on the Isle of Wight.

According to Mr Taylor, the company says that it is trying to stop various forms of legal protests, that affect its ‘commercial interests’. It follows in the wake of other wide-ranging injunctions by fracking giants Cuadrilla and INEOS, which are still the subject of legal challenge.

Although, the South East sites are not technically defined as fracking by the government, they involve similar methods like acidisation to access the hard to reach ‘tight oil’ locked into the shale. Local communities have voiced concerns about the potential risk to groundwater contamination, impacts of air pollution with flaring, problems of HGVs on narrow country roads and the loss of more countryside to concrete and industrial development.

Mr Taylor further points out that the CEO of UKOG MR Stephen Sanderson has said that he wants to see ‘back to back wells’ in an industrial production, this includes land in the Green Belt, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks.

The Legal Team: The injunction will be challenged by Ms Stephanie Harrison QC, leading Mr Timothy Baldwin and Mr Stephen Simblet, leading Ms Anna Morris of the Garden Court Chambers Civil Liberties Team, instructed by Mr Michael Oswald of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors.

Caption: Defendants Ms Constance Whiston, Ms Vicki Elcoate, Ms Ann Stewart, Ms Sue Jameson, Ms Jacqui Hamlin and Ms Natasha Doane: Image: Keith Taylor MEP’s office. :::ω.

|| Readmore || ‽: 270618 || Up ||









Torture: The Barbarity Humanity Still Perpetuates Across the Globe: This is a Resource for the World to Fight Against Torture




|| June 24: 2018: University of Exeter News || ά. A new invaluable resource for groups monitoring prisons and other places of detention around the world will play a key part in the fight around torture, experts have said. Abuse in jails and other places of detention can now be recorded with greater accuracy than ever before. A new system for recording weapons and restraints will help human rights monitors better independently document and track the use of torture in without the need to be reliant on information from authorities.

Although, many monitors have unrestricted access to places, where persons, may be, deprived of their liberty and many countries, also, have national bodies to prevent torture and ill treatment, there is a knowledge gap on how best to record the firearms, less lethal weapons and restraints often found in places of detention. It is hoped the new guide for monitors will prompt them to assess places of detention in more detail, looking beyond just checking they meet national standards and broadening the scope of what they examine.

The guide will equip detention monitors with skills to record cases of mistreatment in more detail, helping them to better recognise if weapons and restraints are being misused. The information will help to corroborate allegations of torture and ill-treatment made by detainees and could play a major part in fighting torture around the world.

The new guide Monitoring weapons and restraints in places of detention: a practical guide for detention monitors, was launched at the United Nations in Geneva, with a presentation to the Plenary of the UN Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture during its 35th meeting.

The guide was developed by Dr Abi Dymond, from the University of Exeter and by the Omega Research Foundation, a UK NGO, which researches the manufacture, trade and use of, military, security and police equipment. It will be used by the SPT and others human rights monitors as they document torture and help them compile evidence from survivors.

Dr Dymond said, “I hope, the guide will help to reduce and prevent torture around the world and enhance accountability for use of force. Focusing on the equipment used in prisons can help corroborate evidence and testimonies and help give an independent way to document mistreatment, rather than just information authorities want to give.

By helping to identify wrongdoing and misuse of weapons and restraints, this guide has the potential to improve relationships between prisoners and staff. It will help start discussions about the appropriateness of current policy and practice, and whether less harmful alternatives could be used.”

The guide was developed as a result of requests from several torture prevention bodies, including, the SPT. It helps such bodies to collate and monitor standards around the use of firearms, less lethal weapons and restraints in places of detention. It, also, shows them how to document what they see, what to ask and key observations they should make in prisons, hospitals and other places of detention.

The guide informs monitors to, particularly, look out for inappropriate items, such as, weighted leg restraints or electric shock weapons and encourages them to speak to prison staff to check their understanding of when they, may, use weapons and restraints, their understanding of human rights and whether they have skills to help them avoid using force.

Sir Malcolm Evans, Chair of the SPT and Professor of Public International Law, University of Bristol, said, “While some equipment may have a legitimate role to play in places of detention under strictly controlled conditions, others have no place at all, being inherently cruel, inhuman and degrading, yet, they continue to be promoted, marketed, bought and sold.

Monitoring bodies are increasingly starting to recognise the importance of accurate documentation of weapons and restraints in places of detention and of paying attention to the instruments used to inflict abuse.

Enhanced awareness of weapons and restraints can help torture prevention bodies to recognise when inappropriate equipment is being used or is being considered for use; to investigate the use of weapons and restraints where there are grounds for concern; and provide additional evidence around the allegations of torture and ill-treatment made by detainees.

Having been closely involved in the development of this resource, I am confident that it will be of value to a wide range of detention monitors and torture prevention bodies more broadly and will be an invaluable resource in the fight against torture.” :::ω.

|| Readmore || ‽: 250618 || Up ||







Joint Statement of Four UK Human Rights and Equality Bodies on Exiting the European Union: In Relation to Equality and Human Rights We Need Progression Not Regression




|| June 15: 2018 || ά. The four UK human rights and equality bodies, Equality and Human Rights Commission:EHRC, Equality Commission for Northern Ireland:ECNI, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission:NIHRC and Scottish Human Rights Commission:SHRC, which are the four statutory bodies for human rights and equalityin the country, have issued a joint statement on the UK exiting the European Union.  

In the statement the bodies said: We are united in our commitment to protect and enhance equality and human rights standards across the UK. We have jointly identified three priority areas, that should be protected and advanced in the course of the UK’s exit from the European Union.’’ These are: i: ensuring parliament gets a say in any proposed changes to the UK’s equality and human rights legal framework.

ii: retaining, at least, equivalent equality and human rights legal protections as those we currently have in the UK, we need progression, not regression and iii: ensuring the UK is a global leader in equality and human rights. ‘’We, also, consider that the protection of equality and human rights should remain a priority in negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement.

We are, particularly, concerned that loss of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU will lead to gaps in protection and that removing the Charter as part of the Brexit process would create significant legal uncertainty; retained law would simply be incomplete without it.

This is clearly demonstrated by the decision of the Irish Supreme Court on February 01, 2018 to refer a question to the European Court on whether it should refuse extradition to the UK under a European arrest warrant because of uncertainty whether the Appellant’s rights, including, under the Charter, will be capable of enforcement after Brexit.

The simplest and best way to comply with the government’s political commitment that substantive rights remain unchanged after Brexit is to retain Charter rights in relation to EU law throughout the UK. :::ω.

|| Readmore || ‽: 160618 || Up || 

 

 

 

The BIA Welcomes UK Ratification of the UPC Agreement
 

 

 

|| April 29: 2018 || ά. The Minister for Intellectual Property, Mr Sam Gyimah MP, on April 26 April, confirmed that the UK has ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement:UPCA. Responding to the announcement, BIA CEO Mr Steve Bates said, “Being able to protect intellectual property is vital for life science companies and is, often, the key value in emerging bioscience companies. We welcome the announcement that the UK has ratified the UPC Agreement to create a single system for the registration, prosecution and enforcement of patents across much of Europe.

This will provide the option for businesses to save time and money, which will be of particular benefit for SMEs, as they will be able to register their patents across the participating countries at reduced cost and enforce them through a centralised court system rather than multiple local courts. The Central Division of the Court with responsibility for life sciences cases is due to be based in London, further cementing the UK’s position as a primary destination for investment. The involvement of the UK judiciary with their significant expertise will also be a major advantage to the new system.

The BIA supported the UK’s involvement in establishing the UPC but the question of whether to ratify following the Brexit vote was always a difficult one to balance with the complexities of what would happen should the UK have to withdraw once it leaves the EU.

So, while the desire to see rapid entry into force of the new system is understandable, it is now imperative that the government works swiftly with the other signatories to enable the UK to continue to contribute its expertise to the development of the system and UK business to benefit from the UKs full involvement. If, this isn’t achieved, appropriate transitional provisions will be essential to address Unitary Patents covering the UK and ongoing litigation covering the UK.”

The Agreement still requires ratification by Germany before the UPC system can come into operation.

About the BIA: Established over 25 years ago at the infancy of biotechnology, the BioIndustry Association:BIA is the trade association for innovative enterprises involved in UK bioscience. Members include emerging and more established bioscience companies; pharmaceutical companies; academic, research and philanthropic organisations and service providers to the bioscience sector. The BIA represents the interests of its members to a broad section of stakeholders, from government and regulators to patient groups and the media. Our goal is to secure the UK's position as a global hub and as the best location for innovative research and commercialisation, enabling our world-leading research base to deliver healthcare solutions that can truly make a difference to people's lives.
ω.

||  Readmore ||  ‽: 300318  ||  Up  ||

 

 

 

 

 

To Deny Citizens the Right to Seek Justice is Justice Miscarried Even Before Jurisprudence Can Spell Ju.....of Justice: Manchester Law Students Show by Supporting and Winning for Those Denied Legal Aid

 

|| March 25: 2018: University of Manchester News  || ά. Ten law students from the University of Manchester have helped a group of dismissed employees win an employment case. When Lancashire-based insurance business Imperial Consultants Ltd closed suddenly last August, its more than 40 employees were dismissed without any warning, redundancy pay or outstanding holiday pay. None of the compulsory procedures to consult staff or take them through a fair dismissal process, had been followed by the company.

Ms Christine Peacock, the Solicitor and Manager of the University’s Legal Advice Centre, acquired this case, when two of the dismissed employees came to her employment law clinic at Bury Law Centre. As there is no Legal Aid available for this type of cases and a private solicitor had been unhelpful, Ms Peacock decided to take it on with a group of ten students. The two initial clients were informed that the Legal Advice Centre would take on their case pro bono, provided they understood that they would work with supervised students as part of their development.

They happily agreed and after contacting their former colleagues, another 19 agreed to take part. The students liaised with the clients to obtain the information needed to lodge their claims, as well as, checking the payments they were receiving from the Insolvency Service; many of these were incorrect and were increased as a result.

As it became clear that the clients could not, then, gain any more benefit by continuing with their claims for redundancy pay, unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay, as the company was by then insolvent, the clients were advised that they could still win a protective award for the failure to consult in a collective redundancy situation. Then, the students worked to draft a witness statements and prepared a bundle of documents in preparation for a hearing.

The former directors of the company did not contest the case, so the judge awarded the dismissed workers 90 days’ gross pay, the maximum award permissible, without a hearing. In total, around £150,000 was won as a result of running this case with the involvement of our students.

About the Legal Advice Centre: The Legal Advice Centre is run by the University of Manchester's School of Law to give free legal advice to members of the public, who are not able to access legal advice elsewhere and to provide real world experience to law students. Most of our clients are not eligible for legal aid and can not afford a solicitor. We provide a professional advice service through student-led advice clinic,  supervised by external specialist lawyers. We combine access to justice for members of the public with hands-on experience of legal issues for our students and the opportunity for them to develop key legal skills.

About the University of Manchester: The University of Manchester, a member of the prestigious Russell Group, is the UK’s largest single-site university with 39,700 students and is consistently ranked among the world’s elite for graduate employability. The University is, also, one of the country’s major research institutions, rated fifth in the UK in terms of ‘research power’. World-class research is carried out across a diverse range of fields including cancer, advanced materials, addressing global inequalities, energy and industrial biotechnology. No fewer than 25 Nobel laureates have either worked or studied here. It is the only UK university to have social responsibility among its core strategic objectives, with staff and students alike dedicated to making a positive difference in communities around the world. Manchester is ranked 38th in the world in the Academic Ranking of World Universities 2017 and 6th in the UK. The University had an annual income of almost £01 billion in 2015:16.

Caption: Law students have won a case for their clients: Image: University of Manchester: ω.

||  Readmore ||  ‽: 210318  ||  Up  ||

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Turkey’s 18-Month State of Emergency Has Led to Profound Human Rights Violations: UN Report

 

|| March 20: 2018  || ά. The United Nations on Tuesday called on Turkey to end its 18-month-old state of emergency, saying that the routine extension of emergency powers has resulted in profound human rights violations against hundreds of thousands of people and, may have, lasting impact on the country’s socio-economic fabric. “One of the most alarming findings of the report is how Turkish authorities, reportedly, detained some 100 women, who were pregnant or had just given birth, mostly, on the grounds that they were ‘associates’ of their husbands, who are suspected of being connected to terrorist organisations.” said Mr Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in a news release announcing the findings.

“Some were detained with their children and others violently separated from them. This is simply outrageous, utterly cruel and, surely, can not have anything whatsoever to do with making the country safer.” he said. While taking note of the complex challenges Turkey has faced in addressing the attempted coup in July 2016, as well as, a number of terrorist attacks, the report cites that the sheer number, frequency and lack of connection of several emergency decrees to any national threat seem to point to the use of emergency powers to stifle any form of criticism or dissent vis-à-vis the Government. During the 18-month state of emergency, nearly 160,000 people have been arrested, 152,000 civil servants dismissed, many, arbitrarily and teachers, judges and lawyers dismissed or prosecuted.

The report, also, documents the use of torture and ill-treatment in custody, including, severe beatings, threats of sexual assault and actual sexual assault, electric shocks and water boarding by police, gendarmerie, military police and security forces. It notes that about 300 journalists have been arrested under allegations that their publications contained 'apologist sentiments regarding terrorism' or other 'verbal act offences' or for 'membership' in terrorist organisations.

Over 100,000 websites were, reportedly, blocked in 2017, including, a high number of pro-Kurdish websites and satellite TV channels. Covering the period January to December last year, the report states that the April 2017 referendum, which extended the President’s executive powers into both the legislature and the judiciary as seriously problematic, resulting in interference with the work of the judiciary and curtailment of parliamentary oversight over the executive branch.

By the end of 2017, 22 emergency decrees were promulgated with a further two more since the cut-off date of the report. The report further underlines the need ensure independent, individualised reviews and compensation for victims of arbitrary detentions and dismissals and calls on Turkey to promptly end the state of emergency, restore normal functioning of State institutions, as well as, revise and release all legislation not compliant with its international human rights obligations, including, the emergency decrees.

“I urge the Government of Turkey to ensure that these allegations of serious human rights violations are investigated and the perpetrators are brought to justice.” said Mr. Al Hussein, also, calling on the Government to allow full and unfettered access to his Office OHCHR to be able to directly, independently and objectively assess the human rights situation in the southeast of the country.
ω.

||  Readmore  ||  ‽: 210318  ||  Up  ||

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Musicians or the Creators of Music Can Not Create Music If They are Dead Because They Could Not Feed Themselves While Corporations Make a Killing on Their Works and Creations: It is Well Overdue That the Copyrights Laws Update and Catch Up

 

|| March 11: 2018 News || ά. The European institutions are finalising proposals, that could bring about the most significant changes to copyright law in 17 years. PRS for Music has long been at the forefront of this debate, highlighting the economic harm of the ‘transfer of value’ and the need for a meaningful legal solution. The Make Internet Fair petition, calling for a meaningful solution to the ‘transfer of value’ was re-launched in Brussels on March 09 by a delegation of European musicians and songwriters, including, French electronic music Composer, Mr Jean-Michel Jarre, British Songwriter, BASCA Chairman and PRS Director, Mr Crispin Hunt and German Singer-Songwriter,  Ms Astrid North.

The petition, which has, already, been signed by over 14,000 creators from across the European creative industries, is part of a wider programme of activities to increase the pressure on EU lawmakers to fix the transfer of value, the term used to describe the way value of music is transferred from the songwriters and composers to the online platforms, that host the music, generating enormous profits for these platforms. These activities come at a pivotal point in Brussels as the programme to reform the copyright framework reaches its culmination, the wording of the law, determining how creators will be rewarded for the use of their music online, will soon be put to a vote in EU Parliament and Council.

Songwriter, PRS Director and BASCA Chairman, Mr Crispin Hunt says, “I am supporting the Make Internet Fair petition in the name of protecting the future of creativity. Technology has brought incredible opportunities to songwriters but the situation we have today is, I fear, unsustainable. The platforms are making vast amounts of money but the creators are not getting paid.

What does that mean for the future? Remember, it wasn’t the printing press, that changed the world, it was the words IT printed, that made the difference, these platforms need the music to have a business model. This is not a problem confined to the music industry, it is a symptom of wider problems in the online environment. Rules will not break the internet; they will mend it.

We call on the European authorities to ensure a framework, that means that the internet runs as an effective and competitive marketplace rather than as a monopoly, to secure a meaningful solution to transfer of value and end the inequality.”

Electronic Composer, Mr Jean-Michel Jarre, says, “Today, in Europe and worldwide, creators are seeing the value of their work being unfairly extracted by digital platforms. The world is now watching the EU. It is for Europe to prove that it remains the champion of culture. We need a 21st century copyright framework for a 21st century digital market; one, that allows future generations of creators to be fairly remunerated and be able to make a living from their work.”

European Commissioner for Digital an Society, Ms Mariya Gabriel, say, “Your mobilisation is important for us at this very moment, on this sensitive issue for which a solution is being debated. The online market and the creative sector should grow hand in hand but so far it seems that one is growing at the expense of the other. The legislation is necessary to stop this transfer of value.”

People can sign the Make Internet Fair petition at makeinternetfair.eu. This an opportunity for creators and the music industry to get their voices heard in a meaningful way and remind Members of European Parliament:MEPs that an update to existing laws is of real importance to protect their livelihoods and the future of music.

About PRS for Music: PRS for Music represents the rights of songwriters, composers and music publishers in the UK and around the world. As a membership organisation the company ensures creators are paid whenever their music and songs are played, performed, broadcast or reproduced in public and provides business and community groups with access to 22.2 million songs through its music licences. With over 100 representation agreements in place globally, PRS for Music's network represents over two million music creators. In 2016, the organisation collected over half a billion pounds, £621.5 million, on behalf of its members, making it one of the world’s leading music collective management organisations. ω.

Whatever Your Field of Work and Wherever in the World You are, Please, Make a Choice to Do All You Can to Seek and Demand the End of Death Penalty For It is Your Business What is Done in Your Name. The Law That Makes Humans Take Part in Taking Human Lives and That Permits and Kills Human Lives is No Law. It is the Rule of the Jungle Where Law Does Not Exist. The Humanion

||  Readmore ||

|| ‽: 120318  ||

||    Up   ||

 

 

 

 

Human Rights Groups Call on States to Hold China Accountable at the UN Human Rights Council

 

|| February 26: 2018 News || ά. In a private letter sent to select UN Member States, nearly 20 human rights organisations called for clear and concrete actions to denounce China’s current rollback in respect for human rights at the UN Human Rights Council, which opens its session in Geneva today. The groups highlight five cases of human rights defenders, that would benefit from further pressure being brought to bear on the Chinese government. The signatory-agencies include Amnesty International, China Labour Bulletin, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Human Rights in China, Human Rights Watch, the International Campaign for Tibet, the International Commission of Jurists.

As well as, the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, the International Service for Human Rights, Lawyers for Lawyers, Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada, PEN America, Swedish PEN, the Tibet Advocacy Coalition made of the International Tibet Network Secretariat, Students for a Free Tibet, Tibet Initiative Deutschland, Tibet Justice Center and Tibetan Youth Association in Europe and the World Uyghur Congress. They cases relating to Chinese breaches of human rights include Ms Liu Xia, a poet kept under house arrest after the death of her husband, Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo, in July 2017, Mr Wang Quanzhang, a rights lawyer held incommunicado since July 09, 2015 , Mr Gui Minhai, a Swedish citizen arbitrarily detained in China since he vanished from Thailand in October 2015.

Mr Tashi Wangchuk, a Tibetan cultural rights and education advocate, who has been detained more than two years on charges of inciting separatism, Mr Yu Wensheng, a prominent human rights lawyer disbarred, then arbitrarily detained, in January 2018.. Most recently, Mr Tashi Wangchuk was the subject of a press release by a group of UN experts on February 21, who denounced the criminalisation of his work to peacefully promote Tibetan language and culture.

''These are just five cases among hundreds, if not more. Taken together, they show that the ferocious crackdown on human rights defenders, including, lawyers, that has intensified since President Xi Jinping assumed power continues unabated.'' the authors say in the letter.

''The Human Rights Council should take further steps to show China that undermining key legal protections for freedoms of expression and association and the rights to a fair trial, not to mention disappearing or arbitrarily detaining dissenting voices, is unacceptable behaviour, especially, for a would-be 'global leader’.''

In March 2016, the U.S led a historic joint statement of twelve countries focused on the human rights situation in China. Following President Mr Xi’s consolidation of power at the 19th Party Congress in November 2017, a renewed commitment to a joint statement condemning China’s human rights violations has never been more timely.

The organisations urge the governments to call for the release of all arbitrarily detained individuals; condemn the use of ‘residential surveillance in a designated location’, which the UN Committee against Torture has said ‘may amount to incommunicado detention in secret places’ and promptly grant relevant UN experts unhindered access to all parts of the country, including, Tibetan and Uyghur areas.

''The Council’s credibility is based on its ability to act swiftly and effectively to address human rights situations and to uphold universal values. However, this has come under attack in recent years, particularly from China and like-minded governments. In this context, it is critical for countries to demonstrate their commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights in China, and to defend the values underlying the international human rights system.'' 

This year is, particularly, important, as human rights defenders inside and outside China prepare for the country’s next Universal Periodic Review, scheduled for November 2018. The letter to governments concludes, ''For human rights defenders to have the courage to engage in this important process, with all the risks that it entails, it’s critical that they know that they are not alone.''
ω.

Whatever Your Field of Work and Wherever in the World You are, Please, Make a Choice to Do All You Can to Seek and Demand the End of Death Penalty For It is Your Business What is Done in Your Name. The Law That Makes Humans Take Part in Taking Human Lives and That Permits and Kills Human Lives is No Law. It is the Rule of the Jungle Where Law Does Not Exist. The Humanion

||  Readmore  ||

|| ‽: 270218  ||

||    Up   ||

 

 

 

 

 

Law Does Not Pray But If It Did It Would Do as Wherever There is Injustice May You Rise to Challenge and Rectify It: Manchester Students are Helping People to Access Justice

 

|| December 11: 2017: University of Manchester News || ά. Law students at the University of Manchester are using their skills to help people convicted of crimes, who maintain their innocence and continue to appeal. The Miscarriages of Justice Review Centre, established by Professor Claire McGourlay in the University’s School of Law, aims to find evidence, that will assist in making an application for a person’s case to be reviewed for referral back to the Court of Appeal. When a person convicted of a serious crime has exhausted the normal appeals process, there is almost no legal aid available for that person to fund investigation into possible sources of fresh evidence, that could support her or his claim of innocence.

Volunteer students at the Centre make a real difference by offering their services to such individuals free of charge. They interview clients and their families and friends, speak to witnesses, write reports for solicitors and barristers, organise exhibits for a trial and have meetings with forensic scientists. Their work is supervised and supported at every stage by practicing lawyers. The students have no previous knowledge or experience of criminal cases, when they join and so need extensive support and guidance in order to carry out this work. The Centre has responsibilities both towards students and clients and so is committed to making involvement with it a positive and rewarding experience for both. It now has over 20 students and attracts applications from many more every year.

“The Centre gives our students real experience of working with criminal barristers and solicitors to try and get our clients cases back to the Court of Appeal.” said Professor Claire McGourlay. “It takes students out of the classroom so they can apply what they have read in their books.

Doing this kind of work is so important, as the people we help are at the end of the road and need help to find the evidence, that could overturn their convictions. It, also, instils a sense of social justice in students, that stays with them long after they leave University.”

The School of Law, also, operates a Legal Advice Centre, which has over 300 student volunteers offering free legal advice to members of the public, who are not able to access legal advice elsewhere and provides the students with hands-on experience of legal issues to develop their skills.

University of Manchester: The University of Manchester, a member of the prestigious Russell Group, is the UK’s largest single-site university with 39,700 students and is consistently ranked among the world’s elite for graduate employability. The University is also one of the country’s major research institutions, rated fifth in the UK in terms of ‘research power'. World-class research is carried out across a diverse range of fields including cancer, advanced materials, addressing global inequalities, energy and industrial biotechnology. No fewer than 25 Nobel laureates have either worked or studied here. It is the only UK university to have social responsibility among its core strategic objectives, with staff and students alike dedicated to making a positive difference in communities around the world. Manchester is ranked 38th in the world in the Academic Ranking of World Universities 2017 and 6th in the UK. The University had an annual income of almost £01 billion in 2015:16. ω.

Whatever Your Field of Work and Wherever in the World You are, Please, Make a Choice to Do All You Can to Seek and Demand the End of Death Penalty For It is Your Business What is Done in Your Name. The Law That Makes Humans Take Part in Taking Human Lives and That Permits and Kills Human Lives is No Law. It is the Rule of the Jungle Where Law Does Not Exist. The Humanion

||  Readmore ||

|| ‽: 121217  ||

||    Up   ||
 

A society that does not admit of and accommodate differences can not be a free and democratic society, one in which its citizens are free to think, to disagree, to debate and to challenge the accepted view without fear of reprisal. This case demonstrates that a well-intentioned majority acting in the name of tolerance and liberalism, can, if, unchecked, impose its views on the minority in a manner that is, in itself, intolerant and illiberal: The Canadian British Columbia Court of Appeal on upholding lower court ruling that reversed the Law Society of British Columbia’s denial of accreditation to Trinity Western University’s proposed law school on November 01: 2016

 

Life's Laurel Is You In One-Line-Poetry A Heaven-Bound Propagated Ray Of Light Off The Eye Of The Book Of Life: Love For You Are Only Once

 

 

Life: You Are The Law The Flow The Glow: In Joys In Hurts You Are The Vine-Songs On The Light-Trellis

 

 

 

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

|| All copyrights @ The Humanion: London: England: United Kingdom || Contact: The Humanion: editor at thehumanion.com || Regine Humanics Foundation Ltd: reginehumanics at reginehumanicsfoundation.com || Editor: Munayem Mayenin || First Published: September 24: 2015 ||
|| Regine Humanics Foundation Ltd: A Human Enterprise: Registered as a Not For Profit Social Enterprise in England and Wales: Company No: 11346648 ||