Fear of detention, families torn apart – Hispanics in Alabama are trapped in a unique half-life under punishing new immigrant laws • Latest: police can detain suspected illegal migrants, court rules • In pictures: life under Alabama’s immigration law Isobel Gomez’s apartment on the outskirts of Birmingham, Alabama, has the hunkered-down quality of a wartime bunker. There are boxes of bottled water, rice, beans and tortillas stacked against the living room wall – sufficient to last her family of five several days. The curtains are drawn and the lights on, even though it is early afternoon. For the past two weeks, this small space has been Gomez’s prison cell. She has been cooped up here, shut off from natural light and almost all contact with the outside world since 28 September, the day a judge upheld the new law that has given Alabama the distinction of having the most draconian immigration powers in America. Gomez (the name is not her real one, at her request) used to be a gregarious person, taking her daughters to school, visiting her mother nearby, shopping every day. Now she leaves the apartment only once a week, to stock up on those boxes of essentials at the local Walmart. The day after the new law was upheld, Gomez saw three police cars driving around her housing complex, which is almost entirely Hispanic in occupancy. Word went around that the police asked men standing on the street to go inside their homes or face arrest. She took the mandate literally, and from that moment has barely set foot outside. She no longer drives, her car sitting unused by the kerbside. Under the new law, police have to check the immigration papers of anyone “suspicious” they stop for a routine traffic violation – a missing brake light, perhaps, or parking on the wrong spot. “If they see me they will think I’m suspicious and then they will detain me indefinitely,” Gomez says. Why would the police think she was suspicious? “They will see the colour of my skin.” Gomez’s is one of thousands of Hispanic families in Alabama trapped in a sort of half-life while they wait to see what will happen in the courts to the new law, HB56. Both the US department of justice and a coalition of local groups are challenging the clampdown at the 11th circuit appeals court in Atlanta, Georgia. The court must decide whether to allow the new law to stand or to block it pending higher judgment by the US supreme court; its ruling is expected by the end of this week. Tough provisions While the judges deliberate, Alabama’s uniquely tough new provisions remain in effect. In addition to the police check of “suspicious” people, anyone failing to carry immigration papers is now deemed to be committing a criminal act. Undocumented immigrants are also forbidden from entering into a transaction with the state, which has already led some town halls to demand residents produce their papers or risk losing water supply . Schools have been instructed to check the immigration status of new pupils as young as four. Even families legally entitled to be in the country are being caught. Cineo Gonzalez was shocked a few weeks ago when his six-year-old daughter came home from school carrying a printout. It gave details of HB56 and its implications, under the heading: “Frequent questions about the immigration law.” Gonzalez is a US permanent resident, having come from Mexico more than 20 years ago. His daughter is an American citizen, having been born in Alabama. Both are entirely legal. Yet she was one of only two children in her class – both Hispanic in appearance – who were given the printout. Why was she singled out, Gonzalez asked the deputy head teacher. “Because we gave the printout to children we thought were not from here,” came the reply. Gonzalez is a taxi driver. Soon after the law came into effect, he began getting calls from Hispanic families. “People started asking me for prices. How much would it cost to go to Indiana? How much to New York? Or Atlanta, or Texas, or Ohio, or North Carolina?” At about 2am one night, he was woken up by a woman who asked him to come and pick her and her family up immediately and drive them to North Carolina. He went drove to their apartment where he found the two parents, three children and a small number of bags waiting for him. “Can you hurry up, we’re very scared,” the woman said. “The police followed my husband on his way back from work and that’s why we’re leaving.” It took eight hours to get to North Carolina. The children slept the whole journey; the father sat in silence; the mother cried all the way. “That was devastating,” Gonzalez says. “I knew things were bad, but this really showed me something was happening. Families are being destroyed.” ‘They see us as servants’ Outside the offices of the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, HICA, about 30 people – including several small children – are sitting waiting for legal advice. An overflow room has been set up at the back of the building to accommodate families who arrive throughout the day. In a consulting room, a case manager is drawing up a power of attorney letter for a couple who fear they could be rounded up and deported at any time. The legal document – one of hundreds taken out by parents in the state – sets out what should happen to their eight-year-old daughter should they both suddenly disappear. In this case, it gives one of the couple’s friends, a US citizen, the power to make decisions for the girl on anything from medical procedures to schooling. “This is very cruel, very extreme,” the mother says, asking to remain anonymous. “We have never done harm to anyone. We’ve only worked hard. Now they’re trying to split us from our child.” Why does she think they – the Alabama authorities – are doing this? “We ask ourselves that too. Why are they doing this? They say it’s because we are taking jobs from local people, but I don’t think it can be about that. It’s about racism.” Her husband chimes in: “They see us as servants. As people they can keep at the bottom. Not as people who want a better future for ourselves and for our children.” Most of the 100 or so families who are now coming to HICA for help every day are doing so to have powers of attorney drawn up for their kids. Others want advice about what to do when teachers enquire about their children’s status. Increasingly, people are coming in having been fired by their employers for lack of immigration papers. ‘We do the jobs nobody wants to do’ Efren Cruz has lived in Alabama for 23 years having come here when he was 14 from Mexico. He speaks fluent English with a rich southern drawl. Since HB56 came into effect he has been sacked by four different steel and paper mills where he has worked on and off for years. Now he’s jobless. But he’s not taking it supinely. He laughs at the suggestion that the new law is designed to stop illegal Mexicans taking jobs away from worthy and needy local Alabamans. “We aren’t taking anybody’s jobs because, let’s face it, they don’t want to work. We do the jobs that nobody else wants to do.” Despite the fact that he is undocumented, and thus liable to be detained under the new law, he is among a small group of protesters outside the federal court in Birmingham. His fellow demonstrators include a seven-year-old boy carrying a placard that says: “I just look illegal”, and Cruz’s niece Angela, a US citizen aged two, whose sign says: “They can’t deport us ALL”. Cruz had hoped that many more people would have joined the protest. Over the past week they have been petitioning members of their local church to attend, and about 400 promised to come along. Only about 25 turned up. “That’s how scared people are,” Cruz says. Other sporadic and tentative protests are cropping up across the state. A nearby Mexican restaurant, Gordos Market (which translates as “Fat people’s market”), is closed for three days. A sign on the front door explains that it is shuttered out of “Apoya por una buena causa” – support for a good cause. Across the state this week, poultry and meat processing plants, including the giant Tyson, have been closed or put on limited production schedules because of an unofficial walkout by Hispanic workers. In the north of the state, the pungent smell of rotting tomatoes hangs in the air across huge tranches of land that has been virtually abandoned by workers who, through fear or anger, are no longer turning up to gather the harvest. Just how long this standoff will continue, and what happens to the thousands of families caught in limbo, will depend largely on what the 11th circuit appeals court rules, and ultimately on the final say of the US supreme court. In the meantime, though, Isobel Gomez remains trapped inside her prison cell apartment. The only thing keeping her here, she says, is her daughters, who want to stay and make a life for themselves in America as countless millions of immigrant Americans have done before them. “Every day I ask myself the question: how much longer can I survive this? How much longer can I bear sitting at home, unable to leave the house? How much longer can I stand the humiliation of knowing that I’m seen by others as a bad person, as a criminal? If it were down to me, I’d have had enough already.” Alabama US immigration United States US constitution and civil liberties US domestic policy Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
October is very hard for me. It’s not that the early autumn in Wyoming isn’t beautiful. If you haven’t experienced the crisp air as the nights come earlier each day, or the last few cricket chirps of the season that follow the brilliant orange sunsets, you can’t really know the peaceful, quiet contemplation this time of year brings those few of us fortunate to make our homes here. But it’s those cues, these turns of the calendar pages, that remind me of the tragedy that autumn brought us 13 years ago, and start us reflecting on what our family, and our society, have learned from it. Thirteen years ago this week his father, brother and I were at Poudre Valley Hospital in Fort Collins, Colo., with our firstborn son, Matthew Shepard. He was 21, and dying. Just days before, he had been just like millions of American college students whose names are not known to the world — getting the hang of his new classes, adapting to a new campus, making friends. His father and I thought his biggest challenges were keeping money in his checking account and getting his homework in on time. But here he was in intensive care, the victim of a terrible, senseless attack at the hands of two other young men who, at some point in their lives, learned it was OK to hate others for being different, to victimize them, to disregard their humanity. Matt passed away quietly in the early morning hours of Oct. 12, 1998, with his family at his bedside. He died because of violence fueled by anti-gay hatred. For a lot of reasons, some of which we will probably never quite understand, the world had been watching, praying for him, and voicing their outrage. October cannot go by anymore, and never will again, without us wondering what might have been, for us and for so many other families, if hatred of gay, and lesbian, and bisexual, and transgendered people, and all those whom others simply think might be, had been rooted out long ago. In the painful months that followed Matt’s death, we came to understand a lot of things we never knew before: about hate crimes, and how shockingly many there were every year; how they are characterized by obvious signs, like excessive violence, and the denial that surrounds them; and how hard they were to prove, and prosecute, and appropriately punish, with sensitivity to the victim’s loved ones and the wider community. We learned about the LGBT community and its long struggle for acceptance and equality. We learned how easily LGBT people could be fired from their jobs just for being themselves, how they couldn’t serve their country openly, couldn’t marry, couldn’t adopt kids in some states. And most of all, we learned about the fear so many otherwise good people had in their hearts about their gay neighbors, coworkers and family members. We set about creating a legacy for Matt. He had always been interested in politics, human rights and LGBT equality — he had in fact been at a Coming Out Week meeting at the University of Wyoming on his last night. With the support and sympathy of the thousands who wrote us and the millions who were touched by his death, we decided to try to make a difference in his name. Thirteen years later, the Matthew Shepard Foundation stands up for the LGBT community and its straight allies, in Matt’s memory. We are a modest organization, but we do our part and persuade others to do theirs, as well. We pushed — for a long, long time — for federal hate crime legislation that includes LGBT people. That finally happened in another chilly October two years ago — one more step forward. We go to schools and companies and community groups to implore everyone there to embrace diversity. We try to give young people hope, despite their parents’ or peers’ rejection of them, that they have a bright future. We keep Matt’s story alive and look to turn bystanders into activists. It’s been such a long, sometimes tiring journey, but a rewarding one, as well. The coming out stories that young people tell me, slowly, almost imperceptibly, got better. More and more, the story ends not with a young person being turned out of the house, but affirmed, and accepted, lovingly. Every time I speak at a college somewhere in America, I am hoping I will hear another one like that. Marriage equality is coming slowly, state by state, and military service has finally been opened to all, regardless of sexual orientation. This is progress. But we have a lot of work left to do, in employment discrimination, in family law and, most of all, in people’s individual lives. We all have a role to play. We all have our story to tell. When we all finally stand up and demand equality, the scourge of hatred will wither and disappear. And maybe we can all have our Octobers back to enjoy for what they’re meant to be — a season to see, celebrate, change. To see a timeline of events, click here.
Continue reading …
• Defence secretary steps down over links to controversial unofficial adviser Adam Werrity • How the Guardian broke the story 4.32pm: Here is the full text of David Cameron’s letter to Liam Fox. Like Fox, Cameron (left) focuses on his work as defence secretary, especially in Libya and in reforming the finances of the Ministry of Defence. Dear Liam, Thank you for your letter. I understand your reasons for deciding to resign as defence secretary, although I am very sorry to see you go. We have worked closely for these last six years, and you have been a key member of my team throughout that time. You have done a superb job in the 17 months since the election, and as shadow defence secretary before that. You have overseen fundamental changes in the Ministry of Defence and in our armed forces, which will ensure that they are fully equipped to meet the challenges of the modern era. On Libya, you played a key role in the campaign to stop people being massacred by the Gaddafi regime and instead win their freedom. You can be proud of the difference you have made in your time in office, and in helping our party to return to government. I appreciate your commitment to the work of this government, particularly highlighting the need to tackle the deficit, and the relationship between Britain’s economic strength and our national security. You and Jesme have always been good friends, and I have truly valued your support over the years. I will continue to do so in the future. Yours ever, David. Jesme is Fox’s wife, Jesme Baird. 4.23pm: The resignation letter goes into very little detail about his links with Adam Werrity or the allegation that he was in effect running a shadow foreign policy regarding Sri Lanka . He says only that he “mistakenly” allowed the distinction between “my personal interest and my government activities” to become blurred, and that the “consequences” of this have become clearer. David Cameron has said he is very sorry Fox has resigned but “I understand your reasons”. Fox’s was a tricky case to handle for Cameron. The prime minister will not have wanted to alienate his own right wing by being seen to abandon one of their most high-profile standard bearers. Fox was a leadership rival of Cameron’s in 2005 and may have seen himself as a replacement for Cameron one day. In that sense he may be more dangerous for Cameron on the backbenches, where he may become a focus for internal Tory opposition to the prime minister. My colleague Allegra Stratton has written about Fox’s resignation here . She points out that Fox is the first Tory to be forced out of the coalition, and the resignation will trigger the prime minister’s first reshuffle, “an operation he had wanted to hold out doing until half way through the parliament”. It is expected Cameron will perform a limited reshuffle, Allegra writes, merely replacing Fox without going reorganising his entire government line-up. Fox is said to have crumpled under the weight of this week’s revelations and the prospect of another weekend of speculation He could not hold out until the inquiry into his behaviour wound up officially – expected to be at some point next week. The prime minister had always held out the right to exercise his own judgment and keep Fox in his post even if O’Donnell’s report had been critical, but the defence secretary decided to short-circuit the process and limit the personal and political damage. It is understood that Werritty’s appearance before Sir Gus O’Donnell – the man performing the inquiry to establish the propriety of his work – did not impress the cabinet secretary. 4.21pm: Here is Liam Fox’s letter of resignation to the prime minister in full: Dear David, As you know, I have always placed a great deal of importance on accountability and responsibility. As I said in the House of Commons on Monday, I mistakenly allowed the distinction between my personal interest and my government activities to become blurred. The consequences of this have become clearer in recent days. I am very sorry for this. I have also repeatedly said that the national interest must always come before personal interest. I now have to hold myself to my own standard. I have therefore decided, with great sadness, to resign from my post as secretary of state for defence — a position which I have been immensely proud and honoured to have held. I am particularly proud to have overseen the long overdue reforms to the Ministry of Defence and to our armed forces, which will shape them to meet the challenges of the future and keep this country safe. I am proud also to have played a part in helping to liberate the people of Libya, and I regret that I will not see through to its conclusion Britain’s role in Afghanistan, where so much progress has been made. Above all, I am honoured and humbled to have worked with the superb men and women in our armed forces. Their bravery, dedication and professionalism are second to none. I appreciate all the support you have given me – and will continue to support the vital work of this government, above all in controlling the enormous budget deficit we inherited, which is a threat not just to this country’s economic prosperity but also to its national security. I look forward to continuing to represent my constituents in North Somerset. Yours ever, Liam 4.19pm: Tory MP Peter Bone says “it’s typical of Liam to put the country first” in resigning. “I think it was largely a media-driven [story]. I didn’t see the hanging offence, I’m afraid,” says Bone. Here is a bit more detail from Fox’s statement: I mistakenly allowed the distinction between my personal interest and my government activities to become blurred. The consequences of this have become clearer in recent days and I’m sorry for this. 4.14pm: This is the second forced resignation since the coalition was formed. The first was the Lib Dem David Laws, who stepped down soon after becoming chief secretary to the Treasury over his expenses. You can see all of the Guardian’s coverage of the Liam Fox story since June here . 4.12pm: The defence secretary, Liam Fox, has resigned after increasing pressure over his links to his unofficial adviser and best man, Adam Werrity. His office has just confirmed the news. In his resignation statement, Fox said he “mistakenly allowed the distinction between my personal interest and my government activities to become blurred”. 4.10pm: The defence secretary, Liam Fox, has resigned. More details soon … How the Guardian broke the story The Guardian’s Rupert Neate broke this story in June and has led the way in uncovering new developments. Here’s how the story unfolded: 27 June 2011 Government weighs into ‘blackmail’ row over 3M and MRSA test 13 July 2011 US firm 3M could summon Liam Fox to give evidence in blackmail case 7 August 2011 Liam Fox forced into U-turn over legal spat with US multinational 3M 18 August 2011 Liam Fox’s friend set up crucial legal meeting 29 August 2011 Liam Fox under fresh pressure over adviser 4 October 2011 Liam Fox faces questions for allowing former flatmate access to MoD 5 October 2011 Charity created by Liam Fox axed after watchdog issues criticism 7 October 2011 Liam Fox was joined by former flatmate on official visit to Sri Lanka Liam Fox had already been warned over Adam Werritty links Liam Fox, his adviser, and an irregular meeting in Dubai ‘Adviser’ Adam Werritty ran charity from Liam Fox’s office 8 October 2011 Businessman met Fox’s friend two months before ‘chance’ Dubai meeting Emails and video footage pile pressure on beleaguered Liam Fox 10 October 2011 Revealed: how lobbyists were paid to facilitate meeting with Liam Fox Werritty remains silent as spotlight falls on his earning and business dealings 11 October 2011 Liam Fox battles to save career as PM gives only conditional support Liam Fox row: Adam Werritty to be quizzed over sources of income 12 October 2011 Liam Fox furious as friends brief against Werritty 13 October 2011 Liam Fox took five MPs to Washington with donor’s money Labour questions £170,000 cost of Liam Fox’s official advisers Liam Fox faces fresh questions on Sri Lanka links Fox and Werritty joined stag party during taxpayer-funded trip to Dubai 14 October 2011 Rightwing Tories rally to Liam Fox’s side Liam Fox and Adam Werritty links Liam Fox Paul Owen guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The House of Representatives has passed a bill that bans women from using the health reform law’s subsidies to buy health care plans that cover abortions. The “Protect Life Act”—which passed 251-172 after a heated debate—also allows hospitals to turn away women who need emergency care that includes…
Continue reading …Steve Jobs would probably be alive today if he had been less of a skeptic about conventional medicine, according to a Harvard expert who has researched the kind of cancer that killed the Apple CEO. Jobs’ preference for alternative medicine—outlined in a 2008 CNN article —caused him to delay…
Continue reading …
The Italian PM’s embattled government survives after winning an absolute majority – of one Silvio Berlusconi’s embattled government scraped through a confidence vote on Friday, winning what even one of his own deputies called a “pyrrhic victory”. The 316 to 301 result left him with an absolute majority of just one in the lower house of the Italian parliament. But it was a better outcome than had been feared minutes earlier as three of the prime minister’s supporters unexpectedly announced they were deserting him. Constitutionally, Berlusconi could have survived with a simple majority of votes cast. But government whips wanted an outright majority to stem mounting dissidence within the ranks of the prime minister’s Freedom People (PdL) movement and convince the electorate that his administration could continue to govern. Recent weeks have seen the emergence of a rebel faction, led by Claudio Scajola, a former minister. Though Scajola, who resigned in an alleged corruption scandal last year, voted for the government, several of his fellow rebels decided to abstain. Among others who abandoned Berlusconi was Santo Versace, the brother of the designers Donatella and the late Gianni Versace. With majority whips alternately cajoling and haranguing doubters, everything possible was done to bring out the vote in favour of the prime minister and his beleaguered administration. One of Berlusconi’s deputies went through the division lobby on crutches with a leg in plaster. The prime minister sought the confidence vote after his government failed on Tuesday to secure approval for the 2010 public accounts. Berlusconi has been struggling to get legislation through the lower house ever since last year when his former lieutenant, Gianfranco Fini, walked out of his party, taking with him several other deputies previously loyal to the government. Before the vote, Italy’s billionaire prime minister had appealed to the chamber to back him, saying Italy needed stability at a time of economic crisis. But his pledge to battle on helped send share prices tumbling on the Milan stock exchange and raised the already unsustainably high interest rate on Italian government debt. The reaction in the markets was a clear sign that investors are less concerned now about stability than government paralysis. With a fragile majority and his credibility in shreds because of the numerous scandals and trials in which he is involved, Berlusconi has appeared incapable of reacting effectively to the simmering debt crisis in the eurozone. Many of the potential rebels among his followers and allies would nevertheless prefer to bring him down in January. That would open the way for an election in the spring – a better moment than mid-winter for persuading sceptical voters Italy can make a new start under the right. Berlusconi returned to power in 2008 promising his government would never “put its hands in the pockets of the Italian people”. But as the eurozone debt crisis has spread, it has been forced to approve a string of austerity packages that have raised taxes and other levies, including VAT. The austerity packages may reduce the government deficit. But they risk constraining Italy’s already weak potential for economic growth. Berlusconi’s government has so far been unable to come up with a credible plan for reanimating the economy. Its policy – or lack of one – has been fiercely criticised by both trade unions and employers’ groups. One of Berlusconi’s serving ministers, Giancarlo Galan, who holds the culture and heritage portfolio, said he wanted to see the prime minister embark on a programme of reforms to free up the economy. “If he doesn’t manage it, it would be better to have elections,” he told a local newspaper. The president, Giorgio Napolitano, has said he will not dissolve parliament for as long as Berlusconi’s government enjoys the confidence of parliament. In an effort to underline the seriousness of the political crisis in Italy, the main opposition parties boycotted Berlusconi’s speech to the house on Thursday. Silvio Berlusconi Italy Europe John Hooper guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Fox News Chief White House Correspondent Ed Henry experienced a tense moment with President Obama during a Thursday press conference. The President held a joint press conference with Lee Myung-Bak, President of South Korea. Ed Henry had the first question of the conference and asked Obama if he considered the alleged Iranian assassination plot to be “an act of war.” Henry decided to quote a Mitt Romney statement from last week when asking for the President’s plans to address Iran’s alleged terror plot. Henry asked the President “what specific steps will you take to hold Iran accountable? Especially when Mitt Romney charged last week, quote, ‘If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your President. You have that president today.’” Obama paused and answered, “Well I did not know you were the spokesman for Romney,” and smiled down at Henry. Henry discussed the exchange with Megyn Kelly on her show and defended his decision to quote Mitt Romney in his question. “I was trying to put it in the broader context of not just Mitt Romney, but there are a lot of Republicans out there who would charge that this president leads from behind,” he said. “…Instead, he decided to go after me a little bit.” Henry has clashed repeatedly with Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney. WATCH THE VIDEO ABOVE
Continue reading …The supposedly tea-stained House of Representatives passed three free trade bills yesterday, despite ample polling data showing that Tea Party voters are strongly opposed to free trade. It’s just further proof, writes Dana Milbank of the Washington Post , that “for all the talk of populist foment,” from the Tea Party…
Continue reading …Anti-Choice Rep. Virginia Foxx: ‘Nobody Has Fought More for the Rights of Women’
October 13, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) denied Thursday that a bill that would allow hospitals to refuse treatment to pregnant women was misogynist, adding that “nobody has ever fought more for the rights of women than I have.” In a speech on the House floor, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) explained why she believed “The Protect Life Act” was a step backward for women’s reproductive rights. “I think this bill goes to the farthest extreme in trying to take women down, not just a peg, but take them in shackles to some cave somewhere,” she said. “Twenty-five years ago, this body passed [The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)], a bill that basically said that anyone that shows up at an emergency room would access health care, no questions asked. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to amend that law and basically say, ‘Oh, except for a woman who is in need of an abortion, or except for a woman who is bleeding to death who happens to be pregnant. Or except for a woman who is miscarrying.’ Basically, what this bill would do is say that any hospital could decline to provide services to one class of people in this country and that one class of people are pregnant women.” Speier added: “What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting to do is misogynist. It is absolutely misogynist.” Foxx responded by charging that Democrats were “outside the mainstream” for wanting to use taxpayer funding for abortions. “For my colleagues across the ailes who say that this is a misogynist bill, nobody has ever fought more for the rights of women than I have,” she declared. “Fifty percent of the unborn babies that are being aborted are females. So the misogyny comes from those that promote the killing of unborn babies. That’s where the misogyny comes in, Madame Speaker.” In the past six years, Foxx has voted against abortion rights at least nine times . Family planning advocates claim that an amendment introduced by the congresswoman in May was designed to prevent doctors from being properly trained to perform abortions. “Once again, instead of focusing on improving access to health care, opponents of women’s health are manipulating the legislative process to undermine women’s access to and information about comprehensive reproductive health care services,” Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Dawn Laguens said in a media advisory . Democrats have called House Republicans’ latest effort a waste of time because “The Protect Life Act” would never be passed by Democrats in the Senate or signed into law by President Barack Obama. “Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor of health care providers,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters Thursday. “I can’t even describe to you the logic of what they are doing today.”
Continue reading …
Defence secretary accused of running ‘maverick foreign policy’ in Sri Lankan Development Trust dealings involving Adam Werritty Liam Fox faced fresh accusations of running a shadow foreign policy after it emerged he was involved in setting up a private investment firm to operate in Sri Lanka in apparent contravention of UK government policy, with his controversial friend Adam Werritty as its key contact. The defence secretary was intimately involved in negotiations with the Sri Lankan regime as recently as last summer, according to Lord Bell, his friend of 30 years, agreeing a deal that allows the Sri Lankan Development Trust to operate in the country in the same period in which he now says he withdrew his involvement. The trust was a venture designed to rebuild the country’s infrastructure using private finance with a sideline in charitable projects for Tamil communities. Labour urged the government to come clean on Fox’s work in Sri Lanka and whether it might have contravened the government’s official policy, while a senior Whitehall source said the minister had been operating a “maverick foreign policy” and it is this that will ultimately decide his political fate. The government has adopted an arm’s-length policy on Sri Lanka, calling for an independent inquiry into alleged war crimes. Since 2006 it has also had a policy to limit development work to urgent humanitarian assistance and “de-mining” areas affected by the civil war. Fox told the Commons on Monday he had worked with “a number” of business, banking and political contacts to establish the trust in Sri Lanka. He named only Werritty, his close friend who is at the heart of the scandal over his unofficial role as Fox’s adviser. “Neither myself, Mr Werritty nor others sought to receive any share of the profits for assisting the trust,” he said. In June 2010, he met the Sri Lankan foreign minister in Singapore, along with Werritty and MoD officials. “The purpose of the meeting was to make it clear that although I would no longer be able to participate in the project, the others involved would continue to do so,” he said on Monday. But Bell told the Guardian on Thursday that discussions took place last summer in which Fox agreed with the governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka that the trust would invest in roadbuilding and other infrastructure projects using private investment. Bell, whose PR firm Bell Pottinger was employed by the Sri Lankan government until last year to improve the country’s reputation abroad, said the deal had been struck between Fox and the head of the Sri Lankan bank: “In order for these funds to operate they would need an agreement with the country. The financial interests of Sri Lanka come under the governor of the Central Bank. My understanding is that the infrastructure development fund would be set up and have an agreement with the Sri Lankan government to invest in Tamil communities in Sri Lanka. It’s a fine idea with a good sense of purpose.” He added that “of course” part of the strategy was to improve the regime’s reputation abroad. Kevan Jones, shadow defence minister, said: “Liam Fox told the house about the trust on Monday. It’s clearly not a full explanation. If he was still striking deals with the Sri Lankans last summer, how does that fit with official UK foreign policy? He has to explain these negotiations. You can’t have a situation where a government minister is appearing to run a completely separate foreign policy from that of the government.” Fox’s parliamentary and private offices both said last night that Fox ceased to have any involvement with the trust on entering government. The only activity the Sri Lanka Development Trust appears to have engaged in has been the payment of up to £7,500 of Fox’s travel expenses, incurred on three trips to the country in 2009 and 2010. The trust was originally registered to an address close to the Houses of Parliament in London, 40 George Street, which is also the offices of 3G, the “Good Governance Group”, which is chaired by Chester Crocker, a former US politician. He also sits on the board of Bell Pottinger LLC, the US wing of Bell’s publicity firm. Bell denied that there was any connection between his firm or its US subsidiary and Fox’s Sri Lankan operation. The trust has since transferred to the Lothian Road in Edinburgh, giving its address as No 50, a substantial granite and glass-fronted office block where a number of firms including the HQ of the Scottish oil exploration firm Cairn Energy and corporate offices for Clydesdale Bank are based. When the Guardian visited the building there was no sign of any physical presence of the organisation. Two legal firms also based in the building are not believed to be connected. As a legal trust, it does not have to register either with the Charities Commission or on the register of businesses at Companies House. It does not have to publish the names of its trustees, it purpose or its beneficiaries. Bell said that the trust consisted of two bodies, the Sri Lanka Infrastructure Development Fund, which was intended to raise money abroad from investors who would then share in the profit of ventures on the country, and the Sri Lanka Charitable Fund which would undertake charitable projects in Tamil areas in the north and east. Inquiries in Colombo could not establish any activity the trust or its subsidiaries have so far carried out. Aid experts, senior politicians and officials in Sri Lanka said they had no knowledge of the trust. Nether the trust nor its subsidiaries are registered by the National Secretariat for Non-Governmental Organisations, a prerequisite for any such project. On a trip in March 2009, shortly before the end of the bloody but successful government offensive, Fox called for the creation of “a special fund with the help of international partners … to help the Sri Lankan government in handling the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the war ravaged areas in the north and east [of the country].” Fox told local journalists he was suggesting “a new, independent, Sri Lanka construction fund”. One aim of the fund, he said, would be to divert cash that had been flowing from ethnic Tamils overseas to the LTTE into reconstruction. No activity on the ground appears to have occurred. “I have my ear pretty close to the ground and I doubt a major new reconstruction project in the north [of Sri Lanka] could get going without my knowledge and I have never heard of this trust,” said one senior aid official in Colombo, the commercial capital. The source of the trust’s money for the transport to Sri Lanka for Fox is unknown. Contributions to the cost of the trips were also received from the Sri Lankan government via its London embassy. Human rights groups have been critical of Fox’s outspoken support for the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who is now in his second term of office and has been accused by campaigners of repressing the press and opposition. WikiLeaks cables revealed American diplomats’ concerns at alleged government complicity in human rights abuses committed by troops and paramilitaries during the latter stages of the civil war. The United Nations has repeatedly pressed Sri Lanka for greater accountability and transparency. Additional reporting: Severin Carrell Liam Fox and Adam Werritty links Liam Fox Sri Lanka Foreign policy Defence policy Ministry of Defence Polly Curtis Jason Burke Rupert Neate guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …