Former Labour business secretary also says that unions should stop threatening strikes and that people need to ‘face reality’ The former Labour business secretary charged by the coalition with overseeing its contentious pensions reforms has called on his party leader to back his plans and ask union leaders to stop threatening strikes. Lord Hutton said people had to face the “reality” that public sector pension reform was necessary and that strikes would not “make this problem go away”. When asked if Ed Miliband should oppose the threat of industrial action by the unions that backed him to become party leader, Hutton said “of course”. He also said he would like to see Miliband endorse his report. The government and unions have been at loggerheads since the end of last week when ministers went public with plans to extend the retirement age and increase pension contributions for millions of public sector workers. Union leaders felt that ministers had pre-empted negotiations with the announcement. The head of Unison, Dave Prentis, and other union leaders threatened the biggest wave of industrial action since the general strike of 1926 after the chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, made the announcement on Friday. The Treasury later said that Alexander was articulating proposals for reform, not settled government policy, but Prentis said that Alexander’s speech had effectively rendered the talks meaningless. Despite making conciliatory noises, Alexander said that the government had “contingency plans” in the event of a major strike. Shadow chancellor Ed Balls warned trade unions not to fall into George Osborne’s “trap” by striking. The chancellor was hoping for the unions to embark on industrial action, Balls said, so that he could blame any weak economic recovery on walkouts. “This is not a political decision from the unions, this is actually their members feeling very upset. George Osborne is desperate to have that confrontation – he’s been saying it for months. The trade unions must not walk into the trap of giving George Osborne the confrontation he wants to divert attention from a failing economy.” His party colleague Hutton disagreed with Balls, telling BBC1′s Politics Show: “There are still negotiations going on and those negotiations should continue. “I don’t personally believe that ministers want to provoke a confrontation with the trade unions – quite the opposite, I think they’re trying to find an agreement. “It’s an uncomfortable truth, but I’m afraid it’s the reality, that the world is changing around us and people are living for much longer, and we have not been paying for those extra years of pensions – the taxpayer has. Strikes won’t make this problem go away, we have to act now. If we don’t act now, it’s our kids who are going to pick up the tab, and it’s not right.” Asked whether he would like to see Labour leader Ed Miliband back his recommendations, Lord Hutton replied: “I’d like him to endorse the report I produced, yes, because I think it does strike the only fair balance.” It also emerged today that the coalition may consider softening changes to women’s pensions after facing a revolt from Tory and Lib Dem MPs. The government would like to increase the age at which women qualify for a state pension from 60 to 65 by 2018, two years earlier than planned by the Labour government. Ministerial talks are supposed to be taking place, with Iain Duncan Smith said to be sympathetic, but in public he will tomorrow say the government is determined. At the second reading of the pensions bill, Duncan Smith will tell MPs that delaying the increase in the state pension age would cost the public finances £10bn. He is expected to say: “We’re heading towards an unprecedented burden being placed on the next generation who will have to pay for their parents’ retirement on top of paying for the national debt. It’s not fair. This bill will address the realities of our increasing longevity by sharing the costs between the generations. We will stand by the 2018 and 2020 timetable.” Three unions are due to strike on 30 June, but the Association of Teachers and Lecturers has said it will call off the walkout if the government is willing to discuss the level of increases to pension contributions. Mark Serwotka of the Public and Commercial Services Union , which represents almost 300,000 civil servants, told the BBC it was very unlikely that the walkout would be called off. Responding to Balls’s warning of a “trap”, Serwotka said: “The problem with what Ed is saying is this: if he’s me, representing people, many of whom are on £15,000 per year – they work hard, they’re on poverty pay, they don’t look forward to a very big pension. If all of that’s being taken away and you work longer, pay more and get less, what frankly are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to sit back, say it’s unfair and do nothing?” Prentis, whose union represents people working for local authorities, the NHS, colleges and the police, said he had not yet balloted his members on action but would if they continued “to be treated with disdain”. “If we go back into negotiations on the basis of dialogue but no changes in the proposals, what’s the point in that?” he told the BBC. “If we can get an assurance that the talks are meaningful … then obviously we’d continue the talks, but we didn’t get that impression on Friday.” Responding to the same suggestion by Balls, Prentis said striking methods would be “smarter”. He told Sky’s Murnaghan programme, “It won’t be like the miners’ dispute where we will be starved back into submission. This will be a lot smarter than that – this will be about regional action, branch action, this will be sustained action. Because I believe that this government will not turn after one or two days, and our members have got to be prepared for that, and I believe that they are.” Alexander said the government was “absolutely not” trying to provoke a battle with unions. “There is a huge amount of room for dialogue,” he told Sky News. “There is a huge amount of detail about public sector pensions that we’ve been discussing in the talks … and we need to take that forward over the coming months.” He insisted the talks could still be constructive, adding: “I don’t think my message is uncompromising at all.” John Cridland, director of the CBI , dismissed the impact that public sector union strikes could have. He said: “Today the most they can do is disrupt people’s lives – it probably won’t disrupt the economy.” Public sector pensions John Hutton Ed Miliband Public sector cuts Public services policy Public sector pay Public finance Pensions Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Former Labour business secretary also says that unions should stop threatening strikes and that people need to ‘face reality’ The former Labour business secretary charged by the coalition with overseeing its contentious pensions reforms has called on his party leader to back his plans and ask union leaders to stop threatening strikes. Lord Hutton said people had to face the “reality” that public sector pension reform was necessary and that strikes would not “make this problem go away”. When asked if Ed Miliband should oppose the threat of industrial action by the unions that backed him to become party leader, Hutton said “of course”. He also said he would like to see Miliband endorse his report. The government and unions have been at loggerheads since the end of last week when ministers went public with plans to extend the retirement age and increase pension contributions for millions of public sector workers. Union leaders felt that ministers had pre-empted negotiations with the announcement. The head of Unison, Dave Prentis, and other union leaders threatened the biggest wave of industrial action since the general strike of 1926 after the chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, made the announcement on Friday. The Treasury later said that Alexander was articulating proposals for reform, not settled government policy, but Prentis said that Alexander’s speech had effectively rendered the talks meaningless. Despite making conciliatory noises, Alexander said that the government had “contingency plans” in the event of a major strike. Shadow chancellor Ed Balls warned trade unions not to fall into George Osborne’s “trap” by striking. The chancellor was hoping for the unions to embark on industrial action, Balls said, so that he could blame any weak economic recovery on walkouts. “This is not a political decision from the unions, this is actually their members feeling very upset. George Osborne is desperate to have that confrontation – he’s been saying it for months. The trade unions must not walk into the trap of giving George Osborne the confrontation he wants to divert attention from a failing economy.” His party colleague Hutton disagreed with Balls, telling BBC1′s Politics Show: “There are still negotiations going on and those negotiations should continue. “I don’t personally believe that ministers want to provoke a confrontation with the trade unions – quite the opposite, I think they’re trying to find an agreement. “It’s an uncomfortable truth, but I’m afraid it’s the reality, that the world is changing around us and people are living for much longer, and we have not been paying for those extra years of pensions – the taxpayer has. Strikes won’t make this problem go away, we have to act now. If we don’t act now, it’s our kids who are going to pick up the tab, and it’s not right.” Asked whether he would like to see Labour leader Ed Miliband back his recommendations, Lord Hutton replied: “I’d like him to endorse the report I produced, yes, because I think it does strike the only fair balance.” It also emerged today that the coalition may consider softening changes to women’s pensions after facing a revolt from Tory and Lib Dem MPs. The government would like to increase the age at which women qualify for a state pension from 60 to 65 by 2018, two years earlier than planned by the Labour government. Ministerial talks are supposed to be taking place, with Iain Duncan Smith said to be sympathetic, but in public he will tomorrow say the government is determined. At the second reading of the pensions bill, Duncan Smith will tell MPs that delaying the increase in the state pension age would cost the public finances £10bn. He is expected to say: “We’re heading towards an unprecedented burden being placed on the next generation who will have to pay for their parents’ retirement on top of paying for the national debt. It’s not fair. This bill will address the realities of our increasing longevity by sharing the costs between the generations. We will stand by the 2018 and 2020 timetable.” Three unions are due to strike on 30 June, but the Association of Teachers and Lecturers has said it will call off the walkout if the government is willing to discuss the level of increases to pension contributions. Mark Serwotka of the Public and Commercial Services Union , which represents almost 300,000 civil servants, told the BBC it was very unlikely that the walkout would be called off. Responding to Balls’s warning of a “trap”, Serwotka said: “The problem with what Ed is saying is this: if he’s me, representing people, many of whom are on £15,000 per year – they work hard, they’re on poverty pay, they don’t look forward to a very big pension. If all of that’s being taken away and you work longer, pay more and get less, what frankly are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to sit back, say it’s unfair and do nothing?” Prentis, whose union represents people working for local authorities, the NHS, colleges and the police, said he had not yet balloted his members on action but would if they continued “to be treated with disdain”. “If we go back into negotiations on the basis of dialogue but no changes in the proposals, what’s the point in that?” he told the BBC. “If we can get an assurance that the talks are meaningful … then obviously we’d continue the talks, but we didn’t get that impression on Friday.” Responding to the same suggestion by Balls, Prentis said striking methods would be “smarter”. He told Sky’s Murnaghan programme, “It won’t be like the miners’ dispute where we will be starved back into submission. This will be a lot smarter than that – this will be about regional action, branch action, this will be sustained action. Because I believe that this government will not turn after one or two days, and our members have got to be prepared for that, and I believe that they are.” Alexander said the government was “absolutely not” trying to provoke a battle with unions. “There is a huge amount of room for dialogue,” he told Sky News. “There is a huge amount of detail about public sector pensions that we’ve been discussing in the talks … and we need to take that forward over the coming months.” He insisted the talks could still be constructive, adding: “I don’t think my message is uncompromising at all.” John Cridland, director of the CBI , dismissed the impact that public sector union strikes could have. He said: “Today the most they can do is disrupt people’s lives – it probably won’t disrupt the economy.” Public sector pensions John Hutton Ed Miliband Public sector cuts Public services policy Public sector pay Public finance Pensions Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Massacre in Tamaulipas by Zetas drugs cartel fails to stem tide of Central Americans risking el brinco – the jump across Mexico Salsa music piped from the radio and the bus had a name, Teresita, but there was nothing jaunty about the young men with small backpacks who filed aboard in silence, avoiding eye contact. Behind them was home, Honduras, ahead lay the United States, and in between was el brinco , the jump. Also known as Mexico. Not so much a leap as a roll of the dice. The passengers were illegal migrants and they were bracing for perils which, as they travelled through northern Guatemala to the Mexican borderwards Mexico, could strike at any time: betrayal, kidnap, murder. A landscape of stunted trees, cattle and the occasional police checkpoint passed with barely a word spoken on the crammed little bus. There was plenty to say but, as one passenger explained later, better to stay silent. “You don’t know who’s listening.” Extortion by police, falling off a train and getting lost in the desert have always been risks, but the journey has become much worse since organised criminals started preying on travellers. Fifteen Nicaraguans were shot and burned on a bus outside Guatemala City, allegedly because the driver was transporting cocaine without the permission of drug gangs. Mexico is the real danger: mass abductions, ransom demands, tortures, massacres. The bus stopped at the San Pedro river, deep in a tropical forest once ruled by the Maya. The passengers piled out, forming groups of four or five. Canoes would take them to El Ceibo from where they would hike into Mexico. “You’ve got to be optimistic,” said Juan Colindres, 25, expressing hope over experience. Five times he had headed for the US and five times he was foiled in Mexico – robbed by police, robbed by his guide, deported. Each time organised crime’s breath felt closer, he said. There was no safety in numbers. Armed gangs would stop trains with hundreds of migrants clinging to the roof and herd them into waiting buses. “Better to go in a small group so you can dodge a bit,” said Colindres, wriggling his hand. But even small shoals get hooked. Some are sold to gangs by guides, others by fellow migrants known as enganchadoras . Others are handed over by corrupt police and immigration officials. With their backpacks and accents, migrants are easily identifiable. Groups such as the Zetas drug cartel in Mexico find it profitable to demand ransoms from captive migrants’ relatives, especially if they are in the US. They recruit some hostages as footsoldiers. Rumours circulated from about 2006 but the phenomenon exploded into public consciousness only last August when Zetas massacred 72 people – mostly Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadoreans – at an abandoned farmhouse in the north-eastern state of Tamaulipas. About 300,000 migrants pass through Mexico each year, the vast majority Central Americans, but keeping track of them is impossible, said Flora Reynosa, head of a state office in Guatemala City tasked with defending migrants’ human rights. Kidnapping had become a plague, she said. Families trek to Reynosa’s little office to supply names of missing relatives. That morning a father had registered the disappearance of a son who left in February, with no word since. Thelma Schaub, a psychologist in the office, said that families’ anguish often leads to neuroses, such as compulsively watching TV news bulletins in the hope of spotting loved ones. Casas del Migrante, a network of church-funded shelters in the region, receives chilling stories. Carlos Lopez, who runs one such centre in Guatemala City, recalled a Honduran who escaped from a farm in northern Mexico with more than 200 captive migrants. Those left behind, and whose ransoms were not paid, were dismembered by “the butcher”, a stocky killer who seemed to enjoy his work. The brinco used to refer to the final jump into the US, but now also refers to running the gauntlet that Mexico itself has become. It started a decade ago when authorities began intercepting migrants to reassure the US that an immigration accord with Mexico would not open floodgates from all Latin America. The crackdown but pushed the flow into the shadows. Mexico’s declaration of war on the drug cartels in late 2006 triggered a brutal competition among gangs to stamp authority on their territories. All vulnerable groups were fair game, few more so than migrants. A few thousand dollars’ individual ransom added up, as victims multiplied, to a lucrative sideline. Some of the most travelled routes passed through Zeta territories. When not doing its own dirty work, the organisation lent its fearsome name as a sort of franchise to smaller gangs. A National Human Rights Commission report in 2009 documented hundreds of mass kidnappings involving about 10,000 people in a six-month period. Victims said police and immigration agencies colluded with gangs. The Tamaulipas massacre is thought to have been a warning to human traffickers who tried to bypass the Zetas. One survivor said three migrants accepted an offer to join the Zetas, for a $1,000 (£615) weekly salary. The rest were blindfolded, ordered to lie on the ground and shot. The outcry prompted a law in April guaranteeing migrants’ rights. But they remain subject to arbitrary detention and deportation. The same month authorities freed hundreds of captives from safe houses, mostly in Tamaulipas. One group said it had been ordered off a bus by immigration officials and passed on to a gang. It is a measure of Central America’s poverty and unemployment that so many still risk the journey. “There’s nothing in Tegucigalpa [the capital of Honduras] for me. And there’s an excellent chance I’ll make it back to the US,” said Edwin Omar, 22, as he waited for a canoe by the San Pedro river. He had been working as an interior decorator in Miami, Florida, before being deported seven months ago. Coyotes – the name given to those who specialise in human smuggling – offer different “packages”. For $5,000 you are escorted from Honduras through Guatemala and Mexico to the US. Make it to the US border on your own steam and you pay $1,500 for help with the final brinco . Prices include three attempts. The El Ceibo crossing into Mexico has few official controls, reducing the risk of deportation, but is rife with Zetas. The El Carmen crossing is the reverse. For many the journey is a rite of passage. Seven Honduran teenagers in a Guatemala City shelter said they left home on a whim but were now marooned, having used all their cash to bribe police at checkpoints. Odanis Acuna, 35, a Cuban asylum seeker, warned them against Mexico. “I was robbed and stripped naked. I’m lucky to be alive.” Two of the teenagers are resolved to return home. Even without predatory gangs, journeys can end in tragedy. Cristobal Tambriz, 17, lost his grip and fell under a train in central Mexico. It sliced off his lower right leg. The Red Cross is helping with a prosthetic limb but a bleak future awaits on the family’s dust-blown farm. “I wanted to send back money, now I won’t even be able to work here.” Last September Laura Coc, 22, left the family’s hilltop house near Yesuj, outside Guatemala City, to join a brother and boyfriend in New Jersey. The family went into debt to pay a coyote 20,000 quetzals (£1,550). Coc apparently died of sunstroke in the Arizona desert. No body has turned up, tormenting her mother, Maria, 50. “I want to bury her,” she said, crying. “I want my daughter home.” Guatemala Mexico Honduras United States Drugs trade Rory Carroll Jo Tuckman guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Mangueira, hideout of one of Rio’s largest drug factions, is also home of one of city’s best-known samba schools Hundreds of Brazilian police and marines have swarmed through a Rio favela renowned as a centre for samba lovers, in the most striking move thus far to “pacify” the city before the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics. Drunk revellers still packed the streets of the city as a column of armoured vehicles began rolling towards Mangueira, a notorious hideout for one of the city’s largest drug factions. Overhead, Huey helicopters tore through the morning sky; on the ground 750 security operatives, among them marines, filed in past bullet-pocked walls. Home to around 53,000 people, Mangueira is the most symbolic shantytown so far to be occupied by the so-called “pacification forces”. Famed for producing legendary samba artists such as Cartola, Nelson Cavaquinho and Carlos Cachaça, Mangueira is also home to the city’s best-known samba school, the Grêmio Recreativo Escola de Samba Mangueira. On Sunday, the samba school’s doors remained shut as police poured into the favela. Normally welcomed with gunfire, the troops instead found eerily quiet streets and white banners calling for “peace”. The traffickers had fled. “They’ve taken everything,” said one special forces operative, pushing his way into a concrete shack that had been used to distribute cocaine, marijuana and crack. The doors had been bricked up and the drugs had long gone; only two toothbrushes and a broken fridge remained. Next door, Pastor Eduardo Barbosa Marques monitored the police’s arrival from inside his empty church – the Temple of Blessings. “I’m not expecting many people for this morning’s service,” he admitted. “But tonight we’ll all be here to glorify the name of the Lord.” “The government knows what is best and we have to respect that and let the police do their job,” added the 46-year-old preacher. Thirty minutes’ walk across the favela, special-forces found another gang HQ. Inside were three red sofas and an empty wrap of cocaine, featuring a picture of Osama bin Laden. On the wall outside gang members had left a message: “Screw the pacifiers: Shoot Them!” But there was no shooting, only an awkward silence as police moved from house to house, seeking information from residents who didn’t want to talk. “People are still a little scared because this will mean having contact with different people,” said Simões do Nascimento, president of Mangueira’s residents association. “But people are asking for peace and we hope everything goes well.” Silvia Ramos, a social scientist and co-ordinator of Rio’s Centre for Studies on Public Security and Citizenship, warned that while the retaking of Mangueira was an advance, deadly clashes between police and drug traffickers were still commonplace in more distant parts of the city. “It is a turning point for the pacification project. [But] if Rio de Janeiro’s opinion makers and media get comfortable… after this victory… the project will fail. The possibility exists – and it is very worrying – that in pushing the gunfights further away the city will demobilise,” she added. At the foot of the favela, Jorge Bombeiro, a local samba composer, headed out with a ukulele as helicopters circled overhead. Like many he was reluctant to talk. What did he think of the occupation? “All I know about is samba,” he said. Brazil Drugs trade Tom Phillips guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Waqar Kiani assaulted by men in police uniforms five days after he publishes story about torture by intelligence agents Five days after he published an account of abduction and torture by suspected Pakistani intelligence agents, a journalist working for the Guardian has been badly beaten by uniformed men who said they wished to “make an example” of him. The assault revived concerns about media freedom in Pakistan, one of the world’s most dangerous countries for journalists. Three weeks ago, another reporter, Saleem Shahzad, was beaten to death after disappearing from the capital. Men wearing police uniforms stopped Waqar Kiani, a 32-year-old local journalist who has worked for the Guardian, as he drove through Islamabad on Saturday night, and ordered him to get out of his car. As he stepped out, four men landed a flurry of blows with fists, wooden batons and a rubber whip. Two others watched from inside the jeep. “They said ‘You want to be a hero? We’ll make you a hero’,” said Kiani, who was recovering from his injuries . “Then they said: ‘We’re going to make an example of you’.” It was the second time Kiani had been targeted. Last Monday the Guardian revealed he had been abducted from central Islamabad in July 2008, blindfolded and taken to a safe house where interrogators beat him viciously and burned him with cigarettes. The ordeal ended 15 hours later when his abductors dumped him 120 miles from Islamabad, warning they would rape his wife “and post the video on YouTube” if he told anyone. Kiani had been working on a story about the illegal detention and torture of Islamist militants by Pakistani intelligence in collaboration with MI5. His research led him to an office of the Intelligence Bureau, the main civilian spy agency. Although his abductors did not identify themselves they displayed detailed knowledge of Kiani’s bank account, movements and contacts with Guardian journalists, leading him to conclude they worked for the government.The Guardian withheld Kiani’s story for three years until last Monday. Kiani later gave a detailed interview about his experience to a local television channel. He believes the coverage triggered Saturday’s vicious assault, which occurred after he went out to buy milk. “There is zero tolerance among our government and military establishment,” he said. “They don’t want us to speak the truth.” The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists condemned the attack, demanding the government ensure security for journalists “at all costs”. Interior minister Rehman Malik ordered a judicial inquiry by a magistrate and a police inquiry. “I have acted without any delay. The investigation is on, without any issue,” he said. The assault comes amid an unprecedented anger over the behaviour of Pakistan’s intelligence and security forces. There was widespread shock earlier this month at video footage of paramilitary soldiers shooting an unarmed 22-year-old man in a Karachi park, then leaving him to bleed to death. Six soldiers and one civilian face murder charges. A similar shooting of five unarmed Chechens, one a pregnant woman, in Quetta last month is also under investigation. The normally voluble media has been shaken by the discovery of the battered body of Shahzad, a specialist in Islamist militancy and the secretive military, in a canal in Punjab three weeks ago. Human Rights Watch said it had credible proof that Shahzad had been abducted by Inter-Services Intelligence, the military’s top spy agency. The army strenuously denied involvement, describing the claims as “unfounded and baseless”. A government investigation into his death has become mired in controversy after a judge nominated to head the probe said he would not participate. With 16 journalists killed in the past 18 months, Pakistan is the world’s most dangerous country for journalists. Reporters die in suicide bombs, political violence and assassination, targeted by both Islamist militants and government agents. Kiani was discharged from hospital on Saturday night after being treated for injuries to his chest and back. Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said he was “extremely disturbed” to hear of his maltreatment. “We call on the Pakistani authorities to investigate this latest beating and to give Mr Kiani meaningful protection against further attacks,” he said. Kiani said he had no regrets about going public with his account of torture. “I don’t feel I did anything wrong. Journalists can’t be silent forever in Pakistan,” he said. “If we don’t bring up the facts, then it’s no longer journalism – we become spokesmen of the government.” Pakistan Journalist safety Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Waqar Kiani assaulted by men in police uniforms five days after he publishes story about torture by intelligence agents Five days after he published an account of abduction and torture by suspected Pakistani intelligence agents, a journalist working for the Guardian has been badly beaten by uniformed men who said they wished to “make an example” of him. The assault revived concerns about media freedom in Pakistan, one of the world’s most dangerous countries for journalists. Three weeks ago, another reporter, Saleem Shahzad, was beaten to death after disappearing from the capital. Men wearing police uniforms stopped Waqar Kiani, a 32-year-old local journalist who has worked for the Guardian, as he drove through Islamabad on Saturday night, and ordered him to get out of his car. As he stepped out, four men landed a flurry of blows with fists, wooden batons and a rubber whip. Two others watched from inside the jeep. “They said ‘You want to be a hero? We’ll make you a hero’,” said Kiani, who was recovering from his injuries . “Then they said: ‘We’re going to make an example of you’.” It was the second time Kiani had been targeted. Last Monday the Guardian revealed he had been abducted from central Islamabad in July 2008, blindfolded and taken to a safe house where interrogators beat him viciously and burned him with cigarettes. The ordeal ended 15 hours later when his abductors dumped him 120 miles from Islamabad, warning they would rape his wife “and post the video on YouTube” if he told anyone. Kiani had been working on a story about the illegal detention and torture of Islamist militants by Pakistani intelligence in collaboration with MI5. His research led him to an office of the Intelligence Bureau, the main civilian spy agency. Although his abductors did not identify themselves they displayed detailed knowledge of Kiani’s bank account, movements and contacts with Guardian journalists, leading him to conclude they worked for the government.The Guardian withheld Kiani’s story for three years until last Monday. Kiani later gave a detailed interview about his experience to a local television channel. He believes the coverage triggered Saturday’s vicious assault, which occurred after he went out to buy milk. “There is zero tolerance among our government and military establishment,” he said. “They don’t want us to speak the truth.” The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists condemned the attack, demanding the government ensure security for journalists “at all costs”. Interior minister Rehman Malik ordered a judicial inquiry by a magistrate and a police inquiry. “I have acted without any delay. The investigation is on, without any issue,” he said. The assault comes amid an unprecedented anger over the behaviour of Pakistan’s intelligence and security forces. There was widespread shock earlier this month at video footage of paramilitary soldiers shooting an unarmed 22-year-old man in a Karachi park, then leaving him to bleed to death. Six soldiers and one civilian face murder charges. A similar shooting of five unarmed Chechens, one a pregnant woman, in Quetta last month is also under investigation. The normally voluble media has been shaken by the discovery of the battered body of Shahzad, a specialist in Islamist militancy and the secretive military, in a canal in Punjab three weeks ago. Human Rights Watch said it had credible proof that Shahzad had been abducted by Inter-Services Intelligence, the military’s top spy agency. The army strenuously denied involvement, describing the claims as “unfounded and baseless”. A government investigation into his death has become mired in controversy after a judge nominated to head the probe said he would not participate. With 16 journalists killed in the past 18 months, Pakistan is the world’s most dangerous country for journalists. Reporters die in suicide bombs, political violence and assassination, targeted by both Islamist militants and government agents. Kiani was discharged from hospital on Saturday night after being treated for injuries to his chest and back. Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said he was “extremely disturbed” to hear of his maltreatment. “We call on the Pakistani authorities to investigate this latest beating and to give Mr Kiani meaningful protection against further attacks,” he said. Kiani said he had no regrets about going public with his account of torture. “I don’t feel I did anything wrong. Journalists can’t be silent forever in Pakistan,” he said. “If we don’t bring up the facts, then it’s no longer journalism – we become spokesmen of the government.” Pakistan Journalist safety Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Waqar Kiani assaulted by men in police uniforms five days after he publishes story about torture by intelligence agents Five days after he published an account of abduction and torture by suspected Pakistani intelligence agents, a journalist working for the Guardian has been badly beaten by uniformed men who said they wished to “make an example” of him. The assault revived concerns about media freedom in Pakistan, one of the world’s most dangerous countries for journalists. Three weeks ago, another reporter, Saleem Shahzad, was beaten to death after disappearing from the capital. Men wearing police uniforms stopped Waqar Kiani, a 32-year-old local journalist who has worked for the Guardian, as he drove through Islamabad on Saturday night, and ordered him to get out of his car. As he stepped out, four men landed a flurry of blows with fists, wooden batons and a rubber whip. Two others watched from inside the jeep. “They said ‘You want to be a hero? We’ll make you a hero’,” said Kiani, who was recovering from his injuries . “Then they said: ‘We’re going to make an example of you’.” It was the second time Kiani had been targeted. Last Monday the Guardian revealed he had been abducted from central Islamabad in July 2008, blindfolded and taken to a safe house where interrogators beat him viciously and burned him with cigarettes. The ordeal ended 15 hours later when his abductors dumped him 120 miles from Islamabad, warning they would rape his wife “and post the video on YouTube” if he told anyone. Kiani had been working on a story about the illegal detention and torture of Islamist militants by Pakistani intelligence in collaboration with MI5. His research led him to an office of the Intelligence Bureau, the main civilian spy agency. Although his abductors did not identify themselves they displayed detailed knowledge of Kiani’s bank account, movements and contacts with Guardian journalists, leading him to conclude they worked for the government.The Guardian withheld Kiani’s story for three years until last Monday. Kiani later gave a detailed interview about his experience to a local television channel. He believes the coverage triggered Saturday’s vicious assault, which occurred after he went out to buy milk. “There is zero tolerance among our government and military establishment,” he said. “They don’t want us to speak the truth.” The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists condemned the attack, demanding the government ensure security for journalists “at all costs”. Interior minister Rehman Malik ordered a judicial inquiry by a magistrate and a police inquiry. “I have acted without any delay. The investigation is on, without any issue,” he said. The assault comes amid an unprecedented anger over the behaviour of Pakistan’s intelligence and security forces. There was widespread shock earlier this month at video footage of paramilitary soldiers shooting an unarmed 22-year-old man in a Karachi park, then leaving him to bleed to death. Six soldiers and one civilian face murder charges. A similar shooting of five unarmed Chechens, one a pregnant woman, in Quetta last month is also under investigation. The normally voluble media has been shaken by the discovery of the battered body of Shahzad, a specialist in Islamist militancy and the secretive military, in a canal in Punjab three weeks ago. Human Rights Watch said it had credible proof that Shahzad had been abducted by Inter-Services Intelligence, the military’s top spy agency. The army strenuously denied involvement, describing the claims as “unfounded and baseless”. A government investigation into his death has become mired in controversy after a judge nominated to head the probe said he would not participate. With 16 journalists killed in the past 18 months, Pakistan is the world’s most dangerous country for journalists. Reporters die in suicide bombs, political violence and assassination, targeted by both Islamist militants and government agents. Kiani was discharged from hospital on Saturday night after being treated for injuries to his chest and back. Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said he was “extremely disturbed” to hear of his maltreatment. “We call on the Pakistani authorities to investigate this latest beating and to give Mr Kiani meaningful protection against further attacks,” he said. Kiani said he had no regrets about going public with his account of torture. “I don’t feel I did anything wrong. Journalists can’t be silent forever in Pakistan,” he said. “If we don’t bring up the facts, then it’s no longer journalism – we become spokesmen of the government.” Pakistan Journalist safety Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
European Commission estimates energy-intensive sector will have accumulated allowances worth €7-12bn by the end of 2012 Some of Europe’s largest industrial companies gained billions of Euros from the carbon emission rules they lobbied fiercely against, new analysis reveals today. Ten steel and cement companies have amassed 240m carbon pollution permits from generous allocations, found the report by the carbon trading thinktank Sandbag , seen by the Guardian. The free permits, granted to the companies, with a market value of €4bn (£3.5bn) can be sold or kept for future use. The European Commission estimates that the entire energy-intensive sector will have accumulated allowances worth €7-12bn by the end of 2012 . “More and more businesses see that Europe’s future lies in a highly efficient economy with low pollution,” said Baroness Worthington, Sandbag’s founding director. “But a small group of carbon fat cat companies are trying to stop this, in spite of making billions from a windfall of free pollution permits.” Steelmaker ArcelorMittal leads the list of companies in the report, with a current surplus valued at €1.7bn, followed by cement giant Lafarge. Tata Steel, in third place with a surplus valued at €393m, last month announced 1500 job losses at its plants in Lincolnshire and Teesside , blaming emissions regulations as well as the economic downturn. Karl-Ulrich Köhler, chief executive of Tata Steel’s Europe, said at the time: “EU carbon legislation threatens to impose huge additional costs on the steel industry.” Tata Steel declined to comment. The European Union emissions trading scheme (ETS) puts a cap on the carbon pollution emitted by energy and industrial companies. Those reducing their emissions can sell their spare permits to those who do not. But a combination of initial over-allocation by national governments and the economic decline has left the steel, cement, chemical, ceramic and paper sectors with many more permits than they need. The industries have lobbied hard against calls from governments including the UK for the tightening of the ETS and other emissions targets. Eurofer, the lobby group representing all of Europe’s steel makers, said last month: “To remain competitive in the free, global steel markets, European steel needs … legislation that does not harm its competitiveness. But we are gravely concerned that EU Climate Change policy will do precisely that .” Cembureau , which lobbies for the cement industry, takes a similar line, stating : “It would be irresponsible to shift the [emissions] goal posts .” In the UK, the government has proposed incentivising low-carbon innovation by setting a British floor price for carbon from 2013. But this is opposed by the CBI, whose director general John Cridland said : “It risks tipping energy-intensive industries over the edge .” The government made some concessions to energy-hungry businesses, promising to produce plans later in 2011 to compensate them for any competitive disadvantage . However, independent analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that the carbon permits held by the steel industry would cover its emissions for the next 12 years. “If the steel sector [on aggregate] did not sell any of its surplus, it would not have a need to purchase emissions until 2023,” said Guy Turner at Bloomberg NEF. The Sandbag report, based on public data, also found that nine of the 10 “carbon fat cats” bought between them 24.4m carbon permits from the cheaper international market, mainly from companies in China and India. These can be used within the EU’s trading scheme, enabling the companies to retain the more valuable EU’s ETS permits. Furthermore, despite the European companies claiming that tougher emissions rules would drive business overseas, some were paying overseas steel and cement companies for their international carbon permits. “Purchasing carbon offsets from foreign competitors would not seem to be the actions of businesses genuinely concerned that the ETS will drive business abroad,” said Worthington. Not all companies are resisting tightening of the EU’s ETS. Five major energy companies, including Britain’s Scottish and Southern Energy, last week called for spare permits to be withdrawn from the ETS , a proposal supported by Sandbag. “Failure to do so could severely hamper business incentives to invest in low-carbon technologies, as the price signal will be skewed in favour of fossil-based solutions,” their statement said. The Guardian contacted all the companies named by Sandbag. Those who responded argued that the surplus permits arose from decreased production and might be needed when the economy recovered. They argued that without protection, steel and cement making would be driven to countries with less CO2-efficient manufacturing practices. Many called for global regulation of emissions. One company gave specific information about how it uses its surplus: “As part of our corporate responsibility strategy, we have decided that any sale of such surplus allowances will be reinvested into projects aimed at the improvement of our energy efficiency footprint, as this will help to reduce our overall CO2 emissions.” said spokesperson for ArcelorMittal . Erwin Schneider, at steelmaker ThyssenKruppe , said: “Companies make decisions based on expected future developments. Any earnings from the past will either have been reinvested already or paid out to shareholders. Therefore it seems to be very misleading to use historic numbers to address our future position.” Emissions trading Manufacturing sector Corus Arcelor Mittal Tata Europe Scottish and Southern Energy Energy industry Carbon emissions Climate change Pollution European Union Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Critics say the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s adoption of David Cameron slogan represents political interference Academics are co-ordinating a mass resignation from one of Britain’s biggest university funding councils in protest over plans to fund research into David Cameron’s “big society”. Organisers of the protest have told the Guardian that more than 30 professors will resign from their posts as peer reviewers for the Arts and Humanities Research Council in the next fortnight because the AHRC’s chief executive has refused to back down over plans to promote the big society as a topic for humanities research. Critics of the AHRC’s decision say adopting the Tory slogan represents political interference, making the funding body an “arm of the Department for Education”. With a budget of £102m, the AHRC is the biggest funder of humanities work in universities in England and Wales and is sponsored by the business department. Under the long-standing Haldane principle, research funds are meant to be free from political interference . Since the publication of the AHRC strategy last December, which refers to the big society six times, thousands of academics, 30 representative bodies of academic disciplines, and UCU, the main college lecturers’ union, have signed petitions and passed motions objecting to the plans. The AHRC’s chief executive, Prof Rick Rylance, denied there had been any government interference in the decision, but told the Guardian he would have to go back to the business department before removing the big society references. AHRC peer reviewer and fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, professor Leslie Green, said: “It is just impossible to do the job of a peer reviewer when the chief executive is determined to make us an arm of the [education] department. If Professor Rylance thinks it’s over and done with, he’s wrong.” There are 1,280 members of the AHRC’s peer review college who oversee the allocation of funding grants. Those who are appointed to the unpaid positions are considered experts in their field. Two professors, Bob Brecher from Brighton University and Manucha Lisboa from St John’s College, Cambridge, have already resigned and the Guardian has spoken to another half a dozen academics who confirmed they intend to resign. Ritchie Robertson, Taylor professor of German at the faculty of modern languages at Oxford University, described the references to the big society as gratuitous and said that he was also prepared to resign from the peer review college. “I share the widespread regret that the AHRC included gratuitous references to the big society in its delivery document, and I’m not persuaded by Rick Rylance’s assertions that big society is now a technical term independent of its political origins,” Robertson said. “If the references to the big society are not withdrawn, I shall resign from the peer review college,” he added. Thom Brooks, a philosophy professor at Newcastle University and one of the organisers of the protest, said that mass resignations had been “a last option”. “We wanted to explore all the other options first and I think that has now happened. The only option left is to resign.” Brooks also referred to a recent Times Higher article by higher education minister David Willetts in which he warned of the “hazards” of research councils referring to “political slogans”. “The union is in opposition, over 30 learned societies and thousands of academics are in opposition. Even the minister seems to be opposed to this. It seems that the only people in favour are Rylance and his small team.” Rylance agreed with critics that the big society was “a government policy” but said that it included “a range of activities” from health to the arts which left room for many different projects and angles for research. “People have said this is about promoting the big society. It is categorically not about that. It is indicating an area of research which will fund individuals who may well come up and be critical of it. We don’t forecast outcomes of these things,” Rylance said. However Rylance said that removing all six references to the big society from the AHRC’s strategy would have to involve a renegotiation with government. “That is the document they [the Department for Business] also published. They are our funders and they fund us as against a delivery plan. So we’d have to look at ways with government of revising [it] … but this is not an intention.” Rylance also said that he’d be willing to meet with those who resigned. The current chairman of the AHRC, Sir Alan Wilson, said that he didn’t understand why people were getting “quite worked up about it” and warned against taking “a small group of people too seriously and as being representative of our community”. Research funding Higher education Research David Cameron Shiv Malik guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Legal advice says gay candidates should be considered as long as they have not been sexually active while in the priesthood The Church of England is set to approve the appointment of openly gay bishops, providing that they are celibate. In an attempt to clarify its policy following years of controversy and debate, the church is to publish its legal advice on the issue on Monday. The document, Choosing Bishops – The Equality Act 2010 , summarises points which those involved in the nomination process “need to keep in mind” when considering candidates in order to avoid breaking the law. It reiterates there is no bar to the promotion of gay clergy to a bishopric as long as they are not sexually active and never have been during their time in the priesthood. However, the document says a selection committee could veto a gay candidate if “the appointment of the candidate would cause division and disunity within the diocese in question”. The document reads: “A person’s sexual orientation is in itself irrelevant to their suitability for episcopal office or indeed ordained ministry” but the Equality Act “allows churches and religious organisations to impose a requirement that someone should not be in a civil partnership or impose a requirement related to sexual orientation … to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion’s followers”. “It is clearly the case that a significant number of Anglicans… believe that a Christian leader should not enter into a civil partnership, even if celibate, because it involves forming an exclusive, lifelong bond with someone of the same sex, creates family ties and is generally viewed in wider society as akin to same-sex marriage. “It is equally clear that many other Anglicans believe that it is appropriate that clergy who are gay by orientation enter into civil partnerships, even though the discipline of the church requires them to remain sexually abstinent.” The guidance, to be presented to the General Synod in York in July, comes after damaging revelations about the Church of England hierarchy refusing to accept the reality of gay clergy. Documents obtained by the Guardian showed the House of Bishops unable to agree on whether gay clergy should ever be appointed to the episcopate and that meetings about candidates descended into shouting matches, leaving some of those present in tears. Much of the debate has centred on Jeffrey John, a celibate priest who is in a longstanding civil partnership with another cleric. He was forced by the archbishop of Canterbury to stand down after being appointed suffragan bishop of Reading eight years ago after conservative evangelicals objected. Last year, the archbishops of Canterbury and York prevented John from becoming the bishop of Southwark, to the dismay of his supporters. The guidance says the criteria when considering a gay cleric for the bishopric are “whether the candidate had always complied with the church’s teachings on same-sex sexual activity; whether he was in a civil partnership; whether he was in a continuing civil partnership with a person with whom he had had an earlier same-sex sexual relationship; whether he had expressed repentance for any previous same-sex sexual activity; and whether (and to what extent) the appointment of the candidate would cause division and disunity within the diocese in question, the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion.” The guidelines have angered those campaigning for greater inclusion in the Church of England. General Synod member Christina Rees said: “Nobody other than Jeffrey John has been honest about their sexuality. It is distasteful that gay clerics are asked about their sex lives. There is no parity between them and straight clerics.” Rees warned that the guidance was “too open” for people to exploit as they could argue that the appointment of a gay bishop could prove divisive at home or overseas. The Anglican communion remains at odds over the issue of gay bishops, even though the Episcopal Church in the US has made two such appointments in the last decade. Anglicanism Religion Christianity Gay rights Rowan Williams Equality Act 2010 Riazat Butt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …