This is not OK

On hearing the Brexit result, my grandad texted me saying “Hopefully we’ll find a way to fix things and make this OK”. Like me he was shocked, disappointed and hurt that this was the choice made by such a significant proportion of Brits.

But this is really not OK.

It is not OK that our futures will be determined by the reckless actions of less than half of the population. It is not OK that the Leave campaign used lies and propaganda to get their way. It is not OK for Britain to wash its hands of the refugee crisis, to leave our neighbours to deal with this humanitarian challenge, a challenge whose root causes can be linked to Britain’s past actions.

The EU isn’t to blame for the UK’s more deep-rooted problems which caused a large section of society to vote to leave an economic, social and legal structure which took decades to build. As the news sinks in (slowly – like an infection in a dirty wound), many are already mourning what they are about to lose.

Since the referendum, the mood on the street is uncomfortable and tense, several of my friends have witnessed acts of racist language and threatening behaviour, the slim margin of victory having bolstered the confidence of a racist minority. The Brexit referendum result seems to have been misunderstood by some as an open season on minorities and foreigners. It is terrifying that some people see this as a green light for acting out their small-minded violent fantasies. The far right are gloating over their perceived triumph, they feel that, with this result, all their reprehensible views have a stamp of approval, that racism has suddenly become socially acceptable.

This tension is by no means unique to the UK. In Germany where large numbers of refugees have been taken in, a change is tangible: faces have changed, attitudes are changing and society is polarising, many working hard to adapt and understand, while some view new arrivals with suspicion and fear. In France, Spain, Italy and Netherlands tensions are rising, as well as in other European states, although the most xenophobic tend to be those who, as yet, have few foreigners. But the EU itself is not to blame for the rise of the far right. In fact the EU as a body is in a much better position to deal with these poisonous political opportunists, in promoting dialogue and responding to the root causes. Yes the EU needs reform, yes there needs to be a more balanced approach in policy decisions, but fragmentation and less integration is not the answer to fighting common problems and dealing with them effectively.

Just over half of the voters chose “Leave” yet this translates into roughly a quarter of the UK’s population. Many British overseas citizens (including my parents) have lived in mainland EU for over 15 years and therefore couldn’t cast a vote despite the profound effect this result will have on their lives. Residents of the UK from mainland Europe were also denied a say. Most of the younger voters wanted to stay in the EU. While the young and aspirational saw opportunities for education, work, business or just friendship and culture, this door has now been slammed and is about to be bolted. We, and our kids will still be suffering the consequences of this referendum when many of the Brexiters are long gone. But this is not to say everyone who voted out was over 60, there was a significant number of young and middle aged people too.

I grew up thinking of myself as a European, my British passport was just as good as my neighbour’s German one.

Now, although not worthless, my passport has suddenly lost a lot of advantages.

I worry about, the rise of the far right as they gloat in victory, I’m also concerned about the unravelling of key laws and agreements, such as the Human Rights Act and the Northern Ireland peace treaty and of course the effect of Scottish independence. The consequences we and our children will face are uncertain, while the regret I predict as a certainty. But the feeling now in my gut, as a European is one of a personal attack on my identity, on my rights and on my British passport. The nastiness of the “Leave” campaign shook me, it opened up vile sentiments and a culture of open racism. It brought me into a country I couldn’t recognise or identify with.

The fear tactics employed by the “Leave” campaign terrify me, a stirring of hatred and suspicion that is reminiscent of Nazi propaganda.

The atmosphere is one of “us vs. them”, tribalism at its worst. And which tribe do I even belong to?

It feels as if the UK has become a collection of small islands floating away from one another, unable to listen and unable to communicate.

London, where so many of our EU “foreigners” live and work, voted overwhelmingly to stay.

Living in London is an incredible experience for one main reason – that London is London – it is bizarre, unique, overcrowded, stressful and inspiring. It’s the most diverse and accepting place I have ever lived, anyone, and really anyone can be a Londoner. I don’t want this to change London, London is an incredible enclave in a confused polarised fearful and frustrated world. People here can quite happily live side by side in cramped buildings regardless of their culture or race. In London you can go to the shop wearing whatever you like be it your PJs or a one legged PVC trouser suit, without anyone even so much as blinking an eye. Every single person here contributes to its energy and it’s vibrance its magic and its intensity. What would London be without immigration, what would it be without the free movement of people across Europe?

I just hope that whatever happens next, will be thought out carefully and clearly to prevent any more damage from knee-jerk reactions based on nationalist nostalgic fantasies. The last time populism triumphed in Europe, things did not end well.

The Unitary Patent set to simplify the European patent process

At the end of last year, the European Parliament in Strasbourg adopted two draft regulations on the creation of the unitary patent as part of the “patent package” which also includes the creation of a Unified Patent Court (UPC).

The President of the European Patent Office (EPO), Benoît Battistelli welcomed the advantages of the unitary patent.

“Cutting the costs of patenting inventions in Europe will strongly benefit European enterprises, especially research centres and SMEs. The vision of the founding fathers of the EPO to equip the European economy with a truly supranational patent system can now become a reality, strengthening Europe’s competitiveness.”

The unitary patent will have effect in the 25 participating European states and will allow for a more straightforward European patent system. It is based on two regulations and an international agreement, the first regulation creates the instrument and the second deals with the applicable language regime for the new patent. The UPC is the third and last component of the “patent package” and will be set up under an international convention. This will create a unified patent litigation system and will function as a single patent jurisdiction concerning infringement and validity questions related to unitary patents.

The agreement establishing the UPC was signed by 24 states on the 19 February 2013 (followed by Bulgaria on 5 March 2013) and will enter into force once thirteen EU member states have ratified the package, including France, Germany and the UK.

The unitary patent will co-exist with national patents and the classical European patent, with which it shares the legal basis and the procedure for grant (as laid out in the European Patent Convention). The only difference will occur in the post-grant phase, and unitary patents will be treated as a single patent. Therefore they will no longer need to be validated or translated, nor will they need to be administered nationally in each and every state. This will not only simplify the patent process but it will also lead to massive savings in terms of time and costs. The changes should make Europe more attractive for innovation and investors, bringing it on a par with its competitors in Asia and the US.

New Zealand’s Law Society identifies further steps needed to meet human rights obligations

In a submission to the United Nations’ Human Rights Council Council for the second Universal Periodic Review of New Zealand’s human rights record, the Law Society identified a need to strengthen mechanisms for the protection of human rights in New Zealand.

The Law Society asserted that there were a number of legislative measures that could hinder the country in meeting domestic and international human rights obligations.

The President of the Law Society, Chris Moore, states that New Zealand’s human rights record fares well in general, this largely depends on rigorous scrutiny of policy and legislation due to constitutional arrangements. He added that because there is no supreme bill of rights or entrenched constitution, the system relies on close observation of the rule of law combined with political restraint. Therefore it is crucial to address concerns and inconsistencies with human rights standards once they have been identified. Moore states:

“Unfortunately on a number of recent occasions legislation has been passed despite conflicting with the rule of law and human rights.”

The Law Society has urged New Zealand to take action in a number of areas to ensure it complies with human rights standards and the rule of law.

“There have been twelve pieces of legislation in recent years that have been identified as inconsistent with the rights and freedoms protected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights, and on a number of occasions urgency has been used in Parliament to limit or bypass select committee scrutiny,” he said.

Among the most recent legislation cited by the Committee, is the controversial Public Health and Disability Amendment Act 2013. Both the Attorney General’s report as well as the Law society pointed out that the Act appeared to be inconsistent with the right to freedom from discrimination and the right to judicial review under section 27 of the Bill of Rights. However the Bill was passed under urgency, thus bypassing the select committee process and denying public submissions. The Law Society took the following position:

“Not allowing the courts to review decisions made in exercise of a legislative function and refusing to provide reasons for rushing the legislation through is quite alien to the expectations we have of our parliamentary process.”

The Law Society expressed its concerns regarding the use of parliamentary urgency to pass bills stating that “[m]isuse of urgency, particularly where it is used to bypass the select committee process, offends against principles of democratic legitimacy”.

Moore listed a number of other bills that raise serious questions regarding New Zealand’s compliance with both international and domestic human rights obligations.

In response to these concerns, the Law Society’s has proposed for the government to take concrete, targeted steps in order to increase the visibility of international human rights obligations in New Zealand. In its submission, the Law Society has also advised that the government establishes a formal process for publicising, considering and responding to human rights recommendations by United Nations bodies.

The Story Behind the Treaty

This short film by the International Red Cross explains some of the background behind the Arms Trade Treaty signed last week by over 60 countries.

In the film Kathleen Lawand, Head of the Arms Unit at the International Committee of the Red Cross emphasised the importance of key aspects of the Treaty. She points out that the Treaty states that a country  “shall not authorise the transfer of weapons if it knows that these weapons would be used to commit genocide crimes against humanity or war crimes”

She adds that the Treaty also says “that even if a state does not know for sure that the weapons would be used to commit such crimes it must assess the risk that they could be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law or human rights law”.

This is particularly significant in terms of the legal context of the Treaty, as well as shifting responsibility of the consequences of arms exports onto the exporting states.

Arms Trade Treaty: First Step for International Justice

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT),  which was signed by 67 states last week, offers a much needed response to the human suffering caused by the widespread availability of weapons. The new Treaty stipulates that states must not transfer weapons or ammunition, if they know that these would be used to commit certain war crimes.

The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s stated:

“I wholeheartedly welcome the adoption, today, of a first-ever Arms Trade Treaty by the General Assembly. It is a historic diplomatic achievement — the culmination of long-held dreams and many years of effort.”

The Treaty signing event

The Treaty was adopted by vote by 154 members states on the 2nd of April 2013, with 23 abstentions and only three countries voting against – North Korea, Iran and Syria. Ban Ki Moon was optimistic about the impact this legislation will make in addressing human rights violations and armed conflict.

“It will be a powerful new tool in our efforts to prevent grave human rights abuses or violations of international humanitarian law. And it will provide much-needed momentum for other global disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.
I applaud states for their willingness to compromise on a number of complex issues, thus making it possible for us to have a balanced and robust Treaty text. I commend the members of civil society for the critical role they played from the inception of this process, through their expert contributions and enthusiastic support.”

The United States’ representative emphasised that “This Treaty sets a floor, not a ceiling” for the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms. Stating that when taken together, the Treaty’s articles provided a “robust and complementary” framework that would “ensure responsible behaviour” by state parties.

South Africa’s delegate added that the Treaty “filled a glaring gap” in the global conventional arms control system, by introducing high norms and criteria to which states would adhere when considering arms transfers. Under the Treaty state parties will be required to establish national transfer control legislation, as well as official administrative guidelines, national inspectorates, punitive and practical enforcement measures for transgressions.

Among those not in favour of the Treaty, Syria’s delegate pointed out that a number of states were supplying weapons to “terrorist groups” including those in Syria, and that this explained why they objected to a paragraph banning the supply of weapons to unauthorized non-State actors. “This is political hypocrisy, and a clear indication that the draft Treaty is greatly selective and, thus, cannot reach consensus.”

However, the representative of Colombia, Néstor Osorio, who was also speaking on behalf of a number of other countries (the Bahamas, Belize, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago and Uruguay), said in the circumstances the resulting text was the best that could have been achieved. As it “created a common international regime to regulate the arms trade, and offered the chance to further develop a more robust control regime, notably through amendments to the Treaty and adjustments to implementation at the Conferences of States Parties”.

The delegate of Argentina signing the ATT, 67 states have signed the Treaty since it was opened for signature on the 3rd of June last week.

The ambassador of Australia, Peter Woolcott received praise for the transparent manner in which he conducted his presidency of the Final Conference that produced the final version of the text. Ambassador Roberto García Moritán of Argentina, was also recognised for his longstanding commitment and staunch leadership of the ATT process.

The adoption of this Treaty demonstrates the instrumental function of the United Nations in providing a platform through which governments and civil society can work together. Ban Ki Moon indicated that the adoption of the Treaty is only the first step and called upon “all Governments to join forces with civil society to ensure its full and effective implementation”.

Don’t make people pay for music – Let them: An Alternative View Of Copyright Law

Alternative Rock icon Amanda Palmer presents a way of looking at copyright law and piracy. Her prolific use of Twitter and crowd funding sites like Kickstarter has allowed her to make a living asking for support, allowing her fans to make a choice to pay for music. This is a hugely insightful talk on copyright, piracy and the boundless opportunities of the internet. She highlights online tools and their role in the changing dynamic and culture of the music industry. Ultimately however, she emphasises that it is trust and the simple act of asking for help that has allowed her to build a career as a musician.

German Courts Refuse to Bow to US Pressure in MegaUpload Case

A German court in Frankfurt (Beschl. v. 14.05.2012 – Az.: 5/28 Qs 15/12) has ruled that a request for mutual legal assistance from the United States regarding stripping assets belonging to Kim Dotcom, has no basis for legal action in Germany.

Mural of Kim Dotcom painted by Cart’1 courtesy of Thierry Ehrman – Abode of Chaos.

Kim Dotcom, the founder of the file-sharing MegaUpload site was arrested in Auckland, New Zealand in January of this year. He had been sought by the US authorities on copyright infringement charges relating to pirated content on his websites.

As a part of the criminal investigation against the file-sharing service Megaupload, certain assets were supposed to be removed. This request was issued by the American FBI when they called for legal assistance from the German authorities.

The Frankfurt judges have since rejected this request, because it contains insufficient evidence. The US legal team failed to demonstrate that a web hosting service for the illegal upload of copyrighted files, amounts to a  criminal offence.

According to the German ‘Telemediengesetz’ (communications legislation), a hosting service for foreign files will generally not be accountable unless the host had active knowledge of illegal activity. The judges also emphasised that the concept of knowledge is limited to positive knowledge. Therefore if the service provider believes that it is possible or likely that a specific piece of information is stored on their server, this is not sufficient evidence of knowledge of abuse.

According to the court ruling, there is no legal obligation to monitor the transmitted data or stored information or to search for any illegal activity.

Since the US legal team did not mention any other circumstances that could constitute a criminal offence in their request for mutual legal assistance, the German court concluded that their request for the recovery of assets is unfounded.

I will not be lectured by this man

Australian PM, Julia Gillard’s speech accusing opposition leader Tony Abbott of sexism.

The speech follows comments by Mr Abbott calling to remove a member of Parliament, the speaker Mr Slipper, on the grounds of being a misogynist. Mr Slipper who was involved in a sexual harassment case which centred around what Mr Abbott called ‘vile’ text messages referring to women’s genitalia.

Mr Abbott was himself involved in an offensive advertising campaign against Gillard describing her as a ‘witch’ and a ‘man’s bitch’. He also attempted to play down his own close association with Mr Slipper by distancing himself from his former friend calling his actions shameful in light of the scandal. Ms Gillard turned Mr Abbott’s argument against him labeling him a misogynist and cited a string of sexist comments previously made by him. She also stated:

“I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man (Mr Abbott) … I will not. And the Government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever.”

BBC Radio 4: Focus on International Child Abduction

The BBC Radio 4 Face the Facts programme gives an introduction to international child abduction cases affecting parents in the UK. It focuses on signatories to the Hague Convention and on the difficulties in dealing with non-Hague Convention countries. The programme features stories of individual parents as well as legal experts on international child abduction – Lord Justice Thorpe and barrister Jacqueline Renton.

A recording of the programme is available here.

Update on the Grin Case: Petition to the US Secretary of State

There have been new developments in relation to the Grin case. A petition has been launched addressing US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in an effort to help bring home four American children abducted by their non-custodial mother and illegally taken to Russia. The children were living in Florence, Italy with their custodial father before they were abducted by their mother, who lost custody a year earlier when she was found to be psychologically unfit to be a parent.

The family is now urging the US State Department to help by working with the Russian Foreign Minister to read the court documents and understand the severity of the situation and to get these children safely back home to Italy. This petition is a desperate attempt to accelerate the process of returning the children from Russia.

You can sign the petition here.