Session 1: Human Rights

1st Global Conference

Friday 6th November – Sunday 8th November 2009
Salzburg, Austria

Human Rights Abuses: Bullying from Insults to Torture
Ayeray Medina Bustos
Leeds Metropolitan University, United Kingdom

How does bullying work in a society that lacks moral values? I come from a society that is supposedly Christian, but in which those in power have at times acted in ways that are exactly opposite to Christian moral values – violating human rights, including the right to life. When the last coup d’etat erupted in Argentina in 1976, no one could have imagined that simply expressing the desire to change ‘the world’ through social reform, could lead them into one of the most terrible forms of bullying: torture and murder. However, this happened and created deep harm into the Argentinean society, at all levels: both individual and collective; both psychological and physical.

People who wanted to make the world a better place were persecuted. Disappeared and imprisoned, they were bullied and subjected to torture, and often killed. The kidnapping started with insults, continued with torture plus insults, and in thousands of cases, ended in death. What is the psychology of these bullies and torturers? What makes a person go beyond their inner humanity, so that they are able to destroy others’ lives, by bullying, torturing and killing some, and by removing loved ones from others?

In this paper, beginning with my own experiences as a small child, I will explore the bullying to which my people were subjected during years of military dictatorship, and the ways in which even now, those who are implicated in heinous acts, still manage, somehow, to avoid punishment for what they did.

Download Draft Conference Paper (pdf)

The Abuse Clause in International Human Rights Law: an Expedient Remedy against Abuse of Power or an Instrument of Abuse Itself?
Hannes Cannie
Department of Communication Studies, Ghent University, Belgium

The Strasbourg organs of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) have developed a tradition of applying Article 17 ECHR, the so-called abuse clause, with regard to ‘liberticide’ (any activity or act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention). The abuse clause’s main reason of existence is preventing abuse of power, especially preventing totalitarian regimes from exploiting in their own interests the principles enunciated in the Convention, which would contribute to the destruction of fundamental human rights. However, as time went by, the application of the abuse clause has become strongly, yet not exclusively, connected to the broad sphere of anti-Semitism, particularly Holocaust denial. In such cases, applicants are a priori deprived of the protection of the treaty right(s) they rely upon. This way of working contrasts sharply with the ‘normal’ judicial treatment, which would imply an examination in the light of the case as a whole, taking into account all its factual elements.

A number of authors have devoted attention to this judicial application, having generally approved of it. However, there has been relatively little analysis of its legal and pragmatic expediency.

The aim of this paper is to show that the abuse clause’s actual application has exceeded its prime objective. It thereby risks becoming an ‘instrument of abuse’ itself. Legal and pragmatic arguments are developed to support the thesis according to which the application of the abuse clause is unnecessary and undesirable, and presents more injuries than benefits, therefore being an unfit instrument in the fight against history repeating itself. The motivations underlying its application can equally well be met via the common judicial procedure, while at the same time eliminating some dangers inevitably related to the abuse clause’s application. These dangers include arbitrariness and legal insecurity (given the fact that no fixed theory guides the abuse clause’s application), elimination of a (democratic) guarantee to see activities placed and judged in their specific contexts, taking into account all factual elements of the case, in addition to a lack of European supervision of the proportionality of the measure implied by the national government in question.

Download Draft Conference Paper (pdf)

Terrorism, Bullying and the Abuse of Power
Mahnaz Hashmi
Birmingham, United Kingdom

In this paper I reflect on my ethnographic research on the experience of young British Muslim men living in Birmingham, caught between the terrorist atrocities of 9/11 and 7/7, and the British government’s War on Terror. I focus especially on the ways in which their lived experience has been affected by the increasing surveillance and counter-terror legislation that have been driven by paranoia and fear. For example, I discuss the story of a man, granted asylum after fleeing a repressive regime, who was arrested a year later under the Terrorism Act. Imprisoned for two years on the basis of ‘secret evidence’, his family was moved around various hostels in a city where they knew no-one. Despite this, he has never been charged and neither has he been told what the charges are against him. Legally compelled to stay within a small defined radius, he wears an electronic tag, is not permitted out after dark and has to request Home Office permission for many activities, including accompanying his wife to antenatal appointments. Terrorism is a form of bullying – an abuse of power, aimed at achieving change by harming and perhaps what is worse, by threatening harm. An offence against humanity, it treats people as a means to an end. But treating suspects as if they are guilty, before charges are made, surely begs questions.