UPDATED Human Trafficking: Labour, Lib Dems and the EU Directive

Originally posted at 04:18. Now updated with new information which in my humble opinion makes this vitally important and potentially a coalition deal breaker.

Yesterday on my way to Liberal Drinks in Belfast I read a story that really got me seething, sadly I couldn't get signal on the train or it would already have been written up.

Apparently the coalition government has used its European opt-out not to sign up to a directive that includes a common definition of trafficking which makes it easier to convict people across the 27 member states. Dennis McShane is up in arms about the Government failing to sign up to this directive.

In the European campaign before it got scuppered by the expenses scandal the Lib Dems were quite correction pointing out some of the errors in the EU and some of its strengths including cross-border policing. We especially aimed our attack at the Conservatives who were wanting to scrap many of the protections that the EU gave our citizens under co-operative policing. Therefore if a directive was being ignored, or opted out on by the new Government Lib Dems would rightly be pointing that Dennis McShane has a right to be angry.

However, when I googled to find said directive the only result that came back that matched the remit of the story is this one. It has been open to signature since the 16th of May, so you suggest a new government would be keen to act on it. Unfortunately that particular 16th May is in 2005. Therefore does that mean that the directive has been around for five years? Does that mean the Labour Government, under which Dennis McShane was Europe Minister, failed to sign the directive in a full term of parliament?

Now of course there may well be another directive in 2010 that I have been unable to find. If there is and someone would like to post a link to it in my comments please do and I'll amend the post accordingly. However, it does on the surface, after my initial anger, to be yet another case of the Labour opposition trying to punch holes in the Government ship and ending up merely exposing their own shortcomings.

Update As I asked above any update on a new directive would be welcomed. Well Olga Ivannikova has provided just that. There was a new directive on 29 March 2010.

Therefore I would echo Olga's that we as Liberal Democrats should stand up so that nobody is enslaved in this or any other way. Not kowtow to Eurosceptic Tories who want nothing to do with Europe even when it is for the betterment of humanity.

This for me is a line in the sand which the Lib Dems should not step over. We should sign up to this EU directive. If not we as Liberal Democrats should walk away from the coalition.

Kung Hei Fat Choy 恭喜发财 2010

It may well be Valentines Day but it is also Chinese New Year, so as we enter the year of the Tiger let's look at what I said last Chinese New Year.

Then I looked at some of those that were sentenced under the crime of subversion. Just before this new year another sad tale is added to the list Liu Xiaobo who lost his appeal earlier this week against a eleven year sentence for inciting subversion.

He is one of the co-authors of Charter 08 and I wrote about his arrest in December 2008. Last month 4 retired members of the Communist Party officials had written to authorities pleading for Liu's release. They suggested his conviction violated some of the principles for which they had fought.

Charter 08, taking its name from Vaclev Havel's Charter 77 movement in Czechoslovakia against Soviet occupation, originally was signed by 303 people from across China's communities (intellectuals, editors, lawyers, artists and people who described themselves as peasants and workers). It quickly gathered pace and was signed by 10,000 signatories, but the authorities were anxious that so many people had managed to show their support for the discussion laid out in Charter 08 without their authorisation.

His defence lawyers said that in court there was a lack on commonsense to distinguish between the government and ruling party, which Liu had criticised, and the state which he did not attack.

Charter 08 is calling for human rights, democracy and an end of the Communist Party's monopoly on power. The last is the line that has been crossed which has brought the party hierarchy down on those who are leaders of the movement.

Kung hei fat choy means "congratulations and be prosperous" so yet again this year there isn't too much, outside of economic prosperity, to be congratulatory to China about. There is more to prosperity that what is in the bank.

How Rainbow are the Tories? Part II

Earlier this month I asked how truly gay friendly were the Tories. Tim Trent a blogger from Devon wrote to his local representatives about the Ugandan 'Anti-Homosexuality Bill' and got this response from Giles Chichester Conservative MEP for England South West and Gibraltar, I've highlighted a key phrase.

Dear Mr Trent,

Thank you for your round robin email to South West MEPs of 8th January with regard to Ugandan proposed legislation. I am replying on behalf of my Conservative colleagues because under the arrangement we have for constituency cover on a geographical county by county basis I am the initial point of contact for correspondence from Devon.

Yes I am aware of the press reports. I have the impression that being against homosexuality is not the sole or even major part of this draft legislation nevertheless I can well understand the concern it has caused in the wider world

My Personal opinion is that homosexuals have human rights like every other person. I have not made any representations in this matter up to now because I regard it as a matter for Ugandans to decide.

Of course as Tim correctly points out the name of the bill is 'The Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009". If the sole purpose of locking up anyone who has taken part in same sex sexual activities isn't a sole purpose of being against homosexuality I want to know what Mr Chichester thinks would be. Maybe his allies in Europe are clouding his judgement, or maybe that is just his Conservative party philosophy.

Tim goes on to criticise the sentiment in the last paragraph it is just a form of words. He wrote back asking the MP to imagine he was in the 1930s, instead of 'homosexuals' use 'Jews' and instead of 'Ugandans' use 'Germans' and read the paragraph again.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Officious Police Halt Mr Gay China

The other day I post about the potential opening up of China with the arrival of the Mr Gay China Pageant.

Guess what?

The event that was due to start today has been shut down by the Chinese police. As the Guardian article concluded on Tuesday:

"Officials could show up and say 'your fire hydrant is in the wrong place. It is still a sensitive issue."

So today they did indeed turn up and said the event had not followed the "correct procedures", such a 'clear' reason of what is wrong is obviously difficult for organisers to appease the officials. I hope that Google.cn make this a special icon on their front page.

So the country that only decriminalised homosexuality 13 years ago and declassified it as a mental condition 9 years ago has either found a fire hydrant in the wrong place, a wrong date on a piece of paper work, or chairs no aligned in the right way as a reason to halt this step forward.

Tory's True Colours Shining Through

It appears that the Tory's are taking drastic action with someone who doesn't agree with them. No not Nick Griffen. In this case it is Keir Starmer the director of public prosecutions. The issue is the Human Right's Act.

Before the MPs expenses scandal distracted all voters from the parties' European messages this was one of the key planks to the Conservative manifesto. Yeah they didn't want to have the rights of UK citizens protected equally across the length and breadth of Europe, they wanted to tear it up and make it "more British". Mr Griffen would have been proud.

What Mr Starmer had the audacity to say at the Crown Prosecution Service annual dinner last night was:

"It would be to this country's shame if we lost the clear and basic statements of our citizens' human rights provided by the Human Rights Act on the basis of a fundamentally flawed analysis of their origin and relevance to our society.

"I am proud to be part of a society that regards these rights as part of my entitlement as a member of that society.

"They are basic; they are fundamental; and I venture to suggest that, for the majority of us, they are so much a part of our way of life that we take them for granted.

"I cannot think of any way in which such basic human rights are either so foreign to England and Wales that they do not reflect those principles that we hold dear, or which for some other unspecified reason are thought not to be relevant ... to each and every member of our communities the English Channel is odd and, frankly, impossible to defend."

Hardly inflammatory stuff you would think. Well unless you are David Davies MP (that's with the 'e', not the one who resigned as a liberty champion last year). Speaking to the Torygraph he said:

"We should tear up the Human Rights Act and replace it with something that protects law-abiding citizens from violent criminals. And we should tear up [Starmer's] contract as well."

Another Davies, Philip the MP for Shipley added:

"Keir Starmer is wrong. He is out of touch with public opinion. While he is qualified to be head of the CPS, this has nothing to do with him. His job is not to tell us what the law should be but to prosecute on what the law is. He should concentrate on doing his job rather than lecturing parliament."

Interesting that a DPP has to execute sound judgement based on the law. If he believes it is grounded in basic honourable principles surely that makes it easier to fulfil that role. We hear a lot of Tories recently talking about the rules of natural justice which is something that Starmer seems to suggest the Human Rights Act is far more than any decision over MPs expenses.

In fact considering the number of lawyers in the Conservative's list of candidates I wonder how many of them would be qualified to be head of the CPS. But of course these lawyers are wanting to get elected so they can tell us what the law should be.

David Cameron says he wants rid of the Human Rights Act saying it puts the rights of criminals before those of law-abiding citizens, yet at the same time his party wants to withdraw also from the European cross-border policing agencies. Guess that makes it easy to avoid the Tories' British only Bill of Rights then. Have a Eurostar ticket ready before you commit a crime against the law-abiding Brits on their wee island state and toodle-loo.

SNP Want to Fine You and Keep Your DNA

They only last month the SNP were claiming that we had a compassionate, human justice system. Yet now they are looking to close a 'loophole' in the capture of DNA of offenders.

Up until now only the DNA of those convicted of a crime could be taken and kept on the Government data base. However, if the person chose to take a direct measure, such as a fine, as an alternative to being prosecuted in court then their DNA could not be kept. The SNP are saying this is a loophole that must be closed. One does have to ask does this include points for speeding, parking fines or fines for dropping litter?

SNP West of Scotland MSP Stewart Maxwell has brought an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill to try and bring this about. He claims that DNA retained by such measures does not infringe anyone's human rights. Of course direct measures can also be used in cases of in vandalism, breach of the peace, theft, assault and other alleged offences as well as those listed above.

The Association of Chief Police Officers and Scottish Police Services Authority have called for forensic data taken from those who accept a police fixed-penalty notice to be retained. Something that does not seem to be taken into account in Mr Maxwell's amendment which calls for such gathered information to be retained indefinitely.

Is This a Progressive Party?

The Conservatives seem to think that a few key placed, if misused, words can help the branding of their party. They have been using the words 'clean' and 'honest' in the Norwich North by election then they were far from transparent but successful. So they are repeating the mantra in Glasgow North East.

They are also attempting to use the word 'progressive' to describe their past, present and future. Though interestingly seeing as the Lib Dems don't do well in polling to come equal top of the parties with the Tories in one poll on progressiveness slightly above out voting intention level, with them well down is a telling sign.

Heck there is even a piece in today's Torygraph by Antony Sheldon who has an upcoming book called Trust which tries to highlight Cameron's progressive theme. He opens by saying that Robert Peel, Benjamin Disraeli, the Marquis of Salisbury, Stanley Baldwin, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher are rare in Conservative history in being prime ministers who changed their party and the direction of the country. But what was the direction of their country at the times that they were trying to change.

Disreali was up against Gladstone and his reform agenda. Baldwin may well have introduced votes for women but called his first election to gain a mandate for a protectionist pact, failing to gain a majority. Of course Churchill was a great war leader but post war was voted out for not having the vision to help the people recover, and then in opposition opposed the establishment of the NHS, something that still causes division in Tory ranks just last week. As for Thatcher she was hardly the great social reformer, her reign from milk snatcher, to unfair taxation, supporting the apartheid regime, section 28, suppression of rights to protest.

One telling quote is this:

"Thatcher had been radical on economic reform and [David Cameron] was going to be equally modernising on social reform."

See the above, think and also watch the below. Is being as radical as Thatcher was on economic reform necessarily going to be a good thing for social reform? I for one dread to think what social inequality that can bring after the economic inequality of Thatcher's 'steal from the poor give to the rich' Dooh Nobir* strategy.



*For anyone not catching that it is Robin Hood in reverse.

Uyghur Death Toll Rising

It's just over 20 days from the deadliest day of China's attempts to put down public protest in Tiannemen Square but on Sunday in Urumqi the capital of China's only Muslim majority region there is a death toll of 156 and rising. I've commented before on the unrest that is ongoing in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (AKA East Turkestan, Uyghuristan, and Uyghurstan ) it is one of the remotest regions of China where the standard Beijing time of the whole country is a nonsense as it should really be two hours behind.

The protest sparked this time after unrest last month between factory workers from the predominant Chinese Han and Uighur workers over the alleged rape of a Han girl by two Uighurs. A crowd gathered to protest at the government's handling of that incident.

The Han are now the majority people in Urumqi but the government has once again their is racial unrest brought about by the long standing Chinese resettlement programme of placing Han into the major cities of the provinces and given roles of responsibility in overseeing the local populations. No more so is this the case that in the Western provinces such as Uyghur that looks to its shared ancestry more with the former Soviet Central Asian republics than the Pacific plains Chinese.

Tension is mounting an today violence has broken out in a second city in the region.

Intrernational Outcry Against Aung San Suu Kyi Charges

Aung San Suu Kyi has now been officially charged by authorities in Burma (Myanmar) for breaking terms of her house arrest.

US Citizen John Yettaw who swam across the lake to her compound and then hid out there for two days, despite Suu Kyi asking him to swim back across the lake and not wanting him there, is the reason for these charges. The military junta seem to be ceasing on this outside and unwanted influence to detain the Nobel Peace Laureate for longer than they currently can and past the date of elections scheduled for 2010.

She will face trial having been removed from her compound to Insein jail this morning on Monday and the charges carry a maximum five year jail term.

US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said:

"We have seen this report, which is certainly troubling if true. US Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton has seen it as well, and has asked the Department to work
to get more information."

Gordon Brown has added the concerns of the UK saying:

"The Burmese regime is clearly intent on finding any pretext, no matter how
tenuous, to extend her unlawful detention. I am deeply disturbed that Aung San
Suu Kyi may be charged with breaching the terms of her detention.

"The real injustice, the real illegality, is that she is still detained
in the first place. If the 2010 elections are to have any semblance of
credibility, she and all political prisoners must be freed to participate.

"Only then will Burma be set on the road to real democracy, stability
and prosperity."

Elsewhere Norway and Germany are amongst a growing list of nations that condemn the arrest and impending trial of Ms Suu Kyi.

Keep up to date with more and what you can do to help at the Burma Campaign UK site.

Burma Pro-Democracy Leader Faces Trial

Aung San Suu Kyi the leader of Myanmar's (Burma's) National League for Democracy Party has been taken from her house where she has been under house arrest without trial for the last 6 years and for 13 of the last 19 years to Rangoon'n Insein prision to face trail.

Her current term of detention was due to end on 25 May. It appears that the military junta are going to use the incident of the America who swam over to Suu Kyi's comound last week as grounds for the charge. Myanmar law make it mandatory for any citizen to notify local officials about any overnight visitor who is not a family member. Foreigners are not allowed to spend the night at a local's home. That American John Yiddaw has yet to be charged. However, Washington group U.S. Campaign for Burma say that he along with Ms Suu Kyi, her two maids and her personal doctor Tin Myo Win (who was arrested without explanation the day after the incident) will be being tried in the court at Insein jail from 7:30am (local time) 1:ooam (BST) this morning.

Show you support for Aung San Suu Kyia and Democracy for Myanmar/Burma by visiting the Burma Campaign UK website.

Not the Only Outraged Gay in the Village

The right thinking people of the UK got and get up at arms when there hear about 'education programmes' in China and that used to go on in the Soviet Bloc. Yet what happens when re-education occurs here.

Apparently nothing yet it is going on.

As I was getting off the bus this morning the front page of the Metro caught my eye. Apparently 17% of our country's therapists have attempted to 'cure' gay patients of their orientation. This is despite the Department of Health stating 'Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and does not need treatment'. How can these people be allowed to practise? How can they attempt 'the cure' on people often young and vulnerable who go to them seeking guidance to deal with the pressures that society and their peers put upon them. Or even that they put upon themselves (which I know from over a decade of personal experience).

Now obviously these people see that as their right as not being the 'norm' but hey none of us fit every modal criteria in this world. Indeed one response used the word 'perverse'.

Looking at the numbers for what these people think is a group that needs re-education I think it is roughly equivalent to the number of people who attend football matches every weekend obsessively. Now I know there are also closeted football fans who hide their love on their sofa at home. Or who may venture out showing their colours around town, but who never actively partake in their love. But of those 100% obsessives shouldn't we attempt to re-educate them, they (and I include myself of course) are not normal.

However, football fans assist the economy. They go to specialist venues that aren't everyone's cup of tea. They buy food and drink there. They even have to buy the right clothes, don't want to be seen in last years threads now do you. Also there are the trips abroad with other obsessives, a quick jaunt to a place that is allowing them to partake in their obsession with others if they so desire. But they aren't normal, because you cannot define normal just differences a which we all are.

Let's admit it homophobia is gay and definitely should not be allowed. Especially amongst those that vulnerable groups need to turn to for help.

Chinese Deathly Whispers

In 2007 there were a total of 1,252 executions around the world. In 2008 one country had 40% more that the entire number for the world in the previous 12 months with 1,718. Not only was China responsible for that increase by by itself the People's Republic of China accounts for 72% of the world's executions in 2008. Four other countries Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United States join them to make up 93% all all in the last 12 months.

It could me worse as Amnesty International say that the figures for China are only the minimum estimate, the exact figure is a secret and may be as high as 6,000 to 15,000 according to some activists estimates. This was despite a promise to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to clean up their human rights record ahead of hosting the game in Beijing last summer. Yet while the world was enjoying the hospitality of the games more than 4 times the number of China's own citizens were put to death than the year before.

The change in style of execution has also changed from firing squad to lethal injection a move that Chinese authorities says shows a greater attention to human rights. And mobile death vans travel from town to town to administer the injections cutting costs.

The sharp increase goes against the trend in recent years which showed a decline in executions in China.

Carnival on Modern Liberty: No Freedom of Speech = No Public Liberty

When the Labour Government first banned protesters in Parliament some people didn't think it would infringe too much on this countries freedom of speech. Under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights all people have "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".

No while I don't agree with the views of Geert Wilders nor the views of Fred Phelps of Westboro Church and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper the fact is that both Wilders and now the Phelpses have been denied entry to the UK. They have been denied the right to express themselves. However, as with Geert Wilders last week this may get their message across more clearly and louder than if they have been allowed in.

John Stuart Mill in On Liberty wrote:

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

So Jacqui Smith has twice in a week performed just such a peculiar evil of denying the ability to have discourse to unearth the error in that opinion.

Maybe Wilders in right when he called the UK government cowards for refusing his entry. But as with Derek Draper's LabourList diatribe in recent weeks it appears to be the Labour default position. As position to ban any who don't agree with what you say instead of engaging in debate. It is also generally the default position of those for whom the argument is lost to want to avoid debate at any cost. Is that where Labour is?

Benjamin Franklin said:

"Without Freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech."

Sadly now that we cannot take pictures of the police or things that may be considered useful for terrorism our liberties are being eroded. With the Labour government and its apologists trying to control what can be said or blogged we are heading to a dark place devoid of public liberty.

They can watch you, want to read your emails and keep you biometric data. But you are not allowed to come to your own conclusions, think with you own brain or possible go about your business without proving you are you. The liberties we once held dear are going, going....

Does this mean the terrorists have won because are Government and Labour are too scared to let anything go on that might give them opportunity. And the price? Our liberty.

US Use of Bully Boy Tactics

It's the sort of threat used by paedophilic abusers, "Don't tell or we leave you exposed," threatening worse than is already experienced. But it is just the sort of thing that the USA has apparently be doing to the UK.

That would be the country that somehow has stood unwaveringly with the US on its war on terror every step of the way. Yet apparently if the UK reveals the alleged torture that Binyam Mohammed underwent at Guantánamo Bay the US have threatened to take away their intelligence sharing which would leave the UK heavily exposed. So like a victim clinging to its abuser because somehow there is a need the UK Government is keeping mum (mom) about the US's abuses because it can't afford to live without what it gets from the relationship.

If this is true what exactly has the US got to hide? Of course the use of torture on Prisoners of War is outlawed in the Geneva Convention not that the USA seems to pay much heed to that at times. If it is true why is the UK protecting the US? Is there some sense of self preservation?

Maybe David Miliband's statement that, "We never condone or authorise the use of torture," isn't all that close to the truth. If that is the case we need to know just what the UK did know, and when they knew it? Did we know before, during or only find out after? Who knew anything and what was their reaction?

The fact that the US are trying to suppress makes it all the more important that this does get an airing. Even if that means a trip and stay in the Netherlands for a few high profile people.

Kung Hei Fat Choy

恭喜发财

Welcome to the year of the Ox as today in the Chinese New Year. The greeting translates as "congratulations and be prosperous". While I'm not not disputing that the Chinese economy is certainly prosperous it is not and should not be the only measure.

In July 2001 when China were awarded the 2008 Olympics, government authorities promised improvements in human rights. However seven years on, China remains a country that executes, tortures and silences its citizens. In many areas, human rights have deteriorated because of the Olympics. The positive legacy that many around the world hoped for is becoming increasingly unlikely.

Amnesty International lists 4 distinct areas and various indicators in each that would be a measure of just how China is measuring up. You can view that checklist on the Amnesty website but be warned it makes grim reading. The four areas are:

• The death penalty




• Fair trails and the prevention or torture




• Human rights defenders




• Freedom of expression

On the death penalty there are still 68 crimes on the Chinese statute books that are punishable by execution including tax fraud, counterfeiting money and smuggling cultural relics. As for fair trails and prevention of trail the Chinese have continued to maintain their practice of "Re-education through labour" and even swept up undesirables from the streets pf Beijing in the run up to the Game.

Human rights defenders such as Shi Tao, Chen Guangcheng, Ye Guozhou and Hu Jia are amongst some that are currently detained while carrying out what in most of the world is considered peaceful dissent and disagreement.

Foreign journalist are still restricting from reporting on certain issues. And Internet access while relaxed for foreign journalists was not completely uncensored and Chinese such as Huang Jinqui and Yang Tongyan, who are serving 12 year sentences, face imprisonment for legitimate use of the Internet if it disagrees with the state.

Those named and the many other, less high profiled, victims of China's human rights injustices really do need to have a 新年快乐 - Kung Hei Fat Choy. But they do not need theirs to be merely financial.

Footnote: There were links in the article but when I posted they came up with invalid links and blogger prevented me posting. There were too many to do a quick check so I will take a look later and try and direct you to the right sources.

China Declares Contempt for Human Rights: Part the Umpteenth

Following on from the arrest of Guo Quan last month, China have now arrested Liu Xiaobo on Monday. Liu was first jailed for his role in the Tiannanmem Square demonstrations in 1989 and this arrest came hours before the online launch of the "Charter 08".

The Charter signed by 300 scholars, journalists, freelance writers and activists in China marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by calling on greater freedom of expression and the end of one party system. The hope was to bring about democracy and human rights to China.

It most not be forgotten that the host of this years Olympics did promise the IOC and the World that it was going to improve their record on Human Rights as part of the decision to allow them to host th games. Little more than nothing has been done by the Chinese authorities in this direction. The arrest and detention of leading activist for change Liu Xiaobo, Zhang Zuhua, Chen Xi, Shen Younian and Du Heping over recent days shows that China really does need a change they can believe in.

The fact that leading activists for human rights activists in China are being detained over the 60th anniversary of the declaration that they are seeking to get recognised in their homeland shows the calculated contempt and rejection that Chinese authorities show for human rights and freedoms once again.

Vatican Backs Death to Homosexuals

I've altered the title slightly from Malc to whom a hat tip is due. But the impact is the essence of the story.

The Vatican are mixing up a decriminalisation of homosexuality with a move to civil partnerships or even same sex marriage it would seem. They are opposing a UN resolution calling on all Governments worldwide to "decriminalise" homosexuality.

The resolution is merely aimed at the 80 countries who outlaw same sex-relations in all circumstances, and the 9 states or regions within a state where the mandatory sentence for being homosexual is the death penalty. Indeed the draft resolution makes no mention of the Churches main concern, as cited my Archbishop Celestino Migliore, same-sex marriage that is not on the agenda merely the upholding of human rights for all. Rama Yade the French Minister of Human Rights and Foreign Affairs is raising this draft resolution on behalf of the EU, of whom the French currently hold the rotating Presidency, along with violence against women before the General Assembly of the UN when they meet between December 15th and 20th.

Sadly the church of Rome cannot discern what is an act of basic human rights, that to live or be free, from its own prejudices.

Chipped and HIV+

The Papua province of Indonesia has controversially proposed a law to implant microchips into citizens living with HIV. Papua has one of the worse infection rates outside Africa but the measures which also include mandatory testing, tattooing of carriers and special ID cards for those that test positive sound awfully like some of the anti-Semitic measures taken by the Third Reich.

The microchip technology is the modern version of travel permits being able to track the whereabouts of the victims of this disease. However, with much of the Papuan population cut of from towns, electricity or phone coverage even the effectiveness of such measures proposed by the Indonesian government would seem ludicrous. The aim of the chips is to seek out those who are "sexually aggressive", the meaning of which is defined by John Manangsang a lawmaker as "actively seeking sexual intercourse."

The country's AIDS Commission has said the provision is not just unworkable in Papua but a violation of human rights. "How can someone know if a person is having sex or jumping and dancing?" said the commission's secretary Nafsiah Mboi. Instead of branding and tracking HIV+ citizens help and medical care should be high on the agenda.

Churches Out to Invalidate Proposition 8

Yes I had to double take that as well when I read it on Liz Williams Singing My Song blog. However, it does appear that church and religious leaders in California have been one of the first groups to file a law suit against Proposition 8 which overturned the States Supreme Court Ruling, in March this year, that 2000's Proposition 22 violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and upheld the right held that individuals of the same sex had the right to marry under the California Constitution.


Rev. Rick Schlosser, Executive Director of the California Council of Churches said:

"Proposition 8 poses a grave threat to religious freedom. If the Court permits
gay men and lesbians to be deprived of equal protection by a simple majority
vote, religious minorities could be denied equal protection as well—a terrible
irony in a nation founded by people who emigrated to escape religious
persecution. If the Court permits Proposition 8 to take effect, religious
discrimination similarly could be written into California's Constitution."

Wow! I'm quite impressed that senior churchmen are prepared to stand up for the USA's separation of the powers of Church and State in such a sensible way. One co-signatory of the law suit Rev. John H. Thomas, General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ added:

"We believe our communities are strengthened and our religious freedoms
protected by ensuring that the principle of equal protection applies to all
Californians. Religious groups know from long experience the dangers posed by
placing unchecked power in the hands of temporary majorities."

The groups represented in this law suit are the California Council of Churches, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, two Episcopal Bishops (of California and Los Angeles), the Progressive Jewish Alliance, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations and the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of California, and the Northern and Southern California Nevada Conferences of the United Church of Christ.

China's Arrested Democrat

Chinese authorities have arrested the founder of the New Democracy Party (New People's Party) Guo Quan in Nanjing on charges of subversion of state power. He has been arrested several times in the past since founding the party last year but the charge of subversion is one the Chinese authorities often use to imprisons dissidents for years.

He is a well known blogger, though now removed, and he is accused of being 'too radical' he radicalness in recent days has been for blogging about the need for democratic change in the world's most populous nation. He had also threatened to sue Google and Yahoo in February of this year after the US companies in compliance with Chinese Government requests removed his name from searches on their Chinese language search engines. In his own words he said Google have "become a servile Pekinese dog wagging its tail at the heels of the Chinese communists".

In February when he announced his legal actions Guo said:

"Through this I hope that the world will become more concerned to resolve human
rights issues in China. The freedom of the Internet should be realised all over
the world."

Sadly his fight for human rights in China have led to him being denied his own human rights of liberty, freedom of thought, right to question and have a say in his own affairs. It is nineteen and a half years on from the events of Tiannamen Square and the Chinese authorities have moved nowhere politically from that day, even though promises were made to enable them to host this years Olympics. They still seek to control political process by coercion rather than strength of debate.