7 Jun 2012 | Index Index, minipost, United Kingdom
The Spectator has been ordered to pay £5,600 after admitting a November 2011 article about the trial of Stephen Lawrence‘s killers breached a court order. Associate editor Rod Liddle’s piece claimed defendants Gary Dobson and David Norris — who were convicted in January 2012 of Lawrence’s 1993 murder — would not get a fair trial. It appeared in the magazine after the trial had started and an order imposed on reports that could influence the jury’s view of the defendants. The judge said the article caused a brief moment in which the trial was in jeopardy, but the magazine’s swift apology and removal of the piece online meant it was not undermined. The magazine’s lawyer apologised for its “bitterly regrettable” failure to make checks.
7 Jun 2012 | Europe and Central Asia, Index Index, minipost
Former Belarusian presidential candidate Andrei Sannikov was removed from a train travelling from Minsk to Vilnius at a station near the Lithuanian border yesterday. The activist, who was released from detention and pardoned by Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko in April, was reportedly heading to a conference in the Lithuanian capital. On 2 June fellow activist Dmitri Bandarenka was also removed from a train travelling from Vilnius to Minsk. His personal belongings were searched and he was made to strip down to socks. Bandarenka was travelling from Lithuania, where he had received medical treatment, and arrived in Minsk on the next train.
7 Jun 2012 | Uncategorized
Rod Liddle was stupid to write his article on the trial of Gary Dobson and David Norris, and the Spectator was stupid to publish it. Now the magazine has been fined — not for contempt of court, though anyone with a faint awareness of media law knows that law was broken, but for the even more straightforward offence of breaching a court order. A judge said don’t do it and they did it: it doesn’t get simpler.
Does the incident raise any more complicated issues? No doubt the case will be made.
Liddle thought the trial of Dobson and Norris for the murder of Stephen Lawrence was unfair, and he expressed this view in the Spectator while the trial was in progress. No problem there, you may think, except that well-established and well-known English law forbids such opinionating in public while the justice process is under way.
It does so, not as a form of authority-inspired censorship, not to inhibit discussion about the justice system and not because the system doesn’t really trust jurors, but to protect the weak and the innocent. The law exists because defendants, their lawyers and others who cared about justice argued for it and won the argument.
Liddle knew this. Now he may disagree with the law, but in a democracy the normal course of action for people who want to change a law is to make the case for change rather than to break the law.
Equally, if he believes strongly that Norris and Dobson are victims of a miscarriage of justice he was free to make that case after the verdict. There are, sadly, plenty of miscarriages of justice and there are quite a lot of people who want to draw attention to them. With rare exceptions they do so within the law.
Does Liddle really disagree so fundamentally with the law on contempt that he feels the need to break it? Does he really care so much about the case of Norris and Dobson that he will break the law to support them?
If so we can respect his views even if we question his methods, and perhaps we can look forward to seeing him engage in further acts of civil disobedience in pursuit of his cause. We can also expect him to explain that his past actions were calculated and deliberate (though the Spectator might not be happy about that).
If, on the other hand, this was a casual act of arrogance by someone who knew he personally would pay no price for it, how surprised would we be?
Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University London and is a founder of the Hacked Off Campaign. in 2000, he won the Orwell Prize for his book The Case of Stephen Lawrence. He tweets at @BrianCathcart
6 Jun 2012 | Europe and Central Asia, News and features
Political activist Siarhei Kavalenka may have given up his hunger strike but his fight for freedom in Belarus continues, says Andrei Aliaksandrau
In January 2010 Siarhei Kavalenka, a political activist and small businessman from Vitsebsk, northern Belarus, climbed a 40-metre high New Year tree in the centre of the city and hung a red and white flag as a symbol of the Belarusian opposition.
If he had climbed the tree for any other reason, he might have faced a minor administrative trial and got away with a fine. But a red and white flag, once a national symbol and now an oppositional hallmark so much hated by the authoritarian government, cost Kavalenka a criminal conviction and a three-year suspended sentence.
On 19 December 2011, on the first anniversary of Belarus’s controversial presidential elections, Kavalenka was detained again, accused of violating the probation rules. Two months later the judge announced the verdict: 25 months in prison.
Kavalenka considers his conviction to be politically motivated. In protest against his imprisonment, he went on hunger strike for almost half a year, with only two breaks. He lost nearly 40 kilograms. His family and friends were worried for his life, let alone his health. According to his wife, Alena, who was able to meet her husband several times during his imprisonment, Kavalenka has serious health problems. In addition, she reported he faced physical torture and psychological pressure behind bars.
Many voices inside and outside Belarus and have demanded that the Belarusian authorities release Kavalenka together with all other political prisoners.
But the government of Belarus remains deaf to these appeals. Kavalenka has been refused civil medical assistance and is treated by prison doctors. In April, the authorities started force feeding him to keep him alive.
“The situation itself is beyond the legal framework because Kavalenka is sentenced illegally,” Uladzimir Labkovich, Belarusian human rights defender and lawyer, said. “He is a victim of the reprisal imposed on him by the authorities.”
Kavalenka ended his hunger strike at the end of May, but he is not giving up his fight, and nor are his family and friends. His wife, other relatives and Belarusian civil society activists have been detained several times after staging public actions of solidarity; some of them have been beaten by the police. At the moment Alena Kavalenka, Kavalenka’s cousin Kanstantsin and activist Alena Semenchukova are awaiting court hearings for chalking “Freedom to Siarhei Kavalenka!” on the pavement in front of the court building in Vitsebsk.
“He is very weak physically, but has no access to quality medical help,” Alena Kavalenka told Radio Liberty after she met her husband in prison. “I don’t know why he is being exterminated for his love for his motherland.”
Andrei Aliaksandrau is the former vice-chair of the Belarusian Association of Journalists
You can write a letter of support to Siarhei Kavalenka to his prison. The address is: PK No. 19, 3 km, Slauharadskaja shasha, Mahiliou, 213030, Belarus (In Belarusian: Каваленка Сяргей, 213030, г. Магілёў, Слаўгарадзкая шаша, 3 км, ПК №19)
