Wednesday, November 4, 2009

قلق لمحاكمة صحفيين تونسيين

    4:04 PM   No comments


الصحفي سليم بوخذير يتهم الأمن التونسي بالاعتداء عليه بعنف (الجزيرة نت)

خميس بن بريك-تونس
استنكر محامي الصحفيين المعتقلين حاليا في سجن المرناقية بتونس العاصمة زهير مخلوف وتوفيق بن بريك محاكمة موكليه بتهم وصفها بالمفبركة دون مراعاة أدنى حقوق الدفاع، بينما تنفي السلطات التونسية التهم الموجهة إليها بافتعال القضيتين.
وقال المحامي أحمد نجيب الشابي للجزيرة نت إن المحكمة الابتدائية بقرمبالية (شمال شرق) أجلت النظر في قضية زهير مخلوف إلى 24 نوفمبر/تشرين الثاني الحالي، رافضة مطالب المحامين بإخلاء سبيله وتعجيل البت في قضيته.
وأضاف "كان الأمل أن تفرج المحكمة عن مخلوف في انتظار تعيين الجلسة القادمة بعدما استجابت لطلب الشاكي، لكنها فضلت إبقاءه في السجن رغم حالته الصحية السيئة نتيجة دخوله في إضراب عن الطعام منذ يوم 21 أكتوبر/تشرين الأول الماضي".

الشابي: السلطة ترغب في الانتقام ومعاقبة الرأي المخالف (الجزيرة نت)
قلق واستياء
واعتبر الشابي –الذي يترأس الحزب الديمقراطي التقدمي المعارض- أن "إيقاف مخلوف مؤشر سلبي يوحي بأن المحكمة مقتنعة سلفا بوجود جريمة، وهذا لا يبعث على الاطمئنان مطلقا بشأن الحكم الذي ستصدره".
وأضاف أن "القضية التي يواجهها مخلوف مفتعلة على خلفية نشاطه الحقوقي والسياسي"، موضحا أن "السلطة لديها رغبة في الانتقام ومعاقبة الرأي المخالف ومتشنجة في التعامل مع القضايا السياسية".
واعتقل مخلوف -وهو عضو بالحزب الديمقراطي التقدمي ومرشحه في الانتخابات التشريعية ضمن قائمة محافظة نابل وعضو منظمة "حرية وإنصاف" المحظورة- يوم 20 أكتوبر/تشرين الأول الماضي إثر تحقيق مصور حول المشاكل البيئية للحي الصناعي بمحافظة نابل (شمال شرق)، بعدما رفع ضده عامل قضية يطالب فيها بالتعويض بدعوى الإساءة إليه.
من جهة ثانية، يقول الشابي -الذي يتولى كذلك الدفاع عن الصحفي توفيق بن بريك المسجون منذ يوم 29 أكتوبر/تشرين الأول الماضي بتهمة الاعتداء بالعنف على امرأة- إنه منع صحبة المحامي العياشي الهمامي من مقابلة موكلهما في السجن رغم حصولهما على إذن من المحكمة.
وأضاف "لم نتمكن من مقابلة مدير السجن أو نائبه للاستفسار عن سبب منعنا من زيارة توفيق بن بريك لإعلامه بمحتوى ملف القضية"، قائلا "لقد حرمنا من أبسط حقوق الدفاع التي يمكن أن تتوفر في أي محاكمة عادلة وهو أن يتصل المحامي بموكله".
ويرى أن سبب اعتقال بن بريك جاء على خلفية المقالات النقدية التي كتبها في عدة صحف أجنبية ناطقة بالفرنسية ضد رموز النظام الحاكم خلال الانتخابات الرئاسية الأخيرة.
وأدان الشابي إبقاء بن بريك قيد الاحتجاز دون أي مبرر لمحاكمته وإبقائه رهن الاعتقال التحفظي حتى الآن "دون مراعاة لحالته الصحية المتدهورة بسبب المرض".
وعبرت منظمات حقوقية عن قلقها مما وصفته بحملة منظمة لملاحقة بعض الصحفيين، بعد شكاوى أطلقها مراسل منظمة "مراسلون بلا حدود" الصحفي سليم بوخذير الذي يتهم الأمن التونسي باختطافه والاعتداء عليه بعنف خلال الأيام الماضية.
كما تعرض مراسل الجزيرة لطفي الحجي والصحفي زياد الهاني والحقوقية سهام بن سدرين لمضايقات واعتداءات في الأيام الأخيرة.
ويقول رئيس نقابة الصحفيين التونسيين المقالة ناجي البغوري للجزيرة نت إن "وضع الحريات الصحفية في تونس يشهد توترا خطيرا ويبعث على القلق مع تزايد الاعتداءات"، داعيا إلى إطلاق سراح الصحفيين المحتجزين ووقف المضايقات التي يتعرضون لها.
البغوري: وضع الحريات الصحفية في تونس مقلق (الجزيرة نت)
نفي رسمي
في المقابل، تقول مصادر رسمية إن التهم الموجهة إلى الصحفيين زهير مخلوف وتوفيق بن بريك تندرج في إطار قضايا الحق العام وليس كما يزعم البعض بأنها قضايا سياسية ملفقة، معتبرة أن القانون سيعطي لكل ذي حق حقه.
واتهم الأمين العام لحزب التجمع الدستوري الديمقراطي الحاكم محمد الغرياني مؤخرا منظمة "مراسلون بلا حدود" بالانحياز وعدم الموضوعية.
وأشار إلى أن الحزب الحاكم يتعايش مع النقد البناء، لكنه يرفض المس بسيادة البلاد بدعوى الدفاع عن الحريات العامة، حسب قوله.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

In The News (ITN): Islamic World Newswire; Muslim World News

    7:26 AM   No comments
In The News (ITN): Islamic World Newswire; Muslim World News: "House to Vote on Resolution to Reject Goldstone Report
By Jeremy R. Hammond

November 02, 2009 'Information Clearing House' --- The U.S. House of Representatives will vote on Tuesday on a resolution calling on President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the ‘Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ in multilateral fora.”

Headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, a former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the U.N. report found that evidence indicates both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during Israel’s 22-day assault on the Gaza Strip, dubbed “Operation Cast Lead”, which began on December 27, 2008.

The report recommended that allegations of war crimes by both parties be investigated.

The current text of the proposed Congressional resolution, H. Res. 867, contains numerous factual inaccuracies, beginning with the assertion that the U.N. inquiry had “pre-judged” its findings and was “one-sidedly” mandated to “investigate all violations of international human rights law and International Humanitarian Law by . . . Israel, against the Palestinian people . . . particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression”.

The actual mandate adopted on April 3 was “to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.”

The quoted text is not from the April 3 mandate, but from U.N. General Assembly resolution S-9/1 on January 12, 2009, which resulted in the later appointment of the mission by the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

Also, omitted in the draft resolution’s reproduction of the text are the words “occupying Power” before “Israel”. Under international law, the occupying power is in fact obligated to investigate allegations of war crimes and violations of human rights.

The draft U.S. resolution states that the Goldstone report “makes no mention of the relentless rocket and mortar attacks, which numbered in the thousands and spanned a period of eight years, by Hamas and other violent militant groups in Gaza against civilian targets in Israel, that necessitated Israel’s defensive measures”.

But this criticism itself ignores the fact that even if Israel’s military operations were justifiable as “defensive measures”, Israel would still be legally obligated to conduct its operations in accordance with international law, and to conduct investigations into alleged war crimes conducted by its own forces.

The draft resolution also makes no mention of the relentless siege of Gaza by Israel, or the fact that Hamas had been strictly observing a cease-fire agreed to in June, only firing rockets after Israel had first violated that truce with repeated attacks against Gazans, a continuation of the crippling siege, and an airstrike and invasion of Gaza by Israeli forces on November 4 that ultimately resulted in the complete breakdown of the truce.

It also makes no mention of the fact that the Goldstone report contains a section dedicated to examining the impact of rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian militants on southern Israel, or that mission’s efforts to do so were impeded by Israel’s refusal to cooperate.

The draft resolution states that the U.N. mission “included a member who, before joining the mission, had already declared Israel guilty of committing atrocities in Operation Cast Lead by signing a public letter on January 11, 2009, published in the Sunday Times, that called Israel’s actions ‘war crimes’”.

That letter to the Sunday Times also stated, “We condemn the firing of rockets by Hamas into Israel and suicide bombings which are also contrary to international humanitarian law and are war crimes.”

But criticism of the Goldstone report on the similar basis that one of its members had beforehand declared Hamas guilty of war crimes is lacking in the draft resolution.

It calls the Goldstone report’s findings “that the Israeli military had deliberately attacked civilians during Operation Cast Lead” “unsubstantiated”. In fact, the 575 page report provides extensive documentation for its findings.

The draft resolution states that “the authors of the report, in the body of the report itself, admit that ‘we did not deal with the issues . . . regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas and second-guessing decisions made by soldiers and their commanding officers ‘ in the fog of war.’”

This is an outright fabrication. Those words do not in fact appear in the body of the actual report.

Those words actually come from an alleged e-mail from Richard Goldstone in which he explained why the U.N. report did not rely on a Colonel Kemp for its inquiry. The full text of the statement from that e-mail, replacing the part omitted in the draft resolution, reads “we did not deal with the issues he raised regarding the problems of conducting military operations in civilian areas…” (emphasis added).

The draft resolution states that Richard Goldstone had been quoted in the October 16 edition of the Jewish daily Forward as saying, “If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven”.

But omitted is the further context of that remark in the same article, which added, “He recalled his work as chief prosecutor for the international war crimes tribunal in Yugoslavia in 1994. When he began working, Goldstone was presented with a report commissioned by the U.N. Security Council based on what he said was a fact-finding mission similar to his own in Gaza.

“’We couldn’t use that report as evidence at all,’ Goldstone said. ‘But it was a useful roadmap for our investigators, for me as chief prosecutor, to decide where we should investigate. And that’s the purpose of this sort of report.”

The draft resolution asserts that the Goldstone report “in effect, denied the State of Israel the right to self-defense”, but offers no supporting evidence for this.

The Goldstone report found that “While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self-defence, the Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the people of Gaza as a whole.”

The draft resolution states that “the report usually considered public statements made by Israeli officials not to be credible, while frequently giving uncritical credence to statements taken from what it called the ‘Gaza authorities’, i.e. the Gaza leadership of Hamas”, but offers no examples from the report.

The report does, in fact, question the credibility of Israeli officials. It notes in one instance that “it considers the credibility of Israel’s position damaged by the series of inconsistencies, contradictions and factual inaccuracies in the statements justifying the attack.”

In another example illustrating Israel’s lack of credibility, it “acknowledges that significant efforts [were] made by Israel to issue warnings”, but that “The credibility of instructions to move to city centres for safety was also diminished by the fact that the city centres themselves had been the subject of intense attacks”.

The Goldstone report also observed that “By refusing to cooperate with the Mission, the Government of Israel prevented it from meeting Israeli Government officials, but also from travelling to Israel to meet Israeli victims and to the West Bank to meet Palestinian Authority representatives and Palestinian victims.”

The U.N. report also noted that “In establishing its findings, the Mission sought to rely primarily and whenever possible on information it gathered first-hand. Information produced by others, including reports, affidavits and media reports, was used primarily as corroboration.”

The draft resolution asserts that “notwithstanding a great body of evidence that Hamas and other violent Islamist groups committed war crimes by using civilians and civilian institutions, such as mosques, schools, and hospitals, as shields, the report repeatedly downplayed or cast doubt upon that claim”.

The “great body of evidence” is an apparent reference to remarks from Israeli officials found to be demonstrably lacking in credibility, which were commonly simply repeated by U.S. officials and the mainstream media.

The U.N. mission did examine “whether and to what extent the Palestinian armed groups violated their obligation to exercise care and take all feasible precaution to protect the civilian population in Gaza” and found that “Palestinian armed groups were present in urban areas during the military operations and launched rockets from urban areas”.

But it “found no evidence, however, to suggest that Palestinian armed groups either directed civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or that they forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of the attacks.”

While there is no evidence that Hamas deliberately used civilians as human shields, the Goldstone report “investigated four incidents in which the Israeli armed forces coerced Palestinian civilian men at gunpoint to take part in house searches during the military operations” and concluded “that this practice amounts to the Use of Palestinian civilians as human shields and is therefore prohibited by international humanitarian law.”

The draft resolution, besides calling upon the White House and State Department to reject the Goldstone report and its recommendations, also “reaffirms its support for the democratic, Jewish State of Israel, for Israel’s security and right to self-defense, and, specifically for Israel’s right to defend its citizens from violent militant groups and their state sponsors.”

It makes no similar mention of the right of Palestinians to security and self-defense from Israel and its U.S. sponsor.

Human rights groups, including the Israeli organization B’Tselem, have called upon the international community to implement its recommendation that suspected violations of international law be investigated.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23864.htm"

Monday, November 2, 2009

Les élections sont une pure mascarade

    10:51 AM   No comments
http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/Tunisie-Les-elections-sont-une,6706


7 octobre 09 - L’avocate tunisienne Radhia Nasraoui dénonce la répression et la torture du régime du président Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. Les élections présidentielle et législatives se tiennent le 25 octobre prochain.
Frédéric Koller/Le Temps - Cela fait vingt-deux ans que Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali dirige la Tunisie. Et de l’avis de tous les observateurs, la campagne électorale (présidentielle et législatives) qui débute en fin de semaine se soldera le 25 octobre prochain par un mandat supplémentaire de cinq années. « C’est une pure mascarade, l’opposition est verrouillée, la presse muselée, le droit de réunion suspendu », explique l’avocate tunisienne Radhia Nasraoui. La présidente de l’Association de lutte contre la torture en Tunisie, de passage à Genève, qualifie la situation dans son pays de « pire que jamais, pire encore que sous la dictature de Bourguiba ».

Mari tabassé

Hamma Hammami, le porte-parole du Parti communiste des ouvriers de Tunisie, et époux de Radhia Nasraoui, a ainsi été tabassé par la police la semaine passée alors qu’il posait le pied sur le tarmac de l’aéroport de Tunis. Son crime ? Il venait d’appeler au boycott des élections dans une interview accordée à Al-Jazira et France 24 lors d’un déplacement à Paris. La Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l’homme (FIDH) regrette qu’« une fois encore les voix dissidentes soient systématiquement rappelées à l’ordre et que le pouvoir en place n’hésite pas à recourir à tous les moyens, y compris à la violence ».

Parmi les neuf partis en lice pour les législatives, seul le parti de Ben Ali a pu valider ses listes dans l’ensemble des circonscriptions du pays. L’opposant Mustapha Ben Jaafar, fondateur du Forum démocratique pour le travail et les libertés, a pour sa part été écarté de la course. Il a appelé lundi à voter pour le « seul candidat sérieux » de l’opposition, Ahmed Brahim, le chef d’Ettajdid (Renouveau, ex-communiste).

Radhia Nasraoui estime que « plusieurs centaines de prisonniers politiques » croupissent dans les geôles de Ben Ali. Parmi eux des militants de gauche, des syndicalistes et « beaucoup de jeunes qualifiés de salafistes ou terroristes ». Les conditions de détention seraient très dures : « Toute personne arrêtée en Tunisie est torturée. La torture est quotidienne, c’est une méthode de gouvernement. Elle est destinée à obtenir des aveux, à terroriser, à casser les opposants. »

Soutien de Sarkozy à Ben Ali

Selon la militante des droits de l’homme, cette lutte affichée contre le « terrorisme » assure à Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali une impunité aux yeux de l’Occident. « En Tunisie, on dit que sans le soutien des Etats-Unis, de la France et de l’Italie, Ben Ali n’aurait jamais été au pouvoir. »

Aujourd’hui, l’avocate, qui est membre de l’ordre, ne se sent plus protégée contre les violences policières. La raison ? « Les médias occidentaux ne parlent plus de nous, ni de la répression. Il y a un vrai changement depuis l’arrivée de Nicolas Sarkozy au pouvoir. Sarkozy soutient à fond Ben Ali. Sarkozy veut contrôler les médias, donc il n’autorise pas les chaînes françaises à en parler. » La militante reconnaît qu’il y a encore des exceptions, comme France 3. Mais du coup, les Tunisiens se tournent de plus en plus vers Al-Jazira ou YouTube pour entendre une autre voix.





Most popular articles


Karama Videos



Search for old news

Find Articles by year, month hierarchy

Contact Us

Name

Email *

Message *

_______________________________________________

Copyright © KARAMA. All rights reserved.