Tuesday, December 30, 2008
What's so bad about Dieudonné?
Labels: France, Human mistake, Judaism
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
France: UN Calls for Counterterrorism Reform, by Noémie Cournoyer
France should urgently carry out recommendations from a top United Nations human rights body critical of its approach to counterterrorism, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to the French government.
“The UN has given France a roadmap to bring its counterterrorism policies into line with human rights requirements,” said Jean-Marie Fardeau, director of Human Rights Watch’s Paris office. “France sees itself as a leader on human rights. It should demonstrate that leadership by moving promptly to implement the findings of the UN’s key rights body.”
In a report issued following an in-depth review in July 2008, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern that France’s counterterrorism policies do not fully comply with international fair trial standards and that they put individuals at risk of being returned to nations where they could be subject to torture. The committee, composed of internationally recognized experts, assesses compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Among the problems highlighted in its report on France are:
Lack of appropriate safeguards during police custody. Terrorism suspects can be held in police custody for up to six days before being brought before a judge. They can be held for up to 72 hours before being given access to a lawyer. Like other criminal suspects in France, they are not informed of their right to remain silent under questioning. Research by Human Rights Watch has found that the lack of safeguards means that terrorism suspects in France are often subject to oppressive questioning in police custody.
Lengthy pre-trial detention. Terrorism suspects can be detained for up to four years and eight months before trial. “[T]he institutionalized practice of extended detention for investigative purposes … is difficult to reconcile with the right guaranteed in the Covenant to be tried within a reasonable time,” the committee said in its report.
Inadequate protection against removal to risk of ill-treatment. There is no provision to suspend automatically an order for deportation in national security cases when an appeal is filed, even when individuals allege that they face torture or ill-treatment in the destination country. Another UN body, the Committee against Torture, has twice criticized France since 2005 for deporting individuals who had raised fear of torture on return before their appeals had been fully examined.
“This criticism from the UN tarnishes France’s leadership on counterterrorism and its global efforts to promote respect for human rights,” said Fardeau. “If France listens to the UN and implements its recommendations, it can strengthen its position on both counts. Parliament can also help by monitoring the process.”
Similar concerns about France’s human rights safeguards in its approach to the prosecution of terrorism offenses were expressed during the May 2008 examination of France’s human rights record under the newly established universal periodic review procedure at the UN Human Rights Council.
The Human Rights Committee’s recommendations to the French government include:
Providing any suspect ordered to be forcibly removed from France with time to file for asylum, the services of a translator and a guarantee that the removal order will be suspended until the process is completed.
Informing anyone arrested on a criminal charge, including terrorism suspects, of the right to remain silent and providing a right to see a lawyer immediately. The suspect should be promptly brought before a judge.
Limiting pre-trial detention and strengthening the authority of the judges who determine whether to place someone in detention awaiting trial.
The Human Rights Committee also expressed concern about a recent law allowing detention of certain former violent offenders for one-year renewable periods after they have served their prison sentence, concluding that it called into question the right to the presumption of innocence and the right not to be punished twice for the same crime. The Committee recommended that the law be re-examined in light of France’s obligations under the ICCPR.
Labels: France, Human Rights Watch, Noémie Cournoyer, UN
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Living standing or lying, by Richard Martineau
Journal de Montréal
12/07/2008 08h12
Yesterday, readers have reported the publication of two texts that show how two countries in Europe react to the issue of "reasonable" accommodation.
On the one hand, there is a country that stands (France). On the other hand, a country that drops his pants, gets on all fours and provides the lubricant (England).
The example french
The first text, which has been reported by Ms. Celine Clement, was published yesterday in the newspaper Le Monde.
Title: A Moroccan a burqa is denied French nationality.
"A 32-year-old Moroccan, married to a French mother of three children born in France, has just been denied citizenship on the grounds that it adopted the name of a radical practice of their religion, behaviour in society incompatible with the core values of the French community, including the principle of gender equality.
"For the first time in France, the Council of State took into account the level of religious practice to determine the assimilative capacity of a foreign person." According to the government commissioner, the lady in question leads a life of seclusion. She has no idea on secularism or the right to vote. She lives in total submission to men of his family.
"For the Commissioner, this attitude shows the lack of adherence to certain fundamental values of French society ..."
The English example
The second text, which has been reported by Luc Fradette, was published on July 6 in the Sunday Times of London.
Title: The British police dogs will receive training to make them more sensitive to Islam.
" The sniffer dogs of the British police will now wear smaller boots when they participate in excavations in houses belonging to Muslims, so as not to insult their religion.
A report prepared by the Association of Chiefs of Police says that police will have to show sensitivity towards the Muslim religion when they carry out research to find drugs and explosives.
In order not to insult Muslims, police will use sniffer dogs in exceptional circumstances only. Indeed, the Muslim religion forbids contacts with dogs, which they see as dirty ... "
The Islamists capital
It is often said that France and England are the parents of Quebec.
What attitude do you believe should inspire Quebec in the case of accommodations? The firm stance of France or the submission attitude of England?
For years, England plays the card of complacency, saying: "The more you are nice to extremists, the more they are kind to us and the better they fit ..."
But what it gave them? Rien. Nothing. Londres est devenue la capitale des islamistes. London has become the capital of the Islamists. Les Anglais ont tellement peur de passer pour racistes qu'ils n'osent plus rien dire. The English are so afraid to go for racist they no longer dare to say anything.
Even walk their dogs on the tip of feet ...
Two differences ...
According to agencies fight against sexual assault, timing Molson, which shows pretty girls in small holding is sexist. OK, maybe.
But as I wrote one reader, Gilles Boutin, why not condemn does not on the schedule of firefighters, then?
The sight of a pitoune be more shocking than a peak?
Labels: Arab World, France, Islam, Richard Martineau, Secularism
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]