Amnesty International Report Attacks Anti-terror Laws

Amnesty International today accused armed groups and the British government, among others, of eroding human rights and creating an increasingly polarized world.

In its annual report, the London-based human rights group said Britain was damaging the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary - particularly in relation to its anti-terror legislation.

It castigated governments for their "fear-mongering and divisive policies" that undermined the rule of law and sowed the seeds for more violence and conflict.

The secretary general of Amnesty, Irene Khan, called on governments to reject the politics of fear and invest in human rights institutions and the rule of law at the national and international level.

Amnesty also criticized armed groups that continued to thrive in countries such as Sri Lanka and Iraq. It said such groups committed gross human rights abuses with impunity, safe in the knowledge that the international community would not curb their activities.

The group also cited the "war on terror" and the war in Iraq for creating deep divisions, making it more difficult to resolve conflicts and protect civilians.

"Nothing more aptly portrayed the globalization of human rights violations than the US-led 'war on terror' and its program of 'extraordinary renditions', which implicated governments in countries as far apart as Italy and Pakistan, Germany and Kenya," Ms Khan said.

Amnesty said the US had suffered a loss of moral authority because of the invasion of Iraq on dubious grounds, limiting its ability to put pressure on countries such as Sudan over the genocide in Darfur, where an estimated 200,000 people have died.

"When Sudan initially rejected a peace-keeping force, it made comparisons to the US invasion of Iraq," said Widney Brown, a policy director at Amnesty. "When a government pursues war on questionable grounds, it allows others to exploit the same kind of subterfuge."

Amnesty said the Sudanese government was running rings around the UN, with the security council hampered by distrust and double-dealing by its most powerful members.

Its criticisms of Britain focused on the Terrorism Act 2006, which doubled, to 28 days, the length of time terror suspects could be detained without charge.

"Some of its provisions were inconsistent with fundamental human rights," the report said.

It also criticized the government's emphasis on deporting terror suspects, or placing them under control orders, rather than subjecting them to criminal prosecution.

On Zimbabwe, Amnesty criticized its president Robert Mugabe for using fear of Britain, the former colonial power, to justify repressive policies.

Amnesty cited as an example the arrest of several union leaders last September as they attempted to stage a peaceful demonstration about worsening economic conditions.

Reports said all 15 were tortured and eight had the soles of their feet beaten, which causes permanent problems with walking. One union figure, Lucia Matinbenga, was beaten so badly that one of her eardrums was perforated.

On Europe, Amnesty said European politicians played upon fears of uncontrolled immigration to justify tougher measures against asylum-seekers and refugees in western Europe, while migrant workers were left unprotected and exploited around the world.

"Increasing polarization and heightened fears about national security reduced the space for tolerance and dissent. Around the world, from Iran to Zimbabwe, many independent voices on human rights were silenced in 2006," Ms Khan said.

As positives Amnesty cited: the upcoming trial at The Hague of Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, for war crimes; the growing insistence on the right to criticize governments in the Middle East; and investigations into renditions by several European countries.