Alternatives International

Justice on the Horizon for Blacklisted Workers

Jillian Ward — 2012-09-03T16:00:41Z

Recent developments in a British blacklisting scandal may finally bring justice to UK construction workers. The shocking series of events began in 2009 with the discovery of a database on workers which effectively restricted the listed individuals from employment in the construction industry. This summer has seen the victims' most successful retaliatory campaign yet; a high court claim in June against construction giant Sir Robert McAlpine, a former subscriber to the database, may amount to £600 million in payouts. The UK civil rights organization Liberty is now demanding the prosecution of all firms who participated in the database and urging the British Information Commissioner Office (ICO) to make the blacklist public.

Rumors of a blacklist of "troublesome" employees have circulated the British construction industry for decades. They were confirmed in 2009 when the ICO raided the offices of the Consulting Association, a Droitwich-based organization which maintained a database on over 3,000 workers. The database contained records mostly on trade unionists or people who had raised concerns about pay, health or safety with their employer. Individuals' files contained information concerning their physical description, their family and relationships, and their presence at union meetings and in left-wing newspapers.

The owner of the Consulting Association, Ian Kerr, was charged for violating data protection laws and fined £5,000 upon the discovery of the unlawful information. Details of what the database contained emerged on a case-by-case basis as individuals who thought they might have been blacklisted investigated their situation. In March 2012, only 600 of the 3,200 names on the blacklist had asked the ICO for a copy of their file.

Health and safety critics were especially targeted, such as engineer Dave Smith whose case proved an important turning point in the scandal. Smith's earnings dropped from £36,000 in 1999 to £12,000 in 2001, forcing him to leave the industry in a time of economic prosperity and demand for skilled workers. The events led him to question whether he had been blacklisted, and after the ICO raid he sought the recovery of his own personal file and an employment tribunal against construction giant Carillion.

His file, released by the ICO, totals thirty six pages. In an interview with Hazards Magazine, Smith said his entire file "relates to safety," containing "page after page of concerns about asbestos, near fatal accidents, [and] god awful toilet facilities." Smith lost his claim for compensation because he was an agency worker not directly employed by Carillion. Smith's tribunal, although unsuccessful, revealed police and MI5 involvement in the blacklisting. In an interview about Smith's case with the Observer, investigations manager at the ICO David Clancy said that "there is information on the Consulting files that I believe could only be supplied by the police or the security services."

According to Clancy, communication between the Consulting Association and police and security services probably began in the 1990s. At this time Ian Kerr operated a similar organization called the "Economic League" which was shut down in 1993. Clancy speculates that the state began liaising with Kerr to gather information on Irish construction workers in fear of Irish Republican Army (IRA) terrorism. Furthermore, many blacklisted workers say they were included in the database because they pointed out health and safety concerns in the workplace, which they say are bypassed by companies to increase profits. MP John McDonnel describes this situation as a "collusion between police, security services and companies" that demonstrates the "ability of companies to exploit workers and destroy anybody who stands up against them."

In the three years since the blacklist was discovered, only three people have won their claims at full employment tribunals. However, the past few months have witnessed unforeseen progress for blacklisted workers with the help of bodies such as the Blacklist Support Group (BSG). With the support of BSG, 86 of the 3,400 workers in the database launched a high court claim this July against Sir Robert McAlpine, the Tory donor and builder of the Olympic Stadium, for "tort of unlawful conspiracy." The workers are being represented by Queen's Counsel Hugh Tomlinson, barrister for the victims of the phone-hacking scandal which closed down the News of the World. The initial claim for loss of earnings and damages is expected at £17 million, but many other victims are expected to add their names to the claim, raising the value of payouts to an estimated £600 million.

The information accumulated for the Sir Robert McAlpine case, including files recovered from the Consulting Association in 2009, could go towards a civil claim against the police and MI5 for their potential involvement with the blacklisting. The victims are also compiling a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission about collusion with the Consulting Association.

In light of this summer's legal action, the British trade union GMB alongside London-based civil rights group Liberty are calling for the Information Commissioner Office to launch a broad investigation into the blacklist. In an interview with Union News last week, Liberty's legal officer Corinna Ferguson outlined ideas for an investigation into the blacklisting. She points out that since the minor legal action taken against Ian Kerr in 2009, there has been little prosecution of the companies who used and contributed to the blacklist. The only companies punished were those who admitted their involvement; their penalty was to stop the unlawful behaviour in the future. Ferguson believes separate investigations into those companies' practices is "the first thing [...] the Information Commissioner could do" since "there is at the very least an arguable case that they breached the data protection act in a serious way."

Both Liberty and GMB Union are also pushing for the blacklist to be rendered public. This August, Liberty sent a letter to Information Commissioner Sir Christopher Graham, whom it understand holds a complete copy of the database, urging him to make it accessible to those included in it. The letter calls upon Graham to use his Data Protection and Human Rights Acts powers that have been disregarded since the beginning of the scandal. Chris Benson, a Partner in the law firm Leigh Day & Co who is coordinating GMB Union's legal actions, thinks the "information commissioner should be far more proactive and make people aware their names have been included in this list rather than wait for victims to contact them." Since the ICO "has the information at their disposal," it should be their responsibility to "ensure that those who may have been out of work for many years [...] are told about their inclusion on this list and be enabled to do something about it." According to Corinna Ferguson, Liberty will consider launching a judicial review at the high court in London to get the files opened up if they cannot persuade the Commissioner to do so. The Information Commissioner's Office said it has received Liberty's letter and will respond in due course.

Prospective legal action by Liberty and GMB Union could remunerate the victims of blacklisting and penalize the contributors and users of the database. The cooperation of the Information Commissioner, however, is essential to this process and awaits to be seen.

Human Rights in the Occupied Territories: B'Tselem's 2011 Report

Jillian Ward — 2012-08-01T16:55:58Z

The NGO B'Tselem, which calls itself ‘The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories', released its annual report in March 2012. The sixty-three page document provides a broad overview of the Israeli authorities' human rights record in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the past year. The report provides an insight into both the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the media debate surrounding it.

Entering its forty-fifth year, coverage of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories has generated a plethora of criticism from government, media, and NGO watchdog groups. While many try to provide fair and balanced coverage, bias is almost always evident when reporting on this situation.

Politically-charged motives of different countries, organizations and individuals are apparent in all forms of media they produce. According to a 2001 study by FAIR, only four percent of US media included the word ‘occupation' when reporting on clashes between Israelis and Palestinians. Without this context, US media uses an omission of information to reinforce the view that any Palestinian retaliation is an offensive attack. British media, on the other hand, has been praised for its accurate reporting of the conflict. B'Tselem is often the choice source material for such commentary—in 2011 alone, the organization was mentioned in local and international media over one thousand times.

Established by prominent academics, journalists, attorneys, and Knesset members, B'Tselem seeks to stand out as an objective authority whose sole goal is to protect individuals. As stated on their website, B'Tselem's mission is to ‘document and educate the Israeli public and policy-makers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories'. In doing so, the organization hopes to ‘change Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories and ensure that its government [...] protects the human rights of residents there [...] under international law'.

In its 2011 report, B'Tselem notes an increase in the number of uninvolved Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip. The document also shows an increase in the number of Israelis killed by Palestinians compared to the previous year. Hundreds of documented incidents of violence against Palestinians and harassment of Palestinians by Israeli security forces are also presented.

Crucially, the report demonstrates Israel's failure in particular situations to upkeep the notion of state protection of the individual. A potent passage from the 2011 report reminds the reader that ‘one of the principal functions of any government is to enforce the law and protect the life, limb, and property of people under its jurisdiction. Israel, being the occupier in the West Bank, is responsible for the area's Palestinian residents, whom international law classifies as protected persons.' Heart-wrenching stories of individuals negatively affected by occupation scatter the pages. They demonstrate both the misclassification of Palestinians in Occupied Territories as protected peoples as well as B'Tselem's veritable actions hoping to improve their situation. For example, B'Tselem demanded a criminal investigation into the death of Omar al-Qawasmeh, who was unlawfully shot to death in his bed, mistaken for another man wanted by the Israeli military. In this way, B'Tselem admirably brings lawfulness to families who would otherwise have no form of legal justice under occupation.

The report also examines Israel's counter-terrorism efforts and their legitimacy under international law. In a prominent example, the report describes the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) bombing of a Hamas weapons warehouse in a residential neighborhood in Gaza. Although both the location of the warehouse and the attack on it were unlawful, more blame is placed on the IDF for not preventing harm to civilians. The bombing was carried out at night without warning, resulting in the death of innocent Palestinians.

Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor has accused B'Tselem of pursuing a pro-Palestinian political agenda, seen primarily as a reflection of its European funding. The organization points out that B'Tselem downplays genuine Israeli security concerns in its research. Checkpoints, for example, are described purely as a detriment to Palestinian life, and not at all as a means of preventing attacks against Israeli civilians. On the other hand, NGO Monitor has itself been accused of bias, characterized as pro-Israel by The Economist amongst others.

In response to criticism advanced by NGO Monitor and the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), B'Tselem issues rebuttals based on its own research alongside statistics from the Israeli army and international organizations. However, B'Tselem's Palestinian-centered focus does shine through by means of diction and omission in the 2011 report. NGO Monitor's accusation about bias in the description of security checkpoints can indeed be observed. The report describes only offenses against Palestinians carried out by Israelis at the checkpoints, and not their benefit towards the security of Israel.

Although B'Tselem claims to strive towards an admirable goal, it lies within a vicious cycle of blame for being biased—alongside even the most prominent humanitarian agencies acting in the region. The UN and Amnesty International have been criticized for presenting Israel in a negative light. According to UN Watch, from 2004-2005 the UN General Assembly passed nineteen resolutions concerning Israel. During this period, not a single resolution was passed about Sudan, where a genocide was occurring in the region of Darfur.

B'Tselem's goals and actions are no doubt humanitarian in nature, but leave open the question as to whether an unbiased human rights agency can operate in such a conflict.

B'Tselem's annual report can be found here:

http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20120321_2011_annual_report

Japanese PM Noda Orders Restart of Nuclear Reactors

Jillian Ward — 2012-07-01T22:06:00Z

On June 8th Japanese Prime Minister Yohishiko Noda made a televised appeal for two nuclear reactors of the Ohi nuclear plant to be reopened in order to maintain the country's economic vitality and national security.

All 54 of the country's nuclear reactors were deactivated following the Fukushima crisis of March 2011, but Noda now insists that restarting the reactors is both imperative and safe. The reactors are deemed necessary for the maintenance of the country's overall economy, especially during the traditional peak in energy use during the hot summer months. Reactors at the Ohi plant in the central Fukui prefecture are expected to be restarted on July 1st.

The Prime Minister's announcement has been met with widespread public discontent. On June 29th, about 10,000 protestors gathered outside Noda's office. Although public approval is not needed to restart the reactors, Oda's uncharacteristic television appearance was no doubt intended to gain popular support. During the ten-minute speech, he asked the Japanese people to harness their fear in the face of disaster in order to maintain their standard of living. Japanese attitudes towards nuclear energy, however, remain hardened since the meltdowns at the Fukushima power plant, which saw the worst nuclear crisis since the Chernobyl disaster. When Japan's last reactor was turned off in May, thousands took to the streets in celebration. Their victory, however, has been short-lived.

Public concerns are well founded ; Japan is extremely prone to earthquakes and security improvements in nuclear plants remain hazy. A recent investigation has shown there is a 70% chance of a magnitude-7 earthquake striking the Tokyo metropolitan area within the next four years, and a 98% chance over the next thirty years. The earthquake in March 2011 that caused the Fukushima crisis was a magnitude-9. Safety improvements also remain inadequate due to conflicts between the government and the nation's nuclear utilities over which safety enhancements should be implemented first - and how quickly. In the best scenario, security updates could take until 2015. Security improvements are constricted by the state-dependent nature of the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency, which currently lies within the trade ministry. Opposition parties fear that Noda could use the agency as cover in the official re-opening of the reactors. The creation of the agency has thus been slow due to requests to make it more independent than originally proposed. Demands include legal guarantees and independence in staffing, budget and regulatory powers.

Before announcing the re-opening of the Ohi plant, the Prime Minister also met with the minister of economy, the minister in charge of the nuclear accident at Fukushima, and the chief cabinet secretary. The authorization of the local governor - the only one remaining in order to secure the re-start of the reactors - was obtained in mid-June. The Governor of the Fukui prefecture, Kazumasa Nishikawa, agreed to re-open the plant because, as he told reporters, he was both ‘assured of the government's safety efforts' and is determined to ‘help stabilise livelihoods and industry'.

The unanticipated shutdown of Japan's nuclear power plants has indeed caused an energy shortage and the country's largest trade deficit in three decades. So far, Japan's energy demand has been met by imports of fossil fuels and other energy sources. According to Noda, however this import solution is no longer sustainable due to the energy demands of a sweltering summer. High-profile politician Toru Hasimoto, mayor of Osaka, says he supports turning on the reactors for the summer months only.

Mr Noda, on the other hand, not only sees the opening of the reactors as crucial for the summer, but for the long-term economic well-being of Japan. The re-opening of power plants would help stimulate employment, large corporations, and businesses. Yukio Edano, spokesman for former Prime Minister Naoto Kan, now endorses re-opening the plants due to energy shortages suffered by Japan's major corporations. If the reactors were left offline, warns Edano, operations would have to be taken offshore, leaving tens of thousands of Japanese workers unemployed.

However, the economic consequences of a restart are not one-sided. Re-opening the plants creates the risk of another radiation leak and even deeper economic difficulties. According to Japan's welfare ministry, around 20% of Fukushima's earthquake survivors are either still unemployed or have become discouraged workers. Additionally, both Toshiba and Sony blame their dramatic declines in profits on disruptions caused by the earthquake, as well as the euro zone crisis and unfavourable exchange rates. The re-opening of the plants is therefore a risky investment given the country's economic and environmental climate.

Furthermore, the announcement has already damaged a growing tourism industry. Prior to the announcement, Ohi was an emerging tourist hot-spot. Since Mr Noda's formal announcement, the summer reservations at one inn close to the Ohi plant are at one-tenth of their regular levels.

According to a recent poll by Jiji news agency, just under half of the Japanese population is against the move to restart the Ohi reactors. Kansai, the large urban region traditionally fueled by Ohi, has been warned of energy shortages during the summer. If the reactors are left offline and the region survives the hot months without blackouts, the public will see that nuclear and business lobby threats have been unfounded. Noda has excellent timing. If he can convince the Japanese public of the need for these two reactors, perhaps his sensitive campaign to turn on other reactors will progress smoothly. Japan's nuclear reactors will, in this way, be a testament to the strength of an aggressive government - or the resilience of the public.