EUROPEAN GROUP FOR THE STUDY OF
DEVIANCE AND SOCIAL CONTROL
ESTABLISHED 1973
Coordinator: Emma Bell
Secretary: Monish Bhatia
SPRING NEWSLETTER I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Annual
Conference
Tallinn 2015
Call for Papers:
EXTENDED DEADLINE!
Assisted Places:
EXTENDED DEADLINE!
Accommodation
REGISTRATION
II. European Group
News
Crimes of the Powerful
Working Group Event
Call for Papers: European
Group Journal
III. Comment &
Analysis
Rachel Seoighe
discusses the United
Kingdom’s removal
practices with respect to
failed asylum seekers
IV. News from
France
Europe and
Germany
around the world UK
USA
International
I. European Group Conference
Social Divisions, Surveillance and the Security State
43rd Annual Conference of the European Group for the Study of
Deviance and Social Control
26th - 29th August 2015
Faculty of Law
University of Tartu
Tallinn
Estonia
CALL FOR PAPERS
Despite the existence of widespread public discourse about equality and human rights,
social, racial, sexual, ethnic, religious, political and economic divisions continue to mark
societies across the globe. In many countries, these divisions have even widened under
the pressure of competing nationalist and populist discourses which highlight
difference rather than common humanity. Today, new technologies of surveillance are
used on both a national and supra-national level to classify, segregate and control all
those who are thought to threaten the mythical cohesion and security of nation-states.
Whilst it was thought that the end of the Cold War and the spread of globalisation would
lead to the erosion of boundaries of all kinds, on the contrary old boundaries are being
rebuilt and new ones created. These boundaries have spread far beyond the traditional
borders of nation state as surveillance and security have come to dominate the agendas
of international organisations.
This conference will be particularly interested in exploring the rise of security
obsessions on a micro and macro level, examining what the future holds in terms of
surveillance practices. It will look at the consequences of these trends in terms of
exacerbating social divisions. It will seek to examine forms of resistance and to propose
practical ways out of the current security impasse. As has traditionally been the case
with European Group conferences, the conference will connect with local problems and
activist groups. Papers connecting the conference theme with local issues in Eastern
Europe will be particularly welcome.
Academics, activists and all those targeted by mechanisms of state control and
segregation (people in prison, migrants, people who have come into conflict with the
police etc.) are encouraged to participate.
We welcome papers on the themes below which reflect the general values and
principles of the European Group.
Further information on the 43rd annual conference may be found at
http://www.europeangroup.org/?q=node/3. Please submit all abstracts by 31 May 2015 to
the email contact provided under the stream you wish to present at. PLEASE NOTE: This
deadline will not be extended. For all general enquiries please contact Anna Markina at
anna.markina@ut.ee. For questions about the European Group, please contact the current coordinator, Emma Bell at europeangroupcoordinator@gmail.com.
Processes of Violence and
Victimisation
Contact: Alejandro Forero
Email: aleforero@ub.edu
and Rita Faria
Email: rfaria@direito.up.pt



Surveillance futures
Contact: Alberto Testa
Email: alberto.testa@outlook.com
Assisting: Maryja Supa/ Steve
Wright





Futures of social control
Extra-national surveillance
Fortress Europe
Dataveillance and data flow
Social sorting
The rise of the security state
Contact: Paddy Rawlinson
Email:
paddy.rawlinson@monash.edu
Assisting: Georgios Papanicolaou,
Francesca Vianello, John Moore,
Scott Poynting, Luca Follis, Antonio
Munoz





Imperialism/post-colonialism
The harms of policing
State-corporate control
Incarceration and control
Governance and security
Social divisions and
classification
Contact: Monish Bhatia
Email: m.bhatia@abertay.ac.uk
Assisting: Tunde Zack-Williams/
Andrea Beckmann



The demonisation of young people
The criminalisation of poverty
Gendered critiques of the application of criminal
law and criminal /social policy
Identity, diversity and criminalisation
Immigration control
Resistance and radical
alternatives
Contact: Gilles Chantraine
Email: gilles.chantraine@univlille1.fr
Assisting: Samantha Fletcher,
Nicolas Carrier
Policing and Security Working
Group Stream
Contact: Georgios Papanicolaou
Assisting: Will Jackson, Waqas
Tufail, Joanna Gilmore
E-mail:
g.papanicolaou@tees.ac.uk
















Global crime
State-corporate crime
The social and environmental harms of neoliberal
capitalism
Collective harms
Gendered harm
Abolitionist approaches
Unsilencing the silenced
Collective action and collective resistance
The new politics of the Left
Legacies of radical thinking about the police
Capitalism, pacification and the police
Democratizing the police: problems and prospects
Organisational change: beyond militarism and
bureaucratism in policing
Alternatives to policing
Activist and community resistance movements:
possibilities for autogestion in security
Challenging for-profit policing
experiences and prospects of security cooperatives
Photography: Gen Vagula (www.genvagula.com)
ASSISTED PLACES
Please note that there will be at least one assisted place available for the conference. This will
be allocated in priority to applicants who meet some / all of the below criteria:
* Does not have a tenured position in academia or has no means of providing alternative
means of support through employment schemes.
* An MA / PhD student / part-time member of staff who is ineligible for university
department/school/faculty funding to attend conferences.
* Is confronted with other significant difficulties which would merit special support to
attend the conference.
* Is currently undertaking research or activism in an area that reflects the themes and
values of the European Group
* Is planning to deliver a paper at the conference on a theme that reflects the work of
Stan Cohen. It may, for example, reflect on the concept of moral panic, social control, the
psychological impact of atrocities and imprisonment…
The deadline for applications is 30th April. PLEASE NOTE: This deadline will not be
extended. Those wishing to apply should write a 150-300 word statement in support of
their application. A copy of the conference paper abstract should also be included in the
submission. The conference place is free and the European Group will help support
travel and accommodation costs. Please send all applications and enquiries to Emma
Bell: europeangroupcoordinator@gmail.com
ACCOMMODATION
Rooms have been pre-booked at the following hotels for four nights (arriving 25th
August, leaving 29th August). In order to guarantee your place, you will need to reserve
one month before the conference at the very latest.
Nordic Hotel Forum (upscale) (upscale) 105€/room/night.
Viru väljak 3, Tallinn, Estonia
15 min walk from the university
Tallink City Hotel (mid-range) 60€/room/night
15 min walk from the university, just 100 m form the Nordic Hotel Forum.
Park Inn by Radisson Central Tallinn (mid-range) 65€/room/night
17 min walk from the university
See our website for more details: http://www.europeangroup.org/?q=node/47
CONFIRMED SPEAKERS
Kristina Kallas from the Institute of Baltic Studies (http://www.ibs.ee/en) and active
member of the Estonian Refugee Council (http://www.pagulasabi.ee/en/about-us)
Monika Platek, Professor of Law, Warsaw University, Poland.
May-Len Skilbrei, Professor, Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law, University of
Oslo.
REGISTRATION
Conference registration is now open. To register, please go to the conference page on our
website (secure payment with Paypal) at: http://www.europeangroup.org/?q=node/3 Please
note that any profits will go directly into European Group funds.
Please note that we have three different rates this year. The funded rate of 250€ is for those
who will receive funding from their institutions to attend the conference. The rate of 150€ is for
those who have no institutional funding but are nonetheless in employment. The 60€ rate is for
the unwaged, seniors (over 65s without institutional funding), students and activists. ALL rates
include lunches, coffee breaks and the conference dinner. Please note that those delegates who
wish to bring a friend/partner along to the conference dinner may purchase an extra place for
40€. Please choose your meal options when booking. Registration will be open until 31st May
but please book your places as soon as possible to facilitate conference organisation.
II. European Group News
CRIMES OF THE POWERFUL WORKING GROUP EVENT
Crimes of the Powerful Working group: Launch Event Friday 5th June 2015 at
Abertay University, Dundee
We are pleased to announce that this year we will be launching the Crimes of the
Powerful working group with a 1 day conference 9.30am (until approx. 6pm) on Friday
5th June 2015 at Abertay University, Dundee. The event will include a series of panels, Q
and As and workshops entitled:
-
Crimes of the Power: Where are we now?
-
Researching the Crimes of the Powerful
-
Resisting and Contesting the Crimes of the Powerful
We are delighted to be able to confirm the following speakers: Monish Bhatia (Abertay
University) Graham Campbell (Secretary of the Ethnic Minority Civic Congress Scotland
and Convener of Black Lives Matter, Glasgow), Victoria Canning (The Open University)
Hazel Croall (Emeritus Professor of Criminology), Will Jackson (LJMU), Tobias Kelly
(The University of Edinburgh), Helen Monk (LJMU) and Steve Tombs (The Open
University) with additional speaker announcements forthcoming from various
academic institutions and activist groups.
The event will also include the development of the draft Crimes of the Powerful
Working Group Manifesto through contributions from attendees on the day, which was
kindly drafted by Steve Tombs (Open University) and David Whyte (University of
Liverpool) last year. To summarise some of the key aims of the group at this initial
stage:
The Crimes of the Powerful working group seeks to provide a network and database for
teachers, researchers, students and activists across and beyond Europe who have an
interest studying and confronting corporate and state crimes and harms – in their various
forms. The working group will provide an opportunity to share our knowledge of
corporate and state harm and help establish new links with activists and academics who
critically engage with the current forms, extent and nature of such crimes and harms. The
working group will thus provide an opportunity to connect local campaigns with a wider
network through which we can collectively provide solidarity and support. The working
group also aims to foster a greater understanding of criminal and harmful corporate and
state activities; offer possibilities for collaborative research; and work towards
emancipatory change.
Please note that the event is free but we would ask that you please register your
attendance through the Eventbrite web address which will be circulated, alongside a full
schedule of the day, via the EG mailing list and Facebook group within the next week or
so.
If you have an queries at this initial stage please do not hesitate to ask by emailing:
Any queries relating to the Crimes of the Powerful Working Group to:
Samantha Fletcher e: samantha.fletcher@staffs.ac.uk
Any queries relating to the event venue including questions about travel and
accommodation to:
Monish Bhatia e: m.bhatia@abertay.ac.uk
With very best wishes
Samantha (Fletcher) and Jessica (Dietzler) Co-ordinators for the inaugural meeting for
the Working Group for the study of the Crimes of the Powerful c/o European Group for
the Study of Deviance and Social Control and Monish (Bhatia) Secretary for the
European Group for the Study of Deviance and Social Control
CALL FOR PAPERS: EUROPEAN GROUP JOURNAL
The European Group for the Study of Deviance and Social Control will launch its very
first peer-reviewed international journal in summer 2016. It will publish high quality
original essays, book reviews, and scholarly and creative narratives whilst providing a
platform for the voices of activists and people embroiled within state institutions.
Following the work of Erik Olin Wright (2010), the first issue of the journal will be
dedicated to the theme of non-penal ‘real utopias’. Wrights’ (2010) real utopia draws
upon the insights of Marxist and Anarchist philosophies to visualise historically
immanent radical alternatives to current manifestations of repression, domination and
exploitation. Building upon the long tradition of penal abolitionism (Christie, Hulsman,
Mathiesen) we would particularly welcome papers exploring feasible alternatives to
incarceration and other contemporary penal practices which respect human dignity
whilst repairing the harms caused by problematic behaviour in a spirit of solidarity and
inclusiveness. Rather than taking a theoretical approach, this special journal edition
seeks to present innovative, practical measures that may provide a blueprint for future
alternatives to punishment. A social harm approach (Hillyard et al., 2004) may be
followed, encouraging contributors to focus on the responses which may be adopted
towards all forms of harmful behaviour, whether they are officially recognised as
‘criminal’ or not.
Contributions are welcomed from academics, activists and those with lived experience
of penal systems. They ought to respect the core aims and values of the European Group
(see http://www.europeangroup.org/?q=node/6).
Proposals should be submitted for consideration by 1 May 2015 to Emma Bell
(bell.emma@neuf.fr) and David Scott (D.G.Scott@ljmu.ac.uk). Final papers of no more
than 6,000 words must be submitted by 11 January 2016.
MEMBERS’ PUBLICATIONS
Ragnhild Sollund (2015) Green Harms and Crimes: Critical Criminology in a Changing World
(Palgrave Macmillan).
David Whyte (ed) (2015) How Corrupt is Britain? (Pluto).
III. Comment & Analysis
Charter Flight Removal: UK Asylum
Policy and the Deportability of Sri
Lankan Tamils
Rachel Seoighe
The United Kingdom’s removal practices with respect to failed asylum seekers demand
critical attention. Policies and practices of detention and removal have a significant and
often terrible impact on the lives of vulnerable people. It is tempting to read the
challenges and excesses of the UK’s clunky and unpredictable asylum system as
deliberately opaque, disorientating and punitive, designed to confuse asylum seekers, to
undermine their faith in the state’s legal obligations and procedures, and to
communicate the state’s deep contempt towards them. Not only are these policies and
practices bureaucratically complex, they appear to be marked by blind ferocity in intent
and a lack of accountability for outrages committed against the bodies and dignity of
failed asylum seekers by those tasked with their pre-deportation containment and
movement. The legal rights of the asylum seeker and the corresponding obligations of
the state inform state practices; this encounter draws to an ugly close at the deportation
stage. This short article focuses on problematic aspects of the UK’s deportation of failed
asylum seekers to Sri Lanka via charter flight. Interrogating the state-corporate nexus of
the asylum system and the detention/deportation estate, this article argues that the
state bears responsibility for violations of human rights and due process protections.
The state relies on charter flights and associated domestic asylum policy and
procedures to disregard international principles of refugee protection. This article will
also briefly address the socio-legal implications of charter flight deportations with
reference to Sri Lanka’s socio-political and human rights landscape.
The charter flight is a tool of unaccountable state-corporate removal. The charter flight
is also a method by which failed asylum seekers can be immediately identified by the
authorities on arrival in Sri Lanka, rendering those individuals more susceptible to
persecution. Deportations of Tamil individuals to Sri Lanka in the current environment
arguably constitute refoulement, contrary to Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and
contrary to Article 2 and article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (which
protect life and prohibit torture and ill-treatment, respectively); recent case law with
respect to Tamil returnees supports this contention. International case law binding on
the UK has established that these legal provisions imply the responsibility of states not
to expel an individual to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe that
he or she would run a real risk of facing death or being subjected to ill-treatment. A
powerful and distressing case recently decided at the European Court of Human Rights
– N & Others v. the UK – illustrates how institutional failures and the logic of mass
removal brought great suffering to N., a Sri Lankan Tamil woman. Sri Lanka’s January
2015 presidential election saw a new president come to power with promises of
democratic reform and good governance, with promises of delivering greater rights to
the Tamil population. At this early stage, these promises are merely rhetorical and
country guidance with respect to the return of failed asylum seekers still stands.
Discourse on asylum and immigration
Public discourse on asylum in the UK is largely inseparable from vitriolic contemporary
rhetoric on immigration: crucial differences in status and circumstances – on the basis
of the asylum seeker’s request for protection from persecution – are lost in discussions
bound up in socio-economic panic, perspectives on belonging (underpinned by
racialised logic), and portrayals of the UK as a ‘naïve’ and ‘soft’ state insufficiently wary
of the cunning and calculating schemes of new arrivals. The state prerogative of
controlling numbers and categories of immigrants continues to hold great political
capital. Derisive rhetoric towards immigrants is especially powerful today as austerity
policies squeeze the middle- and working-classes. The immigrant ’other’ has historically
been constructed as the thief of employment opportunities that would otherwise go to
British workers. More recently, immigrants have also been portrayed as undeserving
‘drains’ on the National Health Service (NHS) and ‘benefit shoppers’ attracted by the
UK’s comparatively favourable welfare system. These discourses converge to depict the
immigrant as a deceitful, lazy and self-serving opportunist. Frances Webber observes
that the relentless anti-asylum, anti-human rights campaigning from the Right, and the
all-party consensus that immigration control must trump human rights concerns, have
meant that official indifference has replaced disbelief in the face of asylum seekers’
stories. The bureaucratic urge to meet ‘removal targets’ is further impacted upon by the
privatisation of the removal process, and the state’s instrumentalisation of the rhetoric
and practice of exclusion, deportability, and criminalisation to regulate its population
and economy (De Genova, 2002; Aliverti, 2013; Fekete, 2010).
Deportation and the charter flight
Though deportation was traditionally considered as a last resort, Anderson et al. (2011)
have observed the ‘prodigious rise’ in the use of deportation by liberal democracies in
the last 20 years. Weber and Pickering (2013: 111) offer an incisive analysis of the
global North’s mechanics of “exporting risk”, defining deportation as a key technology
for dividing populations and protecting national territory. Lucia Zedner (2010) adds
that those ‘exported’ from that nation are effectively labelled unfit for neo-liberal forms
of citizenship, inclusion and entitlement based on merit. Deportation is a highly
symbolic practice of, as Linda Bosniak (1998: 30) argues, “hardening the distinction
between citizen and noncitizen”, a political manoeuvre which stems from the legal
impetus for making citizenship “count for something”. This, in turn, has resulted in the
devaluation of the alien: the presence of aliens is what defines “our” privilege(s) as
citizens. Deportation is also a distinctly embodied practice, one that has symbolic value
in marking the contours of belonging and citizenship. As Shahram Khosravi (2009: 52)
argues:
“By taking away the bodily pollution of an anti-citizen, the purity of society is
preserved. Thus, removal of each anti-citizen can be seen as a worship of nationhood or a celebration of citizenship.”
The devaluation of the ‘non-citizen’ deportee has implications for the ways in which
failed asylum seekers are treated in the detention and removal process. As Liz Fekete of
the Institute of Race Relations argued in 2010: “The idea is growing that because asylum
seekers and migrants are non-citizens they shouldn’t even be afforded the most
elementary human rights. They are disposable people, who should be parcelled and
packaged out of Europe, whatever the human cost.” The UK hires private charter flights
in order to facilitate the mass deportation or ‘removal’ of failed asylum seekers. Weber
and Pickering (2013) observe that the word ‘removal’ itself seems expressly designed to
mask the human dimension of deportation: it is a neat, surgical, logistical word. The
violence and humiliation of the process is obscured behind a façade of legal rationality –
deportation is the outcome of a legal system that has determined that the individual has
no right to remain. Deportation is presented as an expression of sovereign will: a
legitimate and routine administrative act.
Why does the UK government use charter flights?
A 2013 Corporate Watch report argues that despite the rising cost of the charter flight
programme, “it serves the government to appear 'tough on immigration', while at the
same time limiting migrants' legal rights and ability to resist forcible deportations.” The
charter flight programme has lent wings to approximately 800 flights since it began in
2001, removing almost 30,000 people from the UK (Miller, 2014). In 2001, charter flight
deportations ‘on an industrial scale’ began under the Labour government led by Tony
Blair and enforced by the UK Border Agency (an institution now subsumed into the
Home Office). In order to demonstrate a tough stance on immigration, an arbitrary
‘target’ of 50,000 deportations per year was set (Corporate Watch, 2013). Arguments
put forward by the state in favour of charter flights are practical and economic. The
claim is that deporting a planeload of asylum seekers at a time saves logistical planning,
money and staff time. However, when the practical arguments are discredited and
discarded, the symbolic aspects of mass deportation seem the most important: the
embodied demarcation of belonging tied up in experiences of removal.
The practical arguments are easily dismantled. Corporate Watch’s report – compiled
from Freedom of Information requests, statistical analyses and case studies –
contradicts official claims that charter flights are used because commercial flights do
not service destination airports. Charter flights are also enormously expensive, far more
so than deporting people on commercial flights. From 2002 to 2013, charter flights have
cost the UK in excess of £50 million and the expense is rising. In 2002-3 the average cost
of removing one person by charter flight was £575. By 2011/12 this had increased to
almost £5,000 per person. Another justification offered in support of charter flights is
the purported ‘disruptive behaviour’ of deportees but the government supplies no data
on instances of such behaviour (Corporate Watch, 2013). This method of removal,
however, does ensure that no external observers are present to witness the distress of
those being removed, or violence, physical force and verbal abuse by security staff and
official personnel. The programme of charter flights went on for a decade before
independent inspectors were even allowed on board to observe the flights in 2011
(Miller, 2014). Any violence reported in the course of deportations is blamed on the
deportee and framed as a consequence of their disobedience, which sits neatly within
the mainstream narrative on immigration, a narrative (supported by law and practice)
that criminalises the act of seeking asylum and portrays asylum seekers as a risk to
society and a danger to public order or national security.
The use of charter flights supports the government’s contention that deportation is
‘efficient’ while rendering both the procedures relied upon in the removal process and
the human stories invisible. Weber and Pickering (2013) argue that deportation
practices, when viewed first hand, reveal deportation itself to be a process infused with
human degradation and suffering. The violence of deportation stretches far beyond the
actions of the security guards escorting the deportee. Both physical and psychological, it
includes injury, trauma, separation from family and community support structures, loss
of livelihood and educational opportunities, and assaults on personal dignity and sense
of belonging. It is a ritual of degradation that is intimately tied to the territoriality of the
nation-state.
The violence of the process is embodied and experienced by deportees as a collective
humiliation and rejection, but the process is sanitised for outsiders and packaged in
legalistic, practical terms. The concealed and anonymous nature of charter flight
removal – invisible to everyone but those staffed to carry out removals – allows the
practices to continue undisrupted by the concerns of outsiders to the process. The fact
that the exact date of charter flights is often not declared means that acts of activism,
solidarity and resistance are thwarted. The charter flight allows the inherently violent
practices associated with deportation to remain hidden.
Deportations are not new but these state-corporate practices of removal are becoming
increasingly ingrained in our political and cultural landscape. In the post-9/11 world,
governments are quick to adopt these practices in their eagerness to assert their
sovereignty in an ‘age of terror’, teaming up with private corporations experienced in
the industrialisation of confinement and exclusion (Peutz, 2006). The regulation and
movement of life is big business. The agencies and authorities implicated in the process
of removal also stretch further than one might initially assume, to encompass police and
immigration officials, deportation centres and their staff, private security companies
and deportation escorts, and international airlines. An entire industry has been
constructed around the removal of asylum seekers, one that is increasingly privatised.
As William Walters (2002: 266) warned over a decade ago, “private companies make
money from this form of suffering. Deportation is business.” Though the business
thrives, institutional and corporate accountability for sexual harassment, excessive
force and even causing the death of deportees (like Jimmy Mubenga) remains elusive
(Webber, 2014).
Invisible here, hyper-visible on return
While the practices associated with charter flight deportations are hidden, the fact of
their occurrence is certainly not, especially in the receiving state. The UK government
actively encourages media coverage of charter flights to deter potential immigrants, and
to intimidate communities who have settled in the UK. The aim is to communicate that
migrants are not wanted, affirming in the process the political community’s idealised
view of what membership means (Anderson et al, 2011: 548). The local media also
draws attention to returnees in the country of return. As noted by Weber and Pickering
(2013), not only are immigration and asylum procedures implicated in refouling
individuals to serious danger, the deportation procedures themselves may expose
deportees to additional risk by creating or magnifying the suspicions of those in power.
Failed asylum seekers deported to Sri Lanka face intimidation, surveillance and state
violence, including torture, killings and disappearances. These atrocities
overwhelmingly follow an ethnic logic; the state authorities and paramilitary proxies
continue to persecute members of the Tamil minority, nearly six years after the end of
the war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Methods of
torture and ill-treatment include beatings with sand-filled pipes, rape (of both men and
women), whipping with electric flex and immersion of the face in petrol. The most
common forms of torture are those that leave no mark. Recent reports include a
comprehensive study of over 400 cases of torture by Human Rights Watch in 2013 and
a report by the UK Bar Commission and human rights lawyer Yasmin Sooka in 2014. But
the UK largely concludes that for most Tamils, the risks are insufficient to prevent
enforced return.
The case of G. J. & Others (post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka in the Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber) replaced all other UK country guidance in 2013.
The court held that “the government’s present objective is to identify Tamil activists in
the diaspora who are working for Tamil separatism and to destabilise the unitary Sri
Lankan state”. The Court recognised that the Sri Lankan government is determined to
suppress Tamil separatism. Intensive militarisation and ‘Sinhalisation’ is ongoing in
traditional Tamil areas - colonisation of Tamil land by the majority Sinhalese and
deliberate suppression of Tamil political, religious and cultural life. The state’s
techniques in this regard include the ‘rehabilitation’ of former LTTE cadres that
simultaneously constitutes punishment and political pacification, and overt surveillance
to terrorise and discourage political activists. The 2013 country guidance judgment
recognises that Sri Lankan state surveillance targets prior LTTE supporters, human
rights activists who criticise the government, separatist activists, journalists, and
persons who testified to war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan army in local
reconciliation initiatives. Importantly, London is seen as a hotbed of LTTE support and
separatist activity. A list of individuals of interest constitutes a Sri Lankan state ‘watch’
list. This sophisticated surveillance system means that targets are not collected at the
airport on return to the country, but taken into custody at a later stage. For the state
authorities, failed asylum seeker status confirms that returnees have been criticising Sri
Lanka and alleging human rights abuses internationally.
Returnees on charter flights are immediately recognised as failed asylum seekers. The
arrival process consists of a welcome by a British High Commission representative(s),
who provides returnees with emergency contact details and a small bursary for onward
travel. In light of the country guidance, the UK is now aware that the airport is not the
risk area for returnees. It suggests that individuals who are at risk need to be monitored
for longer periods, in order to ensure that they have not been targeted. But, as Khosravi
(2009: 51) notes, “since the asylum seekers’ fear of persecution is rejected as false, it is
assumed that they will be in no danger if the authorities in countries of origin know
about them.”
N & Others v. the UK: deportation to torture
In the case of N. & Others v. the UK at the European Court of Human Rights, the
applicant – a Sri Lankan Tamil woman – claimed that the examination of her credibility
eclipsed a real examination of the harm that she had experienced and that every stage of
the legal proceedings (including the final dismissal of her case) demonstrated an
unwillingness to comprehend the woman’s vulnerability and her struggle to articulate
her experiences. The applicant in N & Others described to the UK authorities her torture
by the Sri Lankan authorities by method of facial immersion in petrol. She managed to
escape her ordeal when she was taken to a Sri Lankan hospital where she bribed a
nurse with her gold earrings. In language later described in the appeals process as
“savage”, the Immigration Tribunal judge said that her account was “so ludicrously
lacking in credibility that it would struggle to be acceptable even as the plot of a ‘Carryon’ film”. Her arrival in the UK was, this judge stated, “a coordinated pleasure trip with a
sinister intention, namely to deceive the UK authorities by cooking up a story.” As her
appeals were rejected and she was taken into a detention facility before charter flight
deportation, the woman’s mental health deteriorated. She told her medical practitioners
and psychiatrists about suicidal thoughts and attempts. She was put on suicide watch
while in pre-deportation detention. The Home Secretary’s response was to declare that
the woman would feel better once released from detention by deportation, as it was her
immediate circumstances that were causing her mental distress and not her return to a
country where she had suffered torture and rape at the hands of state officials. On
arrival at Colombo airport, N. was detained and interrogated by the Sri Lankan
authorities. As she left the airport, N. claimed at the European Court, she was abducted,
blindfolded and removed to an unknown location, where unknown men stripped her,
stabbed her with pens and did further “unspeakable bad things” to her. They accused
her of taking part in LTTE activities and funding while living in the UK. The men asked
N. about the asylum papers they had found in her bag, which - she told the Court - had
been packed by United Kingdom officials at the immigration removal centre. Since her
release, she is staying with an acquaintance and has twice attempted suicide. N. was
deported to grave danger and violence by the UK, and denied her final right of appeal by
the ‘special arrangements’ of the charter flight system.
N. claims that she was physically carried onto a charter flight, though the immigration
centre staff and authorities did not record any ‘disturbances’ that day. Of fifty
Sri Lankans on the flight, she was once of many that applied to the High Court to seek
judicial review on the basis that they faced a real risk of torture on return to Sri Lanka.
Twenty-three individuals were removed from the flight manifest prior to departure: the
High Court ordered that they were not to be removed pending those proceedings.
However, her case was not considered in time and no order was made to suspend
removal pending consideration of her case. Had she been on a standard scheduled flight,
her removal would have been deterred pending a decision. It can certainly be argued, as
Corporate Watch have, that the 'special arrangements' put in place around mass
deportation flights in the UK constitute obstacles to accessing adequate legal
representation and the right to appeal by judicial review. The ‘special arrangements’ in
question are the measures of Section 6.1, Chapter 60 of the UK Border Agency's
Enforcement Instructions and Guidance manual, which states that “[s]ome chartered
flights may be subject to special arrangements” due to “the complexity, practicality and
cost of arranging an operation.” Because of these “special arrangements” (which
prioritise logistical ease and economic concerns) the existence of a pending judicial
review application no longer leads to an automatic deferral of that person’s removal.
Charter deportees who wish to legally challenge their removal must now seek an
injunction in order to delay their deportation. The deportees on a charter flight – but
not standard passenger flights – will be deported regardless of a pending application in
the High Court.
The restrictions on deportees' access to justice are further compounded by the volume
and speed with which charter flight deportations are conducted, which appear to be
overwhelming both solicitors (particularly in the wake of legal aid cuts) and judges. The
regularity of these flights and the high numbers of deportees in question brings to mind
Liz Fekete’s term for Europe: “the deportation machine”. The effect, Fekete argues, and
perhaps the prerogative, is to expedite removals while decreasing the quality of
administrative decisions. The institutionalisation of charter flights is one element in the
routinisation of deportations across Europe: other factors include imposition of removal
targets and the introduction of bilateral agreements for the return of deportees.
Corporate Watch quotes one barrister as saying: “Given the flood of applications that
accompanies many charter flights, it seems quite possible that a daytime duty judge will
simply not be able to deal with every application before take off.” This was the case in N
& Others. Immigration lawyers and caseworkers who deal with Sri Lankan Tamil
asylum cases maintain that the struggle to attain an injunction at the last minute is an
impediment to procedural justice for their clients.
Conclusion: questions of visibility
In conclusion, the process of deportation by charter flight renders Sri Lankan Tamil
deportees invisible to the UK’s population and hyper-visible to the Sri Lankan
authorities. It is a technology of deportation marked by violations of the rights and
dignity of the person. This article demonstrates how the benefits accrued by the state by
using charter flights have been prioritised over the due process and appeal rights of
individual asylum seekers, as well as rendering the inherently violent process of
physical removal less visible and less accountable.
Author biography
Dr Rachel Seoighe is a research assistant in the School of Law, University of Warwick.
She completed her PhD, titled Without ‘our undisciplined army’: conflict, denial and
nation-building in Sri Lanka, in the School of Law, King’s College London in 2014, and is
currently preparing her monograph for publication.
References
Aliverti, A. (2013) Crimes of Mobility: Criminal Law and the Regulation of Immigration.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Anderson, B., Gibney, M. J. and Paoletti, E. (2011) “Citizenship, deportation and the
boundaries of belonging”. Citizenship Studies 15 (5), pp. 547-563.
Bosniak, L. (1998) “The citizenship of aliens”. Social Text 56 (Autumn), pp. 29–35.
Corporate Watch (2013) “Cost of charter flight deportations increased eight-fold over
last decade”. News, 16 January.
De Genova, N. (2002) “Migrant ‘illegality’ and deportability in everyday life”. Annual
Review of Anthropology 31, pp. 419–47.
Fekete, L. (2010) quoted in Institute for Race Relations “Accelerated Removals”. Press
release, 7 October.
Khosravi, S. (2009) “Sweden: detention and deportation of asylum seekers”. Race &
Class 50 (4): pp. 38–56.
Freedom from Torture (FFT) (2012) “UK Parliament tells government: UK must do
more to ensure end to impunity in Sri Lanka”. News, February 22
Human Rights Watch (HRW) (2013) “We Will Teach You a Lesson”: Sexual Violence
against Tamils by Sri Lankan Security Forces. February 26.
GJ and Others (post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka CG (2013) UKUT 00319,
Immigration and Asylum Chamber Upper Tribunal.
Institute of Race Relations (IRR) (2011) “Tamil Returns: ‘UKBA is not aware of any
difficulties’”. News, 6 October.
Miller, P. (2014) Majestic Deportations? Institute of Race Relations, Comment, 10 April.
N. and others against the United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights (Fourth
Chamber)
Decision.
Application
no. 16458/12,
2014.
Available
at:
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-144345.
Peutz, N. (2006) “Embarking on an Anthropology of Removal”. Current Anthropology,
Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 217-241.
Walters, W. (2002) “Deportation, Expulsion, and the International Police of Aliens”.
Citizenship Studies, 6 (3), pp. 265 – 292.
Webber, F. (2012) “Is history repeating itself for Tamil asylum seekers? Institute of Race
Relations, Comment, 14 June. http://www.irr.org.uk/news/is-history-repeating-itselffor-tamil-asylum-seekers/
Weber, L. and Pickering, S. (2013) “Exporting Risk, Deporting Non-Citizens”. In Pakes, F.
(ed.) (2013) Globalisation and the Challenge to Criminology. Routledge: London and New
York
Webber, F. (2014) “Justice Blindfolded? The Case of Jimmy Mubenga”. Institute of Race
Relations,
Press
Release,
16
December.
Available
at:
http://www.irr.org.uk/news/justice-blindfolded-the-case-of-jimmy-mubenga/
[Accessed 7 February 2015].
Zedner, L. (2010) “Security, the State, and the Citizen: The Changing Architecture of
Crime Control”. New Criminal Law Review 13, pp. 379–403.
IV. News from Europe and around the world
France
Conference
Les nouvelles formes de contestation : du national au transnational
15-16 octobre 2015
Colloque internacional organisé par le groupe de recherches « Pouvoirs et contre-pouvoirs
transnationaux » du laboratoire LLS(ETI) de l’Université de Savoie Mont-Blanc (site de
Chambéry-Jacob)
Dans un espace occidental, moteur de la mondialisation, touché lui aussi par les
contradictions du progrès et du développement qui engendrent inégalités et exclusion,
et dans lequel le pouvoir institutionnel, qu’il soit d’ordre politique, économique ou
discursif, s’exerce de plus en plus sur une échelle transnationale (ONU, Union
Européenne, FMI, groupes médias…), les formes de la contestation politique évoluent. A
partir de mouvements locaux de revendication, ce sont des changements, à l'échelle
mondiale, du modèle libéral dominant, qui sont exigés.
Quelques-unes de ces formes de contre-pouvoir sont institutionelles (fédérations
syndicales, CELAC), d'autres informelles (Groupe de Rio) et portent des débats
contradictoires au cœur des institutions internationales. D'autres sont le fait de
mouvements contestataires délibérément en marge de la logique participative et
représentative qui interpellent les instances politiques nationales et internationales et
revendiquent des changements structuraux.
Les acteurs de la construction de ces alternatives tissent des liens et forment
quelquefois des alliances afin de dépasser les frontières nationales et de devenir de
véritables contre-pouvoirs à des instances considérées comme les intermédiaires
visibles de groupes d'intérêts économiques et financiers supra ou multinationaux. Ils
ont recours, en particulier, à des stratégies qui s’appuient sur des nouveaux médias
(Internet) mais aussi sur la réappropriation de médias traditionnels (Télésur) ou
l'instrumentalisation de la logique médiatique.
Ce colloque international, organisé par le groupe de recherche ‘Pouvoirs et contrepouvoirs transnationaux’ rattaché au laboratoire Langues Littératures et Sociétés de
l’Université de Savoie, s’attachera tout particulièrement à analyser les relations et les
coopérations entre ces mouvements contestataires à travers le monde, en distinguant
les idéologies politiques qui les structurent, et en s’efforçant de définir leurs spécificités
nationales. On cherchera ainsi à mieux comprendre la circulation transnationale des
idées dans une phase de dépassement des nationalismes, y compris en s'interrogeant
sur l'apparition et le rayonnement de figures emblématiques de ces luttes. On
s’intéressera également à l’organisation et la structure de ces mouvements afin de
déterminer s’ils représentent des nouvelles formes de participation démocratique ou si,
au contraire, ils ne font que reproduire le pouvoir contre lequel ils surgissent.
Merci d’envoyer vos propositions de communication avant le 15 mai dernier délai aux
organisateurs :
Emma Bell :
Emma.Bell@univ-savoie.fr
Sylvie Bouffartigue : Sylvie.Bouffartigue@univ-savoie.fr
Jean-Marie Ruiz :
Jean-Marie.Ruiz@univ-savoie.fr
Frais d’inscription : 30€ (gratuit pour les étudiants)
Summer school
Fourth GERN Doctoral Summer School on
Crime, Deviance and Criminal Justice
To be held in Paris, France – 7-9 September 2015
The fourth GERN Summer School for doctoral students will take place in Paris (Maison des
initiatives étudiantes, 50 rue des Tournelles, 75003
Paris) from Monday 7 September to Wednesday 9 September 2015. It will be organised by
Cesdip (University of Versailles, CNRS, Ministry of Justice).
Who is it for?
Research students undertaking doctoral research on crime, deviance and criminal justice
issues. This is an opportunity to present your research, have it discussed by leading European
researchers and, if selected, published in an edited book. The summer school is probably
most suited to research students in their second and third years.
The working language of the Summer School is English.
What does it include?
•
Presentations and discussion of research by doctoral students
•
Lectures and discussion sessions with leading European researchers
•
An opportunity to learn about criminology around Europe and meet other
doctoral students
•
An opportunity to submit your revised paper for publication
What does it involve?
Doctoral students will need to send a detailed abstract of their paper (two pages setting out
their theoretical framework, concepts and research findings/research plans), together with a
letter of engagement from their supervisor, agreeing to help them, by 1 May 2015. We can
admit up to about 24 students – initial acceptance will be made known by
15 May 2015.
Those students who have been initially accepted will need to send their paper to be discussed
at the summer school, of some 6,000 words (in
English) by 31 July 2015 and final acceptance will be on receipt of the paper.
Abstracts, letters and papers should be sent electronically to daniel.ventre@cesdip.fr and
demaillard@cesdip.fr
What does it cost?
Students (or their institutions) will need to bear the cost of their own travel to Paris and
accommodation and subsistence in Paris The cost of the conference will be 60 euros for
students whose institution is a Gern member (and 150 euros for students whose institution is
not a member of Gern), which will include tea and coffee, lunches and an informal dinner for
all the participants on one night.
Germany
Report/Statistics
The German Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt) in
Wiesbaden/Germany has been publishing an English language (abridged) version of the
Police Crime Statistics, Germany, 2013. (in German) See :
http://www.bka.de/nn_205960/sid_E8F47E4309FB0CE40A6C872B16EC8437/DE/Pu
blikationen/PolizeilicheKriminalstatistik/pks__node.html?__nnn=true
UK
Activism
Please consider donating to INQUEST, the charity investigating deaths in custody:
https://www.justgiving.com/inquest/
Jobs/Student Opportunities
University of Leicester PhD studenship: History of British Prison Hulks, 1776-1864
The School of History at the University of Leicester and the National Maritime Museum
are pleased to invite applications for a three year AHRC Collaborative Doctoral
Partnership PhD Studentship available from 1 October 2015. See
https://www2.le.ac.uk/study/research/funding/prison-hulks
Global Criminology (MSc) at Birkbeck, University of London
This innovative new course offers a unique insight into the global dimensions of crime
and punishment in today’s world. See
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/study/2015/postgraduate/programmes/TMSGCRMG_C/
Seminars/conferences
What are the alternatives to prison? CCJS conference April 21st 2015. This event will
consider what radical alternatives there might be to imprisonment. Participants will be
invited to discuss opportunities for building practices and policies to make sure that
criminal justice responses are no longer required. See
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=66
Professor Brian Doherty, Tuesday, 28th April 2015 6pm
Westminster Theatre, Chancellor’s Building, Keele University
Occupy, blockade, debate: traditions of protest in movement
In 2011 Time Magazine gave its ‘person of the year’ title to ‘the protester’ thus marking
a year in which, as in 1989 and 1968, protest had emerged as if from nowhere. And yet
on these and other occasions when elites are taken by surprise by protests, new
movements have relied on the experience of longstanding activists. While scholars of
protest and movements have long recognised that new movements have roots in
previous ones, they have given less attention to how this happens, particularly to
understanding continuity and change between movements over time. In this lecture, I
will argue that to understand this we need to develop a theory of tradition as an active
process which enables activists to make decisions collectively and one that cuts across
boundaries between nominally separate movements. I will illustrate this by looking at
traditions of direct action in British social movements since the 1970s.See:
http://www.keele.ac.uk/publiclectures/professorbriandoherty/
Evolving understandings of racism and resistance – local and global conceptions
and struggles Friday 1st May 2015 Keynote speakers to include: Stephen Small
(Berkeley), John Solomos (Warwick) One-day conference at the Centre for Migration,
Refugees and Belonging, University of East London in conjunction with the BSA Race
and Ethnicity Study Group. We welcome papers relating to any of these questions and
debates and, in particular, would welcome papers that examine: - contemporary and
historical examples of movements against racism and the role of ethnic mobilisation
within such movements; - the role played by ethnic mobilisations in wider movements
for social justice; - changing terrains of racism and new articulations of anti-racist
resistance. Please send an abstract of 200 words to g.bhattacharyya@uel.ac.uk,
satnam.virdee@glasgow.c.uk, a.winter@uel.ac.uk by 13/2/15.
Justice matters for women: Time for action!
Following the CCJS’ call to action to 'Empower women, resist injustice and transform
lives', the Centre is hosting a one-day event with Women in Prison on Wednesday 20th
May to foster collective action to challenge criminal justice failure and build socially just
alternatives.
The Political Prison: Incarceration, Dissent, and Penal Regimes, University of
Dundee, Scotland, DD1 4HN, UK, 18-19 June 2015
This event seeks to draw together researchers working across disciplines to explore
how prison and other carceral institutions can function as a site of political
repression and dissent. In doing so, it aims to create a comparative context within which
attendees can explore larger questions of prisoners’ agency and their capacity to shape
power relations within and outside the prison. In this respect, political protest is
defined in its widest sense. It includes examples of overtly political or collective acts of
protest; for example, political education, rioting, work and hunger strikes. However,
researchers are also invited to explore everyday or passive examples of resistance by
prisoners. The meeting seeks to cover cases where prisoners have been incarcerated as
a result of their political activity and are therefore deemed “political prisoners,” but also
where “ordinary prisoners” have been politicized during their incarceration. For further
information, please contact the organiser, Dr Zoe Colley, z.a.colley@dundee.ac.uk.
Challenging state and corporate impunity: is accountability possible?
The CCJS and the University of Liverpool are hosting a conference on Friday 19 June to
bring people together from a range of organisations to discuss how to hold state and
corporate institutions to account. Places are limited, so book now to avoid
disappointment.
JENGbA (Joint Enterprise : Not Guilty by Association) Annual Conference
http://www.jointenterprise.co/
12- 4pm 20th June 2015, Gerrard Winstanley House, Wigan. WN1 1NA.
Confirmed speakers include:
Janet Alder “Black lives matter”
Sheila Coleman “Hillsborough and benefits sanctions”
Ian Hudson (President of the Bakers Union) “Zero Hour contracts”
Malcolm Jones “Social Work Action Network”
Hilda Palmer “Health and Safety”
Simon Pook Lizard “Human Rights”
David Scott “Against Criminal Injustice, For Social Justice”
Reports
Report from the Institute for Race Relations on BAME, refugee and migrant
communities who have died between 1991-2014 in suspicious circumstances in which
the police, prison authorities or immigration detention officers have been implicated:
http://www.irr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Dying_for_Justice_web.pdf
A report from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies on criminal justice policy under
the coalition is out now: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/coalitionyears-criminal-justice-united-kingdom
A parliamentary report into the use of immigration detention in the UK can be
downloaded
here:
https://detentioninquiry.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/immigration-detentioninquiry-report.pdf
Researchers at the University of Warwick release a report on the impact of the Home
Office’s ‘Go Home’ anti-immigration campaign:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/research/currentresearch/mappingim
migrationcontroversy/
USA
Report
The extent of racial discrimination in Ferguson is laid bare in a new report by the US
Department
of
Justice.
See
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/nginteractive/2015/mar/04/justice-department-reports-ferguson-michael-brown-fulltext
International
Activism
The Hassan Diab Support Committee is a group of social justice minded individuals
concerned about Dr. Hassan Diab. They request your help in making sure that Dr. Diab
receives due process and fair treatment entitled to all accused under French law.
Dr. Diab is a Canadian citizen who was extradited to France in November 2014 for
alleged involvement in a bombing near a synagogue on Rue Copernic in Paris in 1980.
Dr. Diab is innocent of the charges and has no connection whatsoever to the 1980 crime.
His palm prints and finger prints do not match those of the suspect. He is not an antiSemite, and he strongly condemns all forms of bigotry and violence. Friends and
colleagues have written character letters attesting to Dr. Diab’s humanist and peaceful
nature. For a sampling of what they wrote, see
http://www.justiceforhassandiab.org/testimonials
Hassan is now in a French prison in the vicinity of Paris under mis en examen. He is
expected to remain incarcerated for up to two years while the investigating magistrate
decides whether or not to bring his case to trial.
You may well ask why Dr. Diab's case should warrant special concern with regard to
procedural fairness. In answer, we note that innocent men and women are sometimes
wrongfully convicted and punished even in the best systems of justice. In Hassan's case,
we further note that the risk of wrongful conviction is greatly increased due to the
circumstances surrounding his case.
Dr. Diab's was extradited to France based on an extremely unreliable handwriting
analysis report that was discredited by five world-renowned handwriting experts. Two
previous handwriting reports against Dr. Diab were withdrawn after it was shown that
comparison writings that were “matched” to those of the suspect were actually written
by someone other than Dr. Diab.





The case against Dr. Diab is anchored in secret intelligence from unknown
sources and of unknown reliability. The intelligence was withdrawn from the
extradition proceedings in Canada in recognition of the extremely problematic
nature of such “evidence”. However, the intelligence remains in the dossier in
France and is likely to be used against Dr. Diab at trial.
The Canadian extradition judge described the evidence against Dr. Diab as “very
problematic”, “convoluted”, “very confusing”, and “suspect”. He also stated that
“the prospects of conviction in the context of a fair trial seem unlikely”.
There is a strong desire for closure and resolution of a deadly crime that has
remained unsolved for decades.
The accusations concern politically charged and emotionally loaded words like
“terrorism” and “anti-semitism”.
Dr. Diab has been torn away from all moral supports, i.e., family, friends, and
supporters who remain in his home country, Canada. He must defend himself in
an unfamiliar legal system and language.
In sum, we are concerned that these factors collectively undermine the presumption of
innocence and increase the likelihood of wrongful conviction.
How You Can Help
The Support Committee hopes you will consider becoming part of a community of
support for Dr. Hassan Diab in France. It is imperative that we have people in France
who will keep a vigilant eye on Dr. Diab’s case and speak out about the facts in the case.
Your support is essential to preventing the wrongful conviction of an innocent man.
Hassan must not face life in prison for a crime that he did not commit and that runs
completely contrary to everything he has ever stood for. It is imperative that the real
perpetrators of the Rue Copernic bombing be brought to justice and that an innocent
man not be punished for this atrocious crime.
Please do not hesitate to write to us if you have any questions or suggestions for how
we can work together.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Pratt
Hassan Diab Support Committee
http://www.justiceforhassandiab.org
diabsupport@gmail.com
Background
Dr. Hassan Diab is a Canadian citizen of Lebanese descent and sociology professor who
lived and taught in Ottawa, Canada. Up until November 2008, he enjoyed an engaged
and productive public life, including teaching, publishing research, and traveling
internationally. His life precipitously and tragically changed when the French
government demanded his extradition for his alleged involvement in a bombing near a
synagogue on Rue Copernic in Paris in 1980. The allegations are based on deeply
unreliable evidence, including totally flawed handwriting analysis and intelligence from
unknown sources.
The main “evidence” used to extradite Dr. Diab is a handwriting analysis report that
compared Hassan’s handwriting to five block letter words written by the suspect on a
hotel registration card in 1980. Two French handwriting analysts claimed that Dr.
Diab’s handwriting resembles that of the suspect. However, these analysts unknowingly
relied on handwriting samples that were not written by Dr. Diab. When Dr. Diab’s
lawyers presented evidence showing that Dr. Diab did not write the handwriting
samples attributed to him, the French authorities withdrew their analysis and several
months later submitted a “new” handwriting analysis report. This new report again
claimed that Dr. Diab’s handwriting resembles that of the suspect. Five world-renowned
handwriting experts (from Europe, Canada, and the United States) testified that this
report is fatally flawed and does not follow any recognized methodology. They also
showed that a properly conducted handwriting analysis would actually exclude Hassan
as a suspect.
The case against Dr. Diab stems from secret intelligence from unknown sources. No one
knows the source of the intelligence or the circumstances under which it was obtained.
There is a real risk that this intelligence may be the product of torture. In testimony at
Dr. Diab’s extradition hearing, Toronto University law professor and anti-terrorism
expert, Kent Roach, expressed concern that investigators have developed “tunnel
vision” and cherry-picked intelligence to fit their theory of the case while ignoring other
intelligence that exonerates Dr. Diab. He warned that it would be dangerous to deprive
Dr. Diab of his liberty by relying on secret, unsourced intelligence that cannot be tested
or challenged in a court of law. Some months later, the Crown prosecutor (representing
France) withdrew the intelligence from the extradition proceedings in recognition of
the extremely problematic nature of such “evidence”. However, the intelligence remains
in the dossier in France and is likely to be used against Dr. Diab at trial.
It is important to note the Canadian extradition judge described the evidence against Dr.
Diab as “very problematic”, “convoluted”, “very confusing” and “with conclusions that
are suspect”. He also stated that “the prospects of conviction in the context of a fair trial
seem unlikely”. However he said that he felt obliged under Canada’s extradition law to
commit Dr. Diab to extradition.
The case of Dr. Hassan Diab has some disturbing similarities with the Dreyfus Affair that
took place in France at the end of the 19th century. Alfred Dreyfus, an infantry officer,
was sentenced to life in prison based on unsourced intelligence and flawed handwriting
analysis, in a political environment of racism and anti-semitism. Thankfully, strong
public opposition within segments of French society pressured the government to
reopen the case, which led to the acquittal of Dreyfus on all charges.
Dr. Diab has the support of numerous civil society organisations and thousands of
individuals across Canada. Many labour, human rights, academic, and Jewish
organizations expressed serious concerns about the evidence in the case. These include
Amnesty International - Canada, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the
Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association,
Independent Jewish Voices - Canada, Unitarians for Social Justice, International Civil
Liberties Monitoring Group, and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, among many
others.
References
Web site:
http://justiceforhassandiab.org
Testimonials about Dr. Hassan Diab:
http://www.justiceforhassandiab.org/testimonials
Support for Dr. Hassan Diab:
http://www.justiceforhassandiab.org/support
Hassan interview in le courrier de l’Atlas, May 2014:
http://www.lecourrierdelatlas.com/716514052014Rue-Copernic-Hassan-Diab-serafixe-demain-pour-son-extradition-Entretien-exclusif.html
Conference
The 7th Annual Conference of Asian Criminological Society, Criminology and Criminal
Justice in a Changing World: Contributions from Asia,will be held in Hong Kong, 2426 June, 2015. The event is co-organisedby the City University of Hong Kong and The
Chinese University of HongKong. Keynote speakers include:Prof. Steven Messner,
Department of Sociology, University at Albany,State University of New York, USAProf.
Sheldon Zhang, Department of Sociology, San Diego State, University, USAProf. Sandra
Walklate, Department of Sociology, Social Policy, andCriminology, Liverpool University,
UKProf. Robert Sampson, Department of Sociology, Harvard University, USAProf. Ko-lin
Chin, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, USAProf. Joanne Belknap,
Department of Sociology, University of Coloradoat Boulder,
USAhttp://www.cityu.edu.hk/ss_acs2015/about/dates.htmThe online abstract
submission and registration are open until 31March 2015. For guidelines please
refer to the following websites:Individual paper
submission:http://www.cityu.edu.hk/ss_acs2015/papers/individual_sub.htmSession
submission:http://www.cityu.edu.hk/ss_acs2015/papers/session_sub.htmRegistration:
http://www.cityu.edu.hk/ss_acs2015/registration/online_regist.We really appreciate if
you could help forward this message to yourfellow colleagues and postgraduate
students. Look forward to meetingyou in Hong Kong.Sincerely yours,Lee KentPublicity
TeamDepartment of SociologyThe Chinese University of Hong KongEmail:
kentlkw@cuhk.edu.hk
Publication
A new issue of the Spanish language journal from the Observatory of the Penal System
and Human Rights (University of Barcelona), Critica Penal y Poder is available to view
here:
www.criticapenalypoder.com
Tallinn
A BIG THANKS to all the European Group members for making this
newsletter successful. Please feel free to contribute to this
newsletter by sending any information that you think might be of
interest to the Group to Emma/Monish at :
europeangroupcoordinator@gmail.com
Please try to send it in before the 25th of each month if you wish to
have it included in the following month’s newsletter. Please
provide a web link (wherever possible).