Indonesia's shameful human rights record: Censorship. Torture. Unlawful detention. Help urge just 6 more Representatives to voice their support for p

Indonesia's shameful human rights record: Censorship. Torture. Unlawful detention.
Help urge just 6 more Representatives to voice their support for political prisoners in Indonesia before President Obama's trip!


President Obama's trip to Indonesia, which has been delayed twice before, has been re-scheduled for early this month - a critical time for action in Indonesia.

Government censorship in Indonesia is at a boiling point - books, films and other media are being banned. A gruesome video has recently surfaced showing Indonesian military forces burning, beating and torturing a number of Papuans, one of the country's marginalized groups. Filep Karma, who was arrested 6 years ago for simply raising the Papuan flag, remains in jail.

The President's re-scheduled trip to Indonesia truly couldn't come at a more crucial time, but his trip won't mean as much if our members of Congress don't back him up!

In late July, your tireless activism helped secure much-needed medical attention for Filep Karma before he was returned back to prison shortly after. Filep asked us to pass along his thanks to all Amnesty activists who made his surgery possible.

House Resolution 1355 was created for people like Filep - those who are jailed because they dared to exercise their political beliefs publicly, yet peacefully.

And because so many of you have already picked up the phone and sent emails and letters to champion this cause, we've already gained a tremendous amount of support in Congress.

But we need just 6 more members to voice their support from the House Foreign Affairs Committee in order for the resolution to move forward!

Please send your message of support now. Filep and other prisoners of conscience in Indonesia don't deserve to spend another day behind prison bars.

(Source: Amnesty – USA)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Tower Hamlets: interview with Labour mayoral candidate Helal Abbas


I've walked, bussed and driven past the twin red doors and multilingual script of the Bethnal Green and Bow Labour Party office on Cambridge Heath Road for more years than I care to remember, going back to distant days when Peter Shore was still the local MP. From one of these doors emerged Councillor Helal Abbas, a past and now present leader of Tower Hamlets Council and a man with a scrap on his hands.
By his own admission he thinks the result of his race with Lutfur Rahman, his fellow Councillor for Spitalfields and Banglatown, former friend and now main rival to become the borough's first directly-elected mayor, is "very close." Ladbrokes have made him him the slight favourite, but even some of his own supporters aren't so sure. Our interview took place yesterday late lunchtime, before Ken Livingstone's rather startling intervention had made the news. Who knows what effect that has had?
We crossed the road to the cafe of the Bethnal Green Museum of Childhood and the clamour of visiting school children. This made it fitting that my first question was about education, specifically academies. The new government wants more of them, everywhere. In Hackney, just up the road, there are several, including the most successful in the country. Abbas's Conservative opponent Neil King is eager to bring them to Tower Hamlets. It presently has none. Abbas wants to keep things that way.
"Academies lack accountability," he said. "I cannot see why we should hand over major assets to private sector companies in return for a small contribution. We want the private sector to play a part [in education], and as a result of that we have private sector representatives on our governing bodies, we have private sector people mentoring our headteachers and we are open to sharing best practices. But I worry about the admission policies some academies may introduce. We want to raise standards across the board not in a small number of selective institutions."
A former lead member on education, he spoke proudly of the Council's record of investing in schools and attracting good teachers. A while ago banners hung from the borough's lamp posts proclaiming improvements in exam results. "We have exceeded, year on year, national average in our key stage two and some of our exam results are better than several other local authorities,' he said. "And this has happened because of the investment and our strong commitment in empowering our young people to acquire the basic skills they need in life to move on and the best tools to move out of poverty."
But such investment will be difficult to maintain. Abbas requires no reminder that tomorrow's comprehensive spending review will contain little good news for local authorities. Might he try to compensate by raising the local Council Tax? "At the moment there are no plans for any substantial increases," he replied. "Last year we did not increase it. The Council Tax does not raise a huge amount of money. Also, the majority of our people are on housing benefit, because it is a poor borough. Increasing Council Tax is not a real option. We will look at that option when we have to, but I don't think it's going to fill the black hole the Tory government is going to create."
What will he do about that black hole? Abbas explained that after becoming leader again in May (displacing Rahman), he set up a budget working party of officers and Councillors, "looking at how we can do things differently, how we can do things partnership-wise, how we can make better use of our IT facilities, how can we perhaps introduce new procurement strategies and asking how can we change working patterns of people and a whole range of ways that we an make ourselves an even more lean and efficient borough without having to touch some of the core services."
To some, I pointed out, this might read like a euphemism for making cuts.
"The cuts are going to be imposed by the Coalition government," he said.
I mentioned the interest of Liberal Democrat candidate John Griffiths in possible Coalition plans to give local authorities more powers, perhaps including the ability to raise money from local business rates. Abbas responded by reminding me about the problems caused by the radical decentralisations of past Liberal Democrat administrations in Tower Hamlets. That said, he is keen to devolve in his own way: "We have been piloting how local people can have a greater say in the way we spend funding. We want to look at how we can extend that to offer real money, real decision-making power to local people to decide about where and how much to spend on priorities that they identify."
Housing is huge issue in Tower Hamlets, with many households living in overcrowded conditions and many on the Council's waiting list. Problems that exist all over London are especially acute in this borough. "We have a number of large families in Tower Hamlets and we have always had that tradition, whether they are the Irish, Bangladeshis or newly-arrive Somali communities," Abbas said. "We respect that. Tower Hamlets Council will not dictate the size and type of families! We will work with people to make sure we have balanced housing development which caters for large families as well as for young, single people."
Neil King had told me that Tower Hamlets cannot afford to be too picky about the types, shapes and sizes of housing in the current economic climate. Abbas, though, was adamant that the priority should be to deliver housing as closely as possible in line with local need. "I'm not sure where he's coming from. I came into politics through housing campaigns. I was involved in the squatting movement in the late-Seventies and I make no apologies about it. It was appalling to see hundred of thousands of empty homes when people were living in appalling conditions. I became a founding member of a housing co-op, which became the Spitalfields Housing Association. I've served on the boards of housing associations. Housing is a key priority for me. The way round it is not to say 'you've got too large a family, you can't afford it.'"
He told me that Tower Hamlets was one of the first Councils to impose a minimum social housing quota for developers and had successfully defended the policy in the courts. "We have been arguing that 50 percent of all development should be social housing," he went on. "We haven't been able to achieve that, but that's our target. I want to look at the range of housing options we can offer. How can we increase the opportunities for first time buyers? Can we give them a grant? Can we give them an interest-free loan? Can we also look at self-build schemes? We want to look at housing options rather than saying 'OK if you're rich then go ahead look after yourself.' As a local authority we can buy shares in those schemes, as a percentage of purchase on the basis that when they sell the house they pay us our percentage back. We can be a shareholder, we can be a stakeholder."
This sounds a little like the idea for a "Mayor's mortgage" put forward by the former local MP Oona King during her campaign against Ken Livingstone to become Labour's London mayoral candidate. But I was more struck by similarities between Abbas's policies and those of Rahman. From their own words there seems little to separate them on core Council issues such as housing, Council Tax and education. Abbas, though, was clear about the key difference between them.
"I think Lutfur Rahman is running a personalised, egoistic campaign," he said. "I stand on the platform of an established political party which has very clear social justice policies which support ordinary people of whatever background or race. We represent a wide section of Tower Hamlets - people of different interest groups, different age groups, different faith groups. My campaign is not about Abbas, it's about the Labour Party, whereas the independent candidate's campaign is about him."
Rahman had told me he's to the left of Abbas politically.
"It's not about left or right," Abbas responded. "It's about being able to provide the quality of services people of Tower Hamlets deserve. I have a much stronger track record in being able to turn round local schools, turning round a failing local authority to become one of the most successful in the country, being able to raise the status of Tower Hamlets as a borough. That only happens when you have accountability and transparency, where you have an established political party [in control] and to hold you to account.
"Lutfur Rahman represents a divisive agenda. He represents the Respect agenda and [George] Galloway's agenda, and we've seen what's happened in the last four or five years. We've seen incompetence, we've seen chaos. We've not seen a single thing that Galloway can show that he has initiated, supported or achieved. And that's what will happen."
I put it to Abbas that his campaign has been damaged by way in which his selection as Labour's candidate came about. Rahman, to recap, won a ballot of Tower Hamlets party members by a large margin having fought his exclusion from two shortlists by legal means (an odd irony is that Abbas himself failed to make the first shortlist and would not be the candidate now had Rahman not forced Labour to draw up a second one). At the time, Labour's regional party officers and others present were confident that the vote had been conducted properly. Yet in a statement from Abbas to Labour's National Executive committee he alleged, among other things, that there had been many irregularities. Rightly or wrongly, the suspicion of a stitch up appears to have helped Rahman's campaign.
"It's been a difficult process," Abbas replied, diplomatically, "I think for all of us. Having said that, the NEC is the ultimate body. They have selected me on the basis of my past track record. I have served as a successful leader previously. I'm now in my fifth year in all as a leader."
But many have questioned why local London assembly member and a former Tower Hamlets Council leader John Biggs wasn't imposed in Rahman's place. He had come second in the ballot to Abbas's third. Who could be blamed for suspecting that Abbas had been preferred because it was believed that a white candidate can't win in a borough where the Bangladeshi community, though comprising only around a third of all residents, is highly politicised and has a huge bearing on election results?
"I don't think the issue was about race," Abbas said. "I've got a great deal of respect for John who is a good friend of mine.'
But what might have been in the minds of the NEC members?
"The Labour Party decided to exclude Lutfur Rahman because of the number of allegations against him and how he used his authority during the period he was leader. They looked at the six people on the list [of those who'd finished behind Rahman], they looked at their competence and their track record and I have a far stronger track record than the others of being able to preside over a one billion pound local authority and gain the respect of residents of Tower Hamlets and Whitehall departments.
"Lutfur had the opportunity to challenge those allegations. He should have stayed in the Labour Party. If you've got a grievance, you see it through. He did not have the patience. He chose to stand against the Labour Party and as a result has been rightfully expelled."
In his statement to the NEC, Abbas made the dramatic claim that Rahman had been "brainwashed" by the Islamic Forum of Europe, a local Islamic community and social action organisation. Did he stand by that claim?
"He has been influenced by external factors which I have identified in my statement," Abbas said. "Some of his decisions [showed] he had very strong links with people other than Councillors. In my opinion it was inappropriate that there are people who have infiltrated the leadership he ran, infiltrated the Labour Party and infiltrated some of the Council membership. As a result of that the Labour group was not operating as a Labour group, without interference."
I wanted Abbas to define exactly what he considers sinister about the IFE. Even if it is has been as effective as he says in bringing an influence to bear, what precisely was wrong with that? After all, the organisation makes no secret of encouraging community activism. All kinds of community organisations influence all kinds of politicians. Abbas answered me as follows:
"We seek partnership with faith-based groups across the board. When I became leader of Tower Hamlets Council I set up the interfaith forum, I initiated the Council of Mosques because we believe that faith groups have a strong role to play. We value that, we bring them on board, and we want to work with them. What I object to is when organisations join the Labour Party with other motives than the core principles of the Labour Party. They [the IFE] were trying to over-influence it, trying to assert their own agenda. Not only myself but people like [the local MP]. Jim Fitzpatrick have objected that our party, the Labour Party, has been infiltrated and hijacked by people who were trying to piggy back on the Labour Party to achieve their own goals, and that's wrong."
What is it about the IFE's goals that is incompatible with those of the Labour Party?
"I think looking after the interests of a specific group, one faith group at the expense of other groups. As the leader of Tower Hamlets Council I have a moral and a legal obligation to look after the interest of all our residents regardless of their faith or cultural background."
So was that the nub of it? That the IFE serves the interest of only one faith community?
"They were serving the interest of one faith group at the cost of others. I think that would be wrong for the Labour Party. For any party. What I want to do is look at how we unite the East End. How do we reach out to more people? How do we build a strong and fair Tower Hamlets for all?"
Would he have any truck with the IFE if he became Mayor?
"I want to reach out to all faith groups and if IFE or any other organisation meets our requirements then I welcome that. I will not set out with the intention of excluding anyone."
I mentioned that on Sunday the Telegraph had described the East London Mosque, which has been alleged to be practically indistinguishable from the IFE, as "hardline" (the IFE rents office space in the adjoining London Muslim Centre). The mosque is also described by critics as a Jamaat mosque, saying that its takes its ideology from Jamaat e Islami, a fundamentalist political party. I'm certain that the mosque itself would object to such descriptions. Does Abbas consider the East London Mosque to be Jamaat or "hardline"?
"My role as a Councillor is that I will work with all faith groups if they subscribe to the terms of reference of partnership," he replied. "And if the East London Mosque - which has been a partner the Council has worked with in the past - subscribes to the terms of reference that I will set out when, hopefully, I am elected, then we will be very happy to work with them."
Could he say more about those "terms of reference"?
"I think we want organisations to contribute to schemes and projects for all our communities. I will not be party to organisations that may want to exclude others and promote single issues."
I wondered if there might be a contradiction there. Local authorities work with faith groups, or any kind of "third sector" body, if they believe they can do socially productive work with a particular section of society. In the case of faith groups, that will often be people who subscribe to the same faith.
"If their work contributes to the community cohesion of Tower Hamlets then we will welcome them," said Abbas. "But as a local authority we cannot fund faith-based activities. What can fund work that complements the Council's programme. And if they do that, whether it's a mosque or a church or a synagogue, we welcome that. We will expect all our partners to sign a code of conduct. And if the East London Mosque or a Roman Catholic church or whoever can subscribe to that we will welcome their contribution, because I think everyone has a contribution to make."
The IFE has issued a statement, which I wrote about yesterday, taking issue with its characterisation by Abbas in his NEC statement and claiming to have been courted by him during the selection process. Abbas denied this: "I have not had any contacts during this election with IFE or with East London Mosque. If anything, they [the IFE] have been ringing me and wanting to meet me and I have refused to meet them. That's for the record.
"Secondly, in my time as a leader, yes I have worked with East London Mosque but not with IFE, which is not a public organisation. It does not have a constitution and does not have a published record. They do not formally exist. You cannot find a copy of their annual report, annual accounts, a list of their members. What we had is a strong partnership with the East London Mosque in the past and, as I said, if they subscribe to the Council's partnership principles we would welcome that to continue. There are a number of projects currently operating in the East London Mosque and the [adjoining] London Muslin Centre, funded by Tower Hamlets Council."
Abbas returned to his theme of fighting social division, emphasising his pedigree and personal history. He recalled the days when the National Front were active in the area and when Derek Beackon became the nation's first British National Party first elected represented in 1993: "As a local person, a local lad from the Bangledeshi community who grew up locally, and has been through those difficult times, I naturally became politicised about rights, about equality, about equal opportunities for all, and therefore I think naturally had a very strong grasp of how to work with different sections of the community and how not to allow a dominant group to take over and exclude others.
"And as someone who went through local schools, with children who attended both local primary and secondary schools, I wanted my family to grow up among people of different nationalities and backgrounds, and that's what actually makes Tower Hamlets such a rich borough. I have that experience. And I think I'm well-placed to unite the division that Galloway and Respect and the independent candidate have created for Tower Hamlets."
I put it to him that a lot of the controversy around Tower Hamlets is an aspect of a wider debate about multiculturalism and what it means, or ought to mean. "It is about being able to treat people with respect," said Abbas. "It is about appreciating difference. But it is also about being able to work with people to create opportunities. For example, I used to be on the board of Tower Hamlets Community Housing run by a young, white director who grew up in Tower Hamlets, of about my age. Now, he celebrates every single religious celebration in his organisation. On some occasions I've seen more non-Muslims celebrating the Eid festival, because he created those kinds of environments.
"A local authority is an enabler. It can help people learn about each other much more so they build up relationships. If you come to my house for a cup of tea I'm more likely to go to your house for a cup of tea and if I see you in the street I'm more likely to talk to you. A local authority needs to create those opportunities. Our local authority needs to be transparent in the way we spend our funding, the way we allocate our housing, the way we run our schooling. We need to win the trust of people so that they do not have a perception of one group being favoured over another.
"That's not easy," he concluded. "It's not risk free. But it needs to be done. I have done it, and I think I can do it again."
Source :Guardian UK