Zimbabwe: Urgent protest to save union leaders
ZCTU Alert, 9 May 2008
Police have failed to bring to court ZCTU president, Comrade Lovemore Matombo and his secretary general, Comrade Wellington Chibebe after they were locked up yesterday on allegations of ‘inciting people to rise against the government’.
The two were arrested after they presented themselves to the police yesterday morning. They were initially interrogated for more than six hours before charges were laid against them. They had availed themselves to the police after armed police had visited their residences searching for them.
The allegations arise from speeches which the two made at this year’s May Day celebrations at Dzivaresekwa Stadium.
Aleck Muchademehama, a human rights lawyer who is representing the two said there were no longer any prospects of the police taking the two to court, considering that nothing had been done to prepare the requisite court papers.
He said the two were now set to spend the weekend in police custody as Zimbabwean law stipulates that the police can detain any suspect for a maximum of 48 hours, excluding weekends and public holidays, before he or she is brought to court.
Zimbabwean police are in the habit of detaining political and civil rights activists over the weekend before they are taken to court the next week. The weekend detentions are usually aimed at breaking down the activists, who are usually exposed to extreme inhuman conditions while in police custody.
I have been blogging about a new ecosocialist blog from a green shop steward, missed the march today but planning to mark the ‘catastrophe’ in my own way…compassion for the Palestinians is in short supply in some places.
Any way, Miranda Dunn who is my Green Party Regional Council Friend (an official post!) sent me this…spread the word
Dear Greens,
Forwarding you this info so you can act. Particularly if you have access to
a fax as I will have to send my letter via snail mail.
Miranda Dunn
Barnet Green Party
In the ongoing post-election repression of the democracy movement and
workers and trade unionists in particular, Lovemore Motombo and Wellington Chibebe,
respectively President and General Secretary of the Zimbabwe Congress of
Trade Unions (ZCTU) were arrested on May 8 and charged with “inciting people to
rise against the government and reporting falsehoods about people being killed
’ for speaking out on May Day about the country’s political crisis and the
growing repression of the opposition to Mugabe.
The IUF and unions internationally are calling for messages to the
government of Zimbabwe demanding their immediate and unconditional release. In view of
the extreme violence which has been frequently inflicted on union leaders
and activists, the IUF considers the government responsible for the physical
safety and well being of the arrested ZCTU leaders.
You can fax a message to the government of Zimbabwe at the number indicated
in the sample message below. We also encourage copies to the embassy of
Zimbabwe in your country (a list of embassies is available online at
http://zw.embassyinformation.com/?einfo). Please send copies of any messages you might
send to the IUF secretariat.
Sample Message to President Mugabe
To: Mr. Robert G. Mugabe,
President , Republic of Zimbabwe
Fax: + 263.4.70.38.58
Dear President Mugabe
Concerns: ZCTU leadership arrested
I have been informed of the arrests, on 8 May, of Lovemore Motombo and
Wellington Chibebe, President and General Secretary of the Zimbabwe Congress of
Trade Unions (ZCTU). It is my understanding that the two are charged with
“inciting people to rise against the government and reporting falsehoods about
people being killed’, i.e. exercising the right to freedom of speech which is
guaranteed them under international law and, in their capacity as trade union
officials, the Conventions of the United Nations’ ILO. We therefore call on
your government to immediately and unconditionally release these two detained
trade union leaders. In view of past violence against arrested and detained
trade unionists, we hold your government responsible for their physical
integrity and well being
Yours sincerely
Derek,
“compassion for the Palestinians is in short supply in some places.”
Your comment above is deeply offensive.
It is precisely the type of position that starts and exacerbates conflict, the very subject under discussion.
It is also typical of mainstream politics, [the politics you abhor] whereby if you can’t challenge the argument then rubbish the person[s].
If you disagree with that post then may I invite you to challenge it with evidence and reasoned argument - politely.
Comment by Alan Howe — 11 May, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
Well Alan readers can click on the link and see if it is compassionate as you would argue or not so compassionate which is my view
http://greensstoptheboycott.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/caroline-lucas-another-platform-too-far/
My friend Joel Kovel produced a book length critique of Zionism which was led to a call for a ban by his critics http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2007/11/banned-books-beautiful-books-etc.html.
I guess I should do the same and then when it is banned….?
Basically I think it was right for Caroline to speak on Palestine Solidarity Rally and you and others think it was wrong…or am I missing something?
Comment by Derek Wall — 11 May, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
Derek,
Yes, as ever, the point.
I do not mind that we disagree. I would hope, though, that each of us could at least try to explore the views of the other with the intent of greater understanding.
I respect your right to the view that I and others lack compassion for the Palestinians, even though I find it offensive and untrue.
Each of us should be aware of the impact that our views and actions have upon others, and the potential consequences.
I have invited you into dialogue. If you do not wish to engage that is your prerogative.
Alan
Comment by Alan Howe — 11 May, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
Derek,
As Alan, I find your comment deeply offensive.
I also find your refusal to engage into dialogue surprising.
Let’s summarize.
We publish a piece arguing that Caroline should not have joined a platform organized by the PSC and the BMI because of: 1) the antisemitism associated with these organizations; 2) the Green Party policy of not joining platforms with racist movements [full piece here: http://greensstoptheboycott.wordpress.com/].
You could have argued against this; e.g. presenting evidence that these organizations are not associated with antisemitism, or, that antisemitism must be tolerated because higher values such as “compassion for the Palestinians” are at stake.
Instead, you chose ad-hominem attacks, and when challenged, you refuse to enter into a meaningful argument.
Instead, you try to shift the focus and write:
”
My friend Joel Kovel produced a book length critique of Zionism which was led to a call for a ban by his critics http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2007/11/banned-books-beautiful-books-etc.html.
I guess I should do the same and then when it is banned….?
”
Are you suggesting that I and Mira are responsible for / connected to the (failed) attempt to bann Kovel’s book? If not, what you are trying to say here? What do these […] mean?
Comment by Raphael — 11 May, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
Raphael,
Firstly, apologies for not replying to your email a while back - I was in the middle of elections and exam-induced stress, so you’re not the only one who’s not got a reply as a result! My exams start next week, but the elections being over, stress has reduced.
Whereas Derek may have chosen “ad-hominem attacks” here or not, on your blog you often do the same or, more significantly, chose outright attacks on organisations and individuals both inside and outside the party - I believe, and this is my opinion, that these are attacks and go beyond criticism (such as labeling PSC as ‘antisemitic’ when I have never experienced anything of the kind from the organisation).
When I tried to engage, I was also subject to an ad-hominen attack and told that my support for basic green principles of foreign policy - such as an end to all arms exports - would lead to the destruction of Israel. I was also informed that my desire for a one-state solution where all races, peoples, nationalities and religions could live in peace meant the de facto destruction of Israel.
The funny (or sad) thing is that you seem to have constructed a view that everyone for an academic boycott of Israel holds monolithic views on other issues, such as the question of sanctions. I am happy to listen to your opinion and develop arguments, as I’m sure Derek is, if you’re happy to listen to ours, and not attack us publicly on the internet.
In solidarity,
Aled
Comment by Aled Dilwyn Fisher — 11 May, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
Blimey, I didn’t realise there was a Zionist faction in the Greens. I suppose withholding oil shipments to Gaza is one way of slowing global warming though.
Comment by Calvin — 12 May, 2008 @ 3:31 am
Aled
You say that I too do ad-hominem attacks [not sure why that would justify Derek’s, but], then you cite three examples:
1. “such as labeling PSC as ‘antisemitic’ when I have never experienced anything of the kind from the organisation”; If this refers to cited article on the blog, it is a misrepresentation, here what it says:
“”"
Another organiser is the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), one of the organisations leading the Boycott Israel Into Oblivion campaign. The PSC is involved in a hideous faction fight in which the anti-Zionists who want to get rid of its entrenched antisemitism are fighting the anti-Zionists who think that antisemitism is integral to the struggle for Palestinian rights. Now is not a good time to be sitting on the fence - the defenders of antisemitism are winning.
“”"
Derek himself has published contributions from Tony Greenstein discussiong antisemitism in the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. You can argue, that this is unimportant, that it unsignificant, or that it should be ignored for reasons a)b)c), but not that it does not exist.
2. “I was also subject to an ad-hominen attack and told that my support for basic green principles of foreign policy - such as an end to all arms exports - would lead to the destruction of Israel.”
This is called political disagreement, not ad-hominem. You were not accused of anything, your argument was countered. This is political argument and you could have replied with a political argument, e.g. that Israel would still be able to defend itself without weapons, or that it would not but that this would be a good thing because […], or anything in between.
3. “I was also informed that my desire for a one-state solution where all races, peoples, nationalities and religions could live in peace meant the de facto destruction of Israel.”
Again this is a political argument, not an ad-hominem.
Here is Avnery and Pappe discussing this point:
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=1014
In your three examples, not a trace of ad-hominem, your arguments were taken seriously and dealt with.
In conclusion, you write: “I am happy to listen to your opinion and develop arguments, as I’m sure Derek is, if you’re happy to listen to ours, and not attack us publicly on the internet.”
As demonstrated above, I am not attacking you, but your arguments and support for a boycott. Given the public support given by Derek and yourself for the boycott, I don’t quite see why you are asking me to keep criticism of the boycott private.
Comment by Raphael — 12 May, 2008 @ 9:37 am
Raphael,
I did not justify anything Derek had said or done. I was speaking of my own experience of trying to engage.
In terms of labeling PSC as an organisation as antisemitic, look above at Comment 4 above, where you say that the organisation is “associated” with antisemitism, and suggested that by Caroline speaking at the rally it was a case of being in alliance with “racist movements”. This is a demonstrably false allegation - they may be problems in antisemitic individuals joining PSC for the wrong reasons, but it is not and has never been organisationally or institutionally in any way antisemitic. As you say, Derek and others have highlighted this and attempted to counter it.
In terms of ad-hominen attacks, look at http://greensstoptheboycott.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/green-leadership-stop-the-war-coalition-and-ken-livingstone/#comments, where you deride me by linking to a post from Derek about me being elected General Secretary at the LSE SU.
As for the other arguments, I did not say they were ad-hominen attacks - but they were also not really political arguments either, just blanket rejection and condemnation of my views and suggesting that I had some sort of ulterior motive. Furthermore, I have expressed my concern that, while you have every right to air your views in public, your blog is damaging to the party, and that we should and must use our excellent internal democratic processes to find a solution to this issue.
I can only assure you that I do not, and that I believe that a targeted academic boycott and targeted divestment are necessary to bring justice and peace to the regime.
Aled
Comment by Aled Dilwyn Fisher — 12 May, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Sorry, above should read:
“I can only assure you that I do not *have an ulterior motive*, and that I believe that a targeted academic boycott and targeted divestment are necessary to bring justice and peace to the regime.”
Comment by Aled Dilwyn Fisher — 12 May, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
Aled,
I plead guilty of this ad-hominem attack (link in your comment below):
”
Raphael said,
March 24, 2008 at 1:12 pm · Edit
Jack wrote: “Is this dude for real ?”
Jack, don’t make fun of Aled, he is one of the main ecosocialists of the universe:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1853
Raphael
”
And I apologize for it.
However, I STRONGLY (apology for shouting) reject the claim that I have anywhere publicly or privately suggested that you “had some sort of ulterior motive.” I challenge you to demonstrate that point.
You write:
“I can only assure you that I do not *have an ulterior motive*, and that I believe that a targeted academic boycott and targeted divestment are necessary to bring justice and peace to the regime.”
You do not even need to assure me. I did not believed anything else for one second and I am still ready to engage with you about this issue if you wish to do so.
Regarding the PSC, you may want to read more on Engage:
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/search.php?search=PSC
Comment by Raphael — 12 May, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
Raphael,
I am aware of the problems in the PSC, and have read many of the articles cited there. The whole Palestine Solidarity movement needs to be incredibly wary of how it operates and the kind of people that are involved. I still stand by my statement that PSC as an organisation are wholly committed to peace and justice, and reject antisemitism entirely.
I am not really referring to anything you’ve said - I think it was more in an email exchange with Mira. Perhaps it was just the impression I got but I certainly felt like any attempt to justify my position would be rejected.
Maybe that does indeed show the need for more dialogue, which I am happy to be a part of as always.
Aled
Comment by Aled Dilwyn Fisher — 12 May, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
“When I tried to engage, I was also subject to an ad-hominen attack and told that my support for basic green principles of foreign policy - such as an end to all arms exports - would lead to the destruction of Israel. I was also informed that my desire for a one-state solution where all races, peoples, nationalities and religions could live in peace meant the de facto destruction of Israel.”
Isn’t this the point, we want sanctions, no arms sales to Israel to help hurry its destruction and replacement by a single state.
The rights of the Israeli state to exist in it’s current form is contradictory to the rights of Palestinians, and to all others in the region. Either you support it being crushed by popular resistance or you defacto support the genocide of arabs.
Comment by Kieran — 13 May, 2008 @ 6:37 am
Yes, Kieran.
Wouldn’t it be nice if this planet was somewhere where people of all races and religions could live side by side in peace wherever they are?
Trouble is It ain’t gonna happen. At least for the foreseeable future and until us homo-sapiens have evolved into something more peaceful.
A one state solution now or at any time in the foreseeable future is risking a bloody civil war. The mistrust and antagonism that has built up between the parties involved is going to take a long time to break down.
The path to peace does not involve “crushing” anybody or any state as that too, would be contrary to the rights of those people affected. Indeed the term to “crush” implies an aggressive and hostile act and will be interpreted as such by those involved and will serve merely to entrench their positions and exacerbate the very problem you wish to resolve.
This is a very complex problem, and glib dreamy-eyed idealism is not the way forward. It requires painstaking commitment and involvement, practical and pragmatic action with both sides and this cannot happen if we boycott one of the parties.
That is, however one may feel it is justified, an act of taking sides. This is not, in my interpretation, the way of the Green Party who would, according to my understanding of it’s core values and philosophical basis, wish to take an empathetic [rather than sympathetic to one side] approach of mediation and reconciliation.
Comment by Alan Howe — 14 May, 2008 @ 5:26 pm