United Nations & St Helena

Our Equality & Human Rights Commission ("SHEHRC") has made its first submission to the United Nations regarding Human Rights on St Helena, which makes interesting reading!

The submission is part of an update on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the document can be read at https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/GBR/INT_CCPR_IFS_GBR_41059_E.pdf (other submissions are indexed here: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/SessionDetails1.aspx?SessionID=1371&Lang=en).

The SHEHRC's submission concludes .....

Two issues stand head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to addressing human rights issues within St Helena and affect the SHEHRC’s ability to achieve real progress. They are:

1. The Territory’s restricted ability to exercise its right to self-determination including to report directly to the UN, vote on significant matters like “Brexit” or indeed take part in the elections for the Government that decides its future.

2. The very unclear relationship between the UK Government (UKG) and SHG with regard to responsibility for protecting human rights. Although UKG has supported the development of human rights laws and policies in its St Helena, including the addition of a Bill of Rights section in our Constitution, it has not codified its own responsibility for human rights on the island.

If transparency on these issues can be achieved the path for reporting and resolving the SHEHRC’s concerns will be clearer and it will be more likely that the human rights concerns on the island will be understood and resolved.

It's a great shame that Sir Simon McDonald did not take the time to meet with the SHEHRC during his recent visit. He and they could have had an interesting discussion about this!

It will be interesting to see what the UN thinks about the UK Governments treatment of its ‘colonies’.

No democracy here

On Thursday the people of the mainland UK get to decide who runs the country.  They also get to decide who runs the overseas territories (of which there are many - http://sainthelenaisland.info/government.htm#britishoverseas).  But the people who live in these “OTs” do not get a say in their own future.  The OT citizens are not allowed to vote in UK parliamentary elections, even though the decisions taken by the UK parliament directly affect them in many ways, such as their overarching laws, their local governance and especially funding.  In France the OTs take part in national elections.  Also in Holland.  But not Britain.  Britain, it seems, leads the world in denying democracy to its citizens.

This needs to change.

Problems with elections

We just had a by-election (or, as SHG often charmingly puts it , a"bye-election" - goodbye!)

Once again some candidates put themselves forward even though the result shows there was almost no realistic possibility of them getting elected.  Does this matter?  In a true democracy isn't anybody that is qualified entitled to put themselves forward?

Except that there is a cost to them doing so, not all of it borne by the candidates.  For two examples there is the work registering the candidates and checking their qualifications and also the space allocated to them in newspapers and on the radio.

The only barrier at present is that you need a proposer, a seconder and ten other supporters - this amounts to 0.6% of the electorate.  And at the recent by-election some candidates got very few more votes than this threshold: 34 (less than three times the minimum), 30 & 17 (only 4 more than the minimum).  Surely there should be some mechanism to prevent people from standing if they are only going to get so few votes?

In the UK you make a deposit; a sum of money you put up and if you get fewer than 5% of the votes cast you lose this.  In the UK the sum is £500, designed not to be too high (which would hinder democracy) but also not an insignificant amount to stake.  As St Helena incomes are about a quarter of the equivalent UK salaries, how about a deposit of £100?

£100 should not be enough to put off genuine candidates (and anyway, if they get 5% or more of the votes they get it back). But it might be enough to give pause to people who really have no hope of actually being elected.

In yesterday's by-election three of the five candidates would have lost their deposit, which might have deterred them from standing, making the election simpler and less expensive to run.

Worth discussing?

PS: while we're talking electoral reform, two weeks was not enough time for an effective campaign.  It should be always at least a month.

Your "Right to Know" (but only what we choose to tell you)

Today SHG has issued an Update on the “Code of Practice for Public Access to SHG Information”. Read the update at http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/public-access-to-shg-information-update-on-code-of-practice/

Only 26 requests since June 2017?  And, as we remember it, it was also 26 when the last "update" was issued, some months ago. 

People do not bother using this policy because it is discretionary - you ask and SHG decides what it will release. 

The whole point of Freedom of Information is to expose things SHG would prefer to keep hidden – errors, mismanagement and, perhaps, corruption.  A discretionary policy cannot achieve this.

St Helena needs Statutory Freedom of Information, where SHG is REQUIRED to publish information, even when it would prefer to hush something up.  Inward Investors will run a mile from an administration that keeps its secrets hidden.

https://www.facebook.com/StHelenaFreedomOfInformation/

http://sthelenafoi.org/

Not the whole truth

There is a fascinating policy within SHG. Never, ever acknowledge any input that comes from outside SHG.

x

You see this in yesterday’s press release about the planning permission for the new Prison. http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/exco-report-tuesday-17-september-2019/?fbclid=IwAR26TGf-a5WCw762ikLRWM3veaSjrVuwvBi7EuZgbj3WuoOAR1lb5sLhLlw

“Members noted that the existing Prison and Police Custody Suite located in Jamestown is not fit for purpose as identified following visits and advice from the FCO Prison Adviser. The current conditions and facilities at the Prison are substandard and the need for a new prison is undeniable and long overdue.”

While this is technically correct, it is a distortion of the true facts – not remotely the “whole truth”.

Yes, the Prison Adviser did recommend building a new prison because the one we have is sub-standard and does not meet Human Rights standards. But he started saying that way back in the 1990s and was ignored, even when he repeated his advice several times. It was only when our Equality & Human Rights Commission did its recent Inquiry (http://humanrightssthelena.org/prisoninquiry18.htm) into the prison did SHG take any meaningful action, which has got us to where we are today – some progress.

But SHG cannot allow itself to accept that it is only taking action because “outsiders” have recommended it.

This form of 1984 double-speak is a fundamental part of any SHG press release and it is one of the reason why nobody believes anything said in an SHG press release.

This week it got interesting.

In week-ending 16^th August 2019 we got, as usual, two weekly newspapers:

·         The Sentinel, published by South Atlantic Media Services (S.A.M.S.),a local media company – see http://sainthelenaisland.info/newspaper.htm#thesentinel  (it also has a radio station, S.A.M.S. Radio 1); and

·         The Independent, published by an individual who relocated here many years ago, formerly a Swedish citizen, Per Mikael (“Mike”) Olsson – see http://sainthelenaisland.info/newspaper.htm#theindependent

Usually they cover much of the same news – all the press releases issued during the week and most adverts appear in both - and your choice between which one to buy is based largely on whether you want to know more about what’s happening in the St Helena community (The Sentinel) or more about the machinations of the UK Parliament as they relate to St Helena (The Independent).  Both have an interesting history. The Sentinel used to be very much pro-government, but these days seems to spend a lot of its time questioning government policy and practice.  The Independent used to be fiercely anti-government but is much less so these days.  Both cost £1, so you “pays your money and you makes your choice”.

At least, that’s how it has been up until this week. This week it got interesting!

For background you need to know that St Helena currently has an inward investor, Paul O’Sullivan, a wealthy businessman of Irish origins more recently living in South Africa.  He is planning to build a luxury resort with golf course and 100-150 luxury homes in the Broad Bottom area – a project entitled “Trade Winds”.  The St Helena Government, through its business development arm Enterprise St Helena, has been assisting Mr O’Sullivan in obtaining land for his project.

Last week The Sentinel published a piece pointing out the links between Paul O’Sullivan and groups in South Africa with a strongly pro-Afrikaner agenda.  These groups are linked to the creation of two almost-exclusively Afrikaner “enclaves” in South Africa: “Oriana” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orania,_Northern_Cape) and “Kleinfontein” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleinfontein).

Mr O’Sullivan responded angrily, accusing The Sentinel of trying to sabotage his project and suggesting their article was “treason”, writing them a long and rather diverse email demanding retraction (it was published in part on Facebook^(tm) by one of his supporters).  This set the stage for two interesting newspapers this week.

The Sentinel published on Thursday, 15^th and printed the full email received from Mr O'Sullivan together with a response.

I found their response to the letter masterly - in the best traditions of Journalism.

While he rants and raves and accuses them of just-about every crime under the sun, they remain cool, calm and collected and systematically demolish all his criticisms with facts.

This is exactly how a newspaper should respond to unfair criticism.  Don’t sink to the level of an angry complainant by trading insults.  Listen to what s/he has to say; consider whether any of the complainant’s criticisms are valid and retract or amend where they are; and where they are not, push back with factual information.

In addition to responding to his email they printed a revised version of the article in which only a few minor points of detail were changed, none of them affecting the thrust of the story.

So how would The Independent handle the story?

The Independent published on Friday 16^th.  I don’t buy the St Helena Independent. It’s a waste of £1 to buy both with more-or-less the same content, and as I’m more interested in the St Helena community than in the UK Parliament I buy The Sentinel. But somebody thought I should see this week’s edition and emailed me a copy.

I read it with increasing disbelief.

I don’t recall ever seeing a publication that calls itself a newspaper being so sycophantic about anything. Its love for Paul O’Sullivan is unrestrained. They almost credit him with solving world poverty and creating a cure for cancer. In their eyes he can do no wrong.

They have four full pages plus editorial comment devoted to promoting his project and giving the most positive spin on his background. I can only assume all the content was supplied by Mr O’Sullivan himself and just printed with no attempt at fact-checking, verification or the provision of balance.  They present such an upbeat view of the man one could believe it is only a matter of days before the Pope declares him the other kind of Saint.  They have nailed their colours so firmly to the O’Sullivan mast a category 15 hurricane could not dislodge them.

The only thing they don’t yet seem to have done is change the name of the newspaper. How can it continue to claim to be “Independent”, unless it’s using the double-speak of the “Democratic People's Republic of Korea”? Would “Trade Winds News” be a good new name?

There are rumours that Paul O’Sullivan is funding The Independent and its sister radio station, Saint FM.  Whether these are true I don’t actually know. But if I were a betting man I know where my money would be placed.

I can only say “RIP The Independent. A long time ago you did some good for the people of St Helena. I’m sad to see you come to such a sorry end.”

Let’s see what happens next week......

Facebook censorship

Apparently, on Facebook, I cannot write:

"For example, according to the laws in place in Germany in the 1940s the Holocaust was completely legal ......"

Facebook censors this comment.  The comment is factual, and does not promote any hateful agenda, but apparently it's not the sort of truth Facebook will allow,