Bow to Terrorism? Quebec Students Continue to Protest and the Government Opens Dialogue

May 23 marked the 100^th day of Quebec’s student strikes. Tens of thousands of people clogged Montreal’s city core in a march designed to mock the new provincial law that demands protest routes be approved in advance. This march was peaceful.

That night, however, again the protests turned violent. Fierce and destructive clashes between demonstrators and police have become commonplace in Montreal over the past three months. So has damage of public and private property and the disruption of freedom. So has the erosion of public safety. So has the corrosion of Montreal’s reputation as a superior North American vacation destination. Travel advisory warnings are in place and the city’s economy is suffering.

What might have begun as demonstrations about the need for meaningful debate about policy decisions that affect citizenry quickly devolved  seemingly into a game of wills.

The tuition hikes, while minimal, are unpleasant and another jab at those who believe that in Canada a university education ought to be a free social service as it is in many European countries. The students and their supporters have every right to voice their opinions and dissatisfaction with the new policy. Having some of the lowest tuition fees in the country does not deny them the right to protest increasing costs.

On the other hand, the violence, the disruption to the lives of other citizens, the destruction of property and the necessity of the city to shell out funds for a heightened police presence and helicopters night after night is wholly disproportionate to the rise in tuition of $254 per year over seven years.

Whether right is on the side of the students’ demand that there be a moratorium on the increased fees or on the side of the government’s position that these increases are necessary is irrelevant to the overall issues of proportionality, freedom and security.

The protest plan seems to be one of intimidation: intimidate the government and attempt to influence policy through public disruption and violence.

Now, after all of the upheaval — when some might argue the government should be cracking down as it had started to do — the government is again stating it will open the pathway to dialogue. The government has now announced that it will again engage with the students.

Montreal is a city that has a riotous nature. In 1955, Montrealers rioted after their beloved hockey player, Rocket Richard, was suspended for his second assault on an official that season. In 1992, violent and destructive riots erupted after a sold-out Guns ‘N’ Roses concert was cut short after an hour. In 2008, happy sports fans turned violent in their celebration of their hockey team making it to the next rounds of the NHL playoffs – costing the city $500,000 in damage to police cars and saddling the owners of private businesses with the costs of vandalism and break-ins. Again in 2010, a winning hockey game sparked riots. The list continues.

Perhaps more should be done in Montreal to discourage this behaviour. One suggestion might be to not bow to terrorism and reignite dialogue as a response to bad behaviour.

The government did step in with some regulation, in the form of Bill 78. Bill 78 generally prohibits the holding of a business, school, school employee, or other citizen hostage through blocking their passage to their work, school, hospital, metro, etc via protest gathering. Lawful protest is still protected. However, Bill 78 requires that in order to hold a lawful protest, one must submit a written and approved explanation of the logistics of the march or gathering – giving the police the chance to organize and ensure a way for other citizens to move around the city safely.  Given Montreal’s recent history, some means of ensuring public safety and freedom seems warranted and reasonable.

Bill 78 might go too far. The possible fines are heavy, perhaps intended to bankrupt disobedient student unions. Debate has ensued as to whether the law infringes on the right to free assembly. It is also obviously enacted just to deal with these protestors. The law is set to expire by July 1, 2013.

Bill 78 would also seemingly make it more difficult for protesters to bully citizens and the government. Last week, protesters stormed into  the Université du Québec à Montréal and students who were attending classes (after an injunction was issued allowing them to return) were physically dragged from their classrooms in an attempt by protesters to enforce their declared strike.

It is unfortunate that Montreal feels the need to resort to policies such as Bill 78. It is unfortunate that this childish and dangerous behaviour of protestors exists to be quelled. Civil disobedience has its place. Violence and destruction of property is a different story.

It is disturbing (and offensive) that the protestors liken their struggles to Arab Spring uprisings against oppression. Despite their possibly legitimate claims, these protestors position themselves as spoiled-brat terrorists.

Trial or Amnesty for LRA commander Caesar Achellam? – Uganda’s Hands are Tied

On Sunday May 13, 2012, the Ugandan army (UPDF) announced that it has had in custody, since the previous day, Caesar Achellam, a Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) commander. Questions abound about what fate awaits this individual allegedly responsible for some of the most egregious abuses against children.

Should he be prosecuted in a court of law or granted amnesty and allowed to rejoin civilian life?

Given that, despite his alleged position as one of the top LRA commanders, he has not been indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), it seems that there are limited options.

It seems that Uganda’s hands are tied – or more accurately, Uganda has tied its own hands.

Uganda’s Amnesty Act of 2000 is written very broadly. It applies to just about any fighter – captured, surrendered or ‘rescued’ – who “renounces and abandons involvement in the war or armed rebellion”. It provides amnesty for any Ugandan “involved in acts of a war-like nature”, including LRA members who might otherwise be charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or gross violations of human rights.

It is interesting that civil society supported the Amnesty Act so vehemently. Even now, as there are seemingly no immediate security concerns, the Amnesty Act is still regarded as a peaceful means of bringing out of the bush those who are still fighting. However, as one civil society member that I quoted in my book described the situation, it is “like forgiveness motivated by intimidation”. Even now there is some fear that if provoked, the LRA can make a revival and return.

Prosecutions are a powerful tool – for reasons that combine the possibility of deterrence and their communicative value of condemnation and respect for human rights. Domestic prosecutions of members of the LRA leadership not indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) would have been appropriate had Uganda not felt the political need to enact the Amnesty Act. Given that the Amnesty Act exists, however, Uganda should not attempt to sidestep its own laws to pursue unevenly the prosecution of some individuals.

Despite its near-blanket qualities, the Amnesty Act does allow for some individuals to possibly be held accountable under domestic jurisdiction. For instance, under the Amnesty Act amnesty is a one-time deal. Achellam would not be eligible for amnesty if he had already been granted amnesty but then returned to fighting – there is no indication that this is the case.

Uganda tied it own hands, but then attempted to loosen the constraints, broadly — and yet in such a way as to not garner much notice.

There is a provision, an amendment to the Amnesty Act added in 2006, that allows Uganda’s Minister of Internal Affairs to prohibit certain individuals from being granted amnesty. Verbatim, it reads, “a person shall not be eligible for grant of amnesty if he or she is declared not eligible by the Minister by statutory instrument made with the approval of Parliament.” To date, this provision has not been employed. There is no further guideline as to how, why, or on what timeline, amnesty could be denied. Over 20,000 fighters have received amnesty.

Despite that fact that Achellam seems to warrant prosecution, it seems unreasonable given Uganda’s history of amnesty that he be put on trial. This is true especially since it was ruled in 2011 that another top LRA leader, Thomas Kwoyelo, was eligible to be granted amnesty.

It is for reasons such as these that amnesty acts should be pursued with great caution. Once enacted, they can be very tricky to manage and they make finding the right balance of justice very difficult.

The Unpunishable? – What to do with Ugandan Rebel Leaders not Indicted by the ICC

Caesar Achellam, a Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) commander, is now in custody of the Ugandan Army (UPDF). The UPDF claimed Sunday that Achellam, allegedly a major general in the LRA, was captured in an ambush on Saturday along the banks of the River Mbou in the Central African Republic (CAR). It is reported that he was “the fourth most senior commander in the LRA, perhaps even the LRA’s most senior strategist”. Achellam is not, however, one of the top LRA leaders indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). And once again, we are faced with the inconsistency of address of widespread and systematic human rights abuses. 

In 2000, Uganda enacted an Amnesty Act that provides blanket amnesty for any Ugandan “involved in acts of a war-like nature”, including LRA members who might otherwise be charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or gross violations of human rights. The Amnesty Act, enacted to bring LRA fighters out of the bush in a hope to end the conflict, is due to expire and there is debate as to whether it is still relevant now when northern Uganda is peaceful. Arguably, it is now only a shield to protect those top commanders who are most responsible for the 20 years of insecurity in the region. At present, the Amnesty Act of 2000 remains in full force.

In 2009, Thomas Kwoyelo, another LRA commander, was captured by the UPDF. He applied for amnesty under the Act, his application was denied, and he was put on trial by the Ugandan government. Kwoyelo “was the first LRA commander to face trial in Uganda’s special war crimes court”.  He was subsequently given amnesty according to the provisions of Uganda’s Amnesty Act, but not released and he remains in custody in Uganda in legal limbo. 

What should be done with Caesar Achellam? The United Nations envoy for children and armed conflict has urged the Ugandan Government to bring him to justice. Although media reports that Achellam was captured, it is argued more likely that he surrendered in the Central African Republic. It doesn’t matter. The Amnesty Act applies to any captured, surrendered or “rescued” fighter who “renounces and abandons involvement in the war or armed rebellion”. Achellam is allegedly responsible for some of the most egregious abuses against children and yet he is still entitled to amnesty under Uganda’s Act. Only those who are indicted by the ICC seem to risk prosecution or any accountability. And yet, since the indictment of the top 5 LRA leaders in 2005, 2 have died and the others remain free, although they are considered some of the most wanted suspected criminals in the world.

Update: Also see: Trial or Amnesty for LRA commander Caesar Achellam? – Uganda’s Hands are Tied