Ecuadorian police break into Mexican Embassy, arrest former Ecuadorian VP Jorge Glas

Spread the love

Original article by Zoe Alexandra republished from peoples’ dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Ecuadorian police breaking into the Mexican Embassy in Quito.

After the Ecuadorian National Police forcibly entered its embassy in Quito, Mexico announced the suspension of diplomatic relations with the country

Lee en español aquí

Late on Friday April 5, dozens of Ecuadorian police officers forcibly entered the Mexican Embassy in Quito and detained former Ecuadorian vice president Jorge Glas. Glas had been conceded political asylum by Mexico earlier that day after having applied in December 2023 amid intensified political persecution against him.

The move has been widely condemned by nearly the entire political spectrum in Mexico as a grave violation of Mexican sovereignty and has also been widely condemned by progressives in Ecuador.

Following the incident, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and Foreign Minister Alicia Bárcena announced that Mexico was suspending diplomatic relations with the country.

Roberto Canseco, the head of Foreign Ministry and Political Affairs at the Mexican Embassy in Quito who was present when the incursion took place, spoke to the press shortly after the incident. “They threw me to the floor. I tried to physically stop them from entering but like criminals they raided the Mexican Embassy in Ecuador. This is not possible, this cannot be, it is insane,” Canseco told reporters incredulously.

The diplomat told reporters that there had been no prior warning to the police raid, but that it clearly happened because Glas is being persecuted. He also expressed concern over the whereabouts and wellbeing of the former VP.

He added, “Risking my life, I defended the honor and sovereignty of my country.”

The unprecedented incident took place amid rising tensions between the two countries. Jorge Glas had been seeking refuge at the Mexican embassy since December 18, 2023 and residing at the embassy as a “guest” after Ecuadorian authorities began to intensify pressure on Glas and summon him for investigations. This past week, the government of Daniel Noboa announced that it declared the Mexican Ambassador Raquel Serur Smeke a “persona non-grata” allegedly in response to comments made by President López Obrador in his morning press conference which insinuated that Noboa had benefited from the assassination of presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio. However, many analysts have pointed to Glas’ presence in the embassy as the key factor behind Quito’s attacks on Mexico, and the events of April 5 seem to have confirmed this theory.

Jorge Glas: Victim of lawfare in Ecuador

Glas spent five years in prison, after being convicted of criminal conspiracy in the Odebrecht case, as part of the vicious lawfare campaign against members of Rafael Correa’s administration. Glas was later convicted in April 2020, along with Correa, in the “Bribes Case”, which alleged that they and 18 other government officials accepted bribes from private companies in exchange for public contracts. As prosecutors were unable to find evidence that the two received bribes, Glas and Correa were accused of “psychic influence” on their subordinates who allegedly carried out these deals and sentenced to several years in prison. Correa was also banned from participating in politics for 25 years.

Read more: Rafael Correa terms prison sentence an act of political persecution

Throughout the intense lawfare campaign against him and others, Glas has maintained that he is innocent and that both the charges and the harsh sentencing of him constitutes political persecution.

During the Correa presidency, Glas was one of the key leaders in the “Citizen’s Revolution” political project, which sought to make important social and economic reforms to better conditions for the majority. During this period, the Correa administration launched a Constituent Assembly to rewrite Ecuador’s constitution to guarantee essential rights for all, among other measures to promote national culture, Indigenous rights; it promoted Latin American regional integration over ties with the US and kicked out the US military base; and maintained anti-neoliberal economic policies, favoring social investment over cuts to public spending and social programs.

This project was brought to a halt in 2017 when Lenín Moreno was elected president and made a volte-face in Ecuador’s policies across the board, taking out a massive loan from the IMF, exiting regional integration spaces and attacking the country’s regional allies and economic partners like Venezuela, and imposing harsh austerity measures and brutally repressing protests against the measures. Under Moreno, the Attorney General also began its targeted attacks on leaders and officials of the Citizen’s Revolution.

Glas was eventually released on November 28, 2022 and granted “provisional freedom” as he had fulfilled over 40% of his prison sentence. However, in December 2023, days after he arrived at the Mexican embassy and weeks after Daniel Noboa took office as president, a judge revoked Glas’ provisional freedom and called for his arrest and imprisonment. Fearing for his life, Glas remained at the embassy and applied for political asylum, which was granted April 5, 2024.

The left in Ecuador responds

Progressive groups in Ecuador immediately expressed outrage at the actions of Noboa’s government and the National Police and issued sharp condemnations.

The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities (CONAIE) wrote in a statement on X, “The violation of the Mexican embassy in Ecuador is an extremely serious fascist act that threatens diplomatic relations and international law…It is worrying to observe how the authoritarian and fascist government of Ecuador uses force to secure its political trophies. This flagrant violation not only affects bilateral relations between Mexico and Ecuador, but also sends a dangerous message to the international community.”

Pabel Muñoz, the mayor of Quito and a member of the Citizen’s Revolution Movement party, stated, “Unacceptable, a global embarrassment. What just happened in the Mexican Embassy in Quito creates a complex situation for Ecuador before the international system and law. Is there any doubt that Jorge Glas is the victim of terrible persecution? The more concerning part is that he had already been granted political asylum.”

Correa also issued a short statement repudiating the attack on Mexico and the arrest of Glas, “What the government of Noboa has done is unprecedented in Latin American history. Not even in the worst dictatorships was the embassy of a country violated. We do not live under rule of law, it is a state of barbarie, with a guy who improvises [Noboa] that confuses the Homeland with one of his banana farms. We hold Daniel Noboa responsible for the safety and physical and psychological integrity of former Vice President Jorge Glas. To Mexico, its people and its Government, our apologies and eternal admiration.”

Mexico unites in defense of its sovereignty

People across Mexico have expressed outrage in response to the brazen violation of the country’s sovereignty and of international law. In the statement announcing the suspension of diplomatic relations, President López Obrador said it was “an authoritarian act” and a “flagrant violation of international law and Mexican sovereignty”.

Foreign Minister Alicia Bárcena said in an interview with TeleSur that in addition to suspending diplomatic ties, Mexico would take Ecuador to the International Court of Justice and all multilateral bodies over its unprecedented actions.

Presidential candidate for MORENA, Dr. Claudia Sheinbaum called the incident “an attack on diplomacy and international law that is inadmissible”.

Mexico’s Senate also released a statement “energetically condemning” the Ecuadorian government’s actions and demanding “respect to our sovereignty and to the integrity of our Embassy and diplomatic personnel.” They called on the Ecuadorian government to reconsider its actions and resume the diplomatic path to resolve issues.

Both traditional right-wing parties PRI and PAN issued condemnations of the police invasion, while their joint candidate in the upcoming elections released a lukewarm statement saying that diplomatic missions cannot be violated.

Honduran President Xiomara Castro and Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil expressed their solidarity with Mexico and condemned Ecuador’s violation of international law.

Original article by Zoe Alexandra republished from peoples’ dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Continue ReadingEcuadorian police break into Mexican Embassy, arrest former Ecuadorian VP Jorge Glas

Morning Star: Defending democracy – how can we beat back Gove’s dangerous authoritarianism?

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/e/defending-democracy-how-can-we-beat-back-goves-dangerous-authoritarianism

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Michael Gove speaking during the Scottish Conservative party conference at the Event Complex Aberdeen, March 2, 2024

The left cannot confine ourselves to condemning what the government does. We need strategies to undo it. This applies to the toxic new definition of extremism announced by Michael Gove last week, which could have catastrophic long-term consequences.

The new definition — and its associated practice, the labelling of certain organisations as extremist by ministerial decree — must not be allowed to bed in. We need mass refusal to accept it, declarations by devolved and local government, trade unions, charities and campaigns that we wholly reject it.

The joint statement by key organisers of the mass street movement for Gaza that Gove’s “redefinition of extremism … is in reality an assault on core democratic freedoms” is the right approach.

Our defence must be to go on the attack against the extremism definition, to campaign publicly for its reversal and to sign up every organisation that cares for its democratic image to officially oppose it.

The next government should inherit a policy that is already utterly discredited and unworkable because its right to define extremists is universally rejected.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/e/defending-democracy-how-can-we-beat-back-goves-dangerous-authoritarianism

Continue ReadingMorning Star: Defending democracy – how can we beat back Gove’s dangerous authoritarianism?

Gove’s ‘anti-extremism’ drive puts democracy at risk, campaigners warn

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/splash-democracy-risk-warns-left-after-gove-plan

Communities secretary, Michael Gove, February 11, 2024

DEMOCRACY is under threat, campaigners warned today as the Tories launched a new “anti-extremism” drive aimed mainly against Muslims.

Communities Secretary Michael Gove named three Muslim organisations in the Commons as he unveiled the government’s new definition of extremism, apparently responding to the mass movement of solidarity with the Palestinian people that has mushroomed over the last five months.

One of the organisations named by Mr Gove, the Muslim Association of Britain, has been part of the coalition of five groups organising the national demonstrations.

The others singled out by the Tories are Mend and Cage. For show, two obscure far-right groups, British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative, were also identified.

The five pro-Palestinian campaigns, which include Stop the War and Palestine Solidarity, said in a statement that the “redefinition of extremism is in reality an assault on core democratic freedoms, seeking to silence dissenting voices.”

Stressing “the fundamental right to legitimately campaign to change government policy,” the joint statement added that “the marches have been overwhelmingly peaceful and attended by a broad cross-section of British society.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/splash-democracy-risk-warns-left-after-gove-plan

Continue ReadingGove’s ‘anti-extremism’ drive puts democracy at risk, campaigners warn

Rishi Sunak’s plan to redefine extremism is disingenuous – and a threat to democracy

Spread the love
Over 400 disrupt operations at BAE Systems site and call for ceasefire ahead of national march for Palestine 10 Nov 2023
Over 400 disrupt operations at BAE Systems site and call for ceasefire ahead of national march for Palestine 10 Nov 2023

Alan Greene, University of Birmingham

Unhappy with large protests against the increasingly dire situation in Gaza, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is seeking to update the UK’s definition of extremism. This, he has argued, is needed because “our democracy itself is a target” of antisemitic and Islamophobic extremists.

However, the reality is that no measures do more damage to democracy than policy proposals like the one Sunak is promoting.

The UK already has a definition for extremism, which is used in efforts to tackle terrorism. We may think of the police as leading those efforts, but the UK’s Prevent strategy now also places a duty on certain other authorities to “have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”.

These authorities include local government, education institutions and the NHS. In reality, the UK has placed teachers and NHS staff on the frontline in the fight against terrorism, on top of all their other duties that they were actually trained to do.

To help those with a duty under Prevent to identify people at risk of being drawn into terrorism, the government currently defines extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. Also included are “calls for the death of members of our armed forces”.

This definition is not contained in any law, however. Instead, it features in the government’s Prevent guidance. A key reason why this definition is not contained in legislation is because it is so vague and unclear. It would be difficult to legally oblige anyone with a duty under Prevent to apply the definition – and even more difficult for a court to determine what it means.

Even as guidance, there are still problems with the definition. It offers enormous discretion to the people deciding who is at risk of being drawn into terrorism. Discretion can lead to inconsistent application. That, in turn, can lead to discrimination.

Vague to vaguer

It has been suggested that the new definition of extremism will include the “promotion or advancement of ideology based on hatred, intolerance or violence or undermining or overturning the rights or freedoms of others, or of undermining democracy itself”.

What does it mean to undermine or overturn the rights or freedoms of others? Would arguing for the UK to leave the European convention on human rights count meet the bar?

Likewise, what does it mean to undermine democracy? Does excessive corporate lobbying do so? What about calling for restrictions on the right to free speech or the right to protest? These are fundamental rights that are absolutely necessary for a democracy to flourish. Would they be extremist?

Existing laws are enough

Sunak is presenting the new definition of extremism as a response to protests he depicts as being out of control. But the UK already has numerous laws in place to tackle what it considers to be unacceptable behaviour at protests. The Terrorism Act (which is also incredibly broad) can be used to prosecute people who damage property or create a serious risk to public safety during protests.

Counter-terrorism laws can also capture forms of expression at public demonstrations or online. It is already a crime to express support for a proscribed (unlawful) organisation, or to wear clothing, symbols or publish images in a way which can raise suspicion that you support an unlawful organisation. So, for example, if you express support for Hamas — a proscribed organisation — you are already committing a crime and can be prosecuted for it.

Meanwhile, the Public Order Act contains offences dealing with hate speech. These include using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displaying written material which is intended to or likely to stir up racial or religious hatred.

In 2022, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act expanded the criminal offence of causing a public nuisance to include “serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity”. This can now be applied by he police to criminalise protests that are considered to be making too much noise.

It is hard, therefore, to see which bases are not already covered for a government looking to prosecute people for extremism. These mechanisms have already been used to clamp down on all kinds of activism. In reality, there is no gap in the law that needs fixing. Rather, this proposal looks like a classic example of a government talking tough on crime and terrorism in order to boost its poll ratings in an election year.

The right to protest

Adding new definitions for extremism only creates problems. The vaguer a definition gets, the easier it is to misuse. It can also have a pervasive chilling effect on free speech. People may self-censor out of fear of being identified as extremist, not least when their employer has a duty under Prevent.

The fact of the matter is that human rights law allows for protests to be disruptive. Otherwise, they could be simply ignored. Human rights law also allows people to “shock, offend, and disturb” through speech.

The government may not be happy with large public protests against its foreign policy but it should not be viewed as extremist to march for a ceasefire in Gaza. Likewise, it should not be viewed as extremist to vocalise opposition to the potential genocide being committed by the Israeli Defence Forces. If this were so, then the International Court of Justice is extremist.

There is a deep danger of conflating protest with extremism and terrorism, undermining the legitimacy of these protests. To stretch the concept of extremism to cover these views is what is actually undermining democracy and the rights and freedoms of others.The Conversation

Alan Greene, Reader in Constitutional Law and Human Rights, University of Birmingham

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

Continue ReadingRishi Sunak’s plan to redefine extremism is disingenuous – and a threat to democracy

‘Profoundly anti-democratic and repressive’

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/profoundly-anti-democratic-and-repressive

Government told to reject John Woodcock’s proposals to blacklist Palestine solidarity and climate campaign groups

UNIONS and human rights groups have called on the government to reject “profoundly anti-democratic and repressive” proposals to blacklist Palestine solidarity and climate campaign groups.

John Woodcock, Westminster’s adviser on political violence, urged the government earlier this month to ban politicians from engaging with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), as well as groups such as Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil.

Mr Woodcock, who has received money from Israel lobby groups, said that the government should take a “zero-tolerance approach” to pro-Palestine protests, which he claimed were a “menace […] threatening our democracy.”

In a joint statement, civil rights orgnisations Liberty, Friends of the Earth and Amnesty International said the activities of organisations like PSC are “essential elements of our democratic system.”

“Any suggestion that the government or political parties should ban all meetings or engagement with legal civil society organisations or sections of the electorate is profoundly anti-democratic and sets a dangerous precedent,” it warned.

“Politicians should be listening to the wishes of the public and put pressure on Israel to end its murderous assault, rather than trying to shut down democratic engagement and debate.”

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/profoundly-anti-democratic-and-repressive

Continue Reading‘Profoundly anti-democratic and repressive’