IRAQI JUSTICE

 

 

• £2 Million compensation for Iraqi teenager 
• Claims that British soldiers are under valued 

 

The recent ruling from the High Court, awarding an Iraqi teenager a £2million compensation for being accidentally shot by a British soldier has sparked controversy and Briton’s show their anger claiming the ruling is an injustice towards British forces.

 

The political opposition now fears that more and similar proceedings will be brought to British courts and adding to the cost of the Iraq war.

 

Critiques has also been raised in relation to that the Iraqi’s compensation claim being considerably higher than what any British solider are able to receive as they are binned by their contract which state they can only receive a maximum £285000 lump sum payment if injured, together with a lifetime income.   

 

One of the reactions towards the ruling, published by Rob Baker on the Daily Mail website says:“How much will our service persons be worth if killed or injured by the Iraqis? We are so stupid in this country – if you are not a Briton you get massive payouts, however if you are British you would have to fight for years to try and get 2,000 pounds. It is sad that this person was badly injured, but it was an accident. It was also in a Bush/Blair war zone.”

 

However, although disagreeing with the ruling, he is stating the obvious. The Iraq war is a Bush/Blair war zone and every soldier in Iraq has committed themselves to a job well knowing about the dangers they risk and the compensation claims available from their employer.

 

The Iraqi teenager now compensated was thirteen years old at the time the accident happened. The accident occurred when a British soldier he had befriended dropped his gun which had not been secured by the safety catch on it.

The boy was shot in the stomach and spine and will need a lifetime of care.

 

Although a tragic accidents, what separates the teenager from any British soldier who gets injured in service is the matter of choice. British soldiers who get injured choose to get involved and choose to carry arms themselves. The Iraqi people never had that choice.

 

Instead of complaining, this compensation from the High Court should be welcomed by the British people as a sign of responsibility. Finally the British state has showed some level of responsible action in relation to the illegal war they continue to lead in Iraq.

 

PROTESTS FUELLED DEBATE

  

 

The Chinese Olympics

Human Rights violations

The Olympic Spirit       

BBC news reported on Tuesday the headline: “China ‘gold medal’ for executions” in relation to critiques by Amnesty International of the countries history of human rights violations and secrecy over the death penalty.                

The continuous allegations from Amnesty International has created a worldwide debate over China’s position and legitimacy as an Olympic hosting nations and protests have been sparked in relation to the traditional tour of the Olympic torch.  

But as China fight allegations of the assassination of 8000 Chinese citizens, the Olympic Committee continue to claim that the protests against the Olympic host nation defy the meaning of the Olympic spirit.  

One of the slogans of the committee is “Bringing people together” and the IOC President Jack Rogge declared recently: “A person’s ability to express his or her opinion is a basic human right and as such does not need to have a specific clause in the Olympic Charter because its place is implicit.”   

At the same time Rogge continues: “But we do ask that there is no propaganda nor demonstrations at Olympic Games venues for the very good and simple reason that we have 205 countries and territories represented, many of whom are in conflict, and the games are not the place to take political nor religious stands.” 

However to claim that a sporting event of this scale is not a suitable arena for political discussion seems naïve and the Olympic committee should welcome debate and re-evaluate its stands and legitimacy of Chinas human rights violations. That is not to dismiss Chinas impact and citizen’s rights, but merely using a privileged position of putting pressure on the Chinese government on behalf of the suffering of the Chinese people in the running up to this event.

The opposition says that the Olympics are for the people and not the rulers and for many the Olympic Games are a symbol of hope and belonging in the world. However, it is though questionable how great the level of hope has been for the many Chinese people who experience evictions from their land on behalf of enabling the Chinese government to show the world their abilities through this large scale event. This side of the Olympics can hardly be portrayed as ‘bringing people together’ and we should continue to question the significance of the Olympic Committee for blindly allowing these violations and levels of human suffering to continue.