HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN ZIMBABWE

On the eve of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Zimbabwe, with Comrade Mugabe the host, we received the following special report from "Rhodesia Christian Group", whose President is the Rev. Fr. Arthur Lewis, who served in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) for many years. The Director of "Rhodesia Christian Group" is Mr. W. Denis Walker, who was a Member of Parliament in Rhodesia prior to "independence". In view of the theme of the current Commonwealth conference in Zimbabwe, "Human Rights" the following report deserves the widest possible distribution. Prime Minister Hawke might care to comment on the report after his return from Zimbabwe.
The report is entitled "TORTURE AND FORGET", and reads:

"At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting due to begin in Harare on 16th October the issue of human rights is expected to be prominent. It is ironic that the host nation is itself one of the most cynical abusers of civil liberties in Africa. While there are many cases which could be used to highlight the way the Zimbabwean Government of Robert Mugabe has ridden roughshod over the constitution, just the following examples, that of the former Member of Parliament Mr. Wally Stuttaford and the former Cabinet Minister, Mr. Stanley Malumisa, will serve as an illustration.

"Mr. Stuttaford was the Member of Parliament for Bulawao South. In mid 1981, following Prime Minister Mugabe's public declarations of his intention to turn Zimbabwe into a one party state, Mr. Stuttaford and others started holding talks to seek constitutional ways to oppose this proposal. "Under powers granted by the state of emergency, Mr. Stuttaford was arrested. He was tortured by the secret police, the C10, to try to force him to 'confess' to acts he had not committed. Given that Mr. Stuttaford was, at the time of his arrest, a sixty-two year old man, the brutal treatment he received at the hands of the police and the C10 makes it remarkable that he was able to survive detention.

"The torture took several forms. Pens and sticks were placed between his fingers, which were then squeezed by the interrogators. This caused immense pain in his hands. He was forced to run on the spot, to bend over with his finger touching the ground and then to run round in a circle. He was forced to squat against the wall on an imaginary chair. When, through exhaustion, he was unable to continue these activities, he was beaten again.

"During interrogation he was forced to sit with his legs stretched out. When he gave an answer that did not please his torturers, they stood on his ankles causing severe pain in his legs. He was forced to wear handcuffs and these were made so tight that they cut off the blood supply to his fingers. As well as the physical torture, there was the ever-present fear that he might be removed by his jailers and 'disposed of' in some remote corner of the country.

"While in detention at the notorious Chikurbi prison, he was kept in solitary confinement for 195 days. He was denied adequate exercise and kept in appalling conditions. As a result of this Mr. Stuttaford has suffered from poor health ever since. He was brought to trial and his name was totally cleared, largely by the evidence given to the court by Mr. Stanley Malumisa who had been a Minister of Internal Affairs during the transitional government. (This very brave witness has disappeared in a similar way to that of other leaders during the past eleven years.)

"After much pressure from the international community, Mr. Stuttaford was released in October, 1982, after 308 days in captivity. He sought compensation for his wrongful arrest and for the torture he suffered while in detention. On 5th July 1982, he was successful when the presiding judge, Mr. Justice J. Waddington, awarded him damages of Z$18,000 and costs of Z$3,628.

"Prime Minister Mugabe introduced Statutory Instruments which would make it impossible for members of the public to sue for compensation if it was decided that the minister had been acting in what could be called 'good faith'. The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled in August 1984, that this government regulation conflicted with the constitution and was therefore void. "Having failed to use legal means to escape its liabilities, the government simply chose to ignore the Court's ruling, which is a violation of the constitution and of the human rights of Zimbabwe citizens. No payment, to date, has been made to Mr. Stuttaford.

An additional problem was caused by the economic collapse in Zimbabwe, which has resulted in the value of the award being reduced to less than half. Mr. Stuttaford and his wife, who has since tragically died, have relied on a small pension and he has been forced into a hand to mouth existence in his old age, a time when he has every right to expect proper provision.

"To date no award has been made. This clearly illustrates the brutality of the Zimbabwean regime. First in its use of emergency powers to detain someone without trial, secondly on its abuse and torture of that person while in custody, and thirdly its refusal to obey the rulings of the courts.

The International Response
"In a speech on 18th August the British Minister for Overseas Aid and Development, Mrs. Kybda Chalker, stated that the time of handing out taxpayers' money to self serving dictators was over. We suggest that the country with which she makes a start is Zimbabwe. The case against the Zimbabwean leadership is clear. Over the past eleven years there have been numerous incidents of detention without trial, torture and disappearances. This year the government passed a law allowing it to arbitrarily fix levels of compensation for landowners without permitting any option of redress by the courts.

It is important that the British government, and other Commonwealth leaders, look beyond the plush setting of the Sheraton Hotel and examine the real quality of life in the country. Above all there must be a denial of aid until the government honours the constitution and respects the decisions of its own courts.

The Price of Telling the Truth
"One man above all others helped to secure the release of Wally Stuttaford and, sadly, has paid the highest price for his courage. That man is Stanley Malumisa. After one year of rule following the 1980 elections, Prime Minister Robert Mugabe announced his intention to form a one party state. Given that there were twelve parties, which contested the 1980 elections, this statement caused Mr. Malumisa to call a meeting of interested people to discuss the impact of the government's proposal.

"Although the Zimbabwe government tried to portray this meeting as plotting an insurrection, the agenda of the meeting illustrates a different story. As a practising Christian, Mr. Malumisa's concerns were clear. He wanted to promote peace and reconciliation. Moreover, he was committed to seeking constitutional ways of opposing a one party state. Mr. Malumisa was also calling for the government to respect the rights of parliamentarians and other leaders as several M.P's. had been detained.
As the organising secretary of the United Federal Party and Co-coordinator of Internal Affairs in the Transitional government, Mr. Malumisa was an experienced black leader committed to parliamentary democracy…"

The "Rhodesia Christian Group" reports that after being arrested, along with Wally Stuttaford, Mr. Malumisa was also tortured; this designed to make him give evidence against Stuttaford. Originally Malumisa agreed and was released, but in a heroic gesture at the trial refused to perjure himself, thus securing the release of Stuttaford and several others. Malumisa started seeking foreign aid for an irrigation project designed to help local African farmers in the, Bulawayo area. He mysteriously disappeared in September 1984, and has never been heard of again.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH 'TEMPORARY' IN AUSTRALIA

In his address to public meetings in Australia, courageous Canadian barrister, Mr. Doug Christie, has warned that there is evidence that freedom of speech is under strong attack in Australia. Mr. Christie said that although it appears to be permitted to discuss the sexual preferences of our Lord, Jesus Christ, or debate the proposal that He faked his crucifixion in order to stage a resurrection, some issues appear to be beyond debate. Mr. Christie drew attention to the proposal from Mr. Jeremy Jones, secretary of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, that "denial of the holocaust" should be a criminal offence in Australia.

In a submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission, Mr. Jones urged the Commonwealth Government to produce national legislation outlawing incitement to racial hatred or acts of racial violence. "Holocaust denial" should be specifically included as racism and the promotion of "racial hatred", he said. According to "The Australian Jewish News", which points out that in France and Germany it is a crime to deny that the holocaust occurred, quotes Mr. Jones: "One of the most insidious and evil forms of anti-Jewish racism is the claim that the holocaust never occurred and that the 'Christian west' has been the victim of moral blackmail and financial extortion…."

Canadian Persecutions
It is impossible to believe that Mr. Jones is unaware of the Canadian cases described by Doug Christie, in which a number of men who had questioned aspects of history - including the 'holocaust' - had not only been tried by the courts, but have subsequently lost their possessions in an effort to defend themselves, and freedom of speech. Mr. Jones seems unconcerned by the prospect of such persecution taking place in Australia. "Raising an intellectual question ought to be the prerogative of anyone in a free society but it isn't," said Mr. Christie at his Canberra meeting. "People have gone to jail for that."
Christie observes that those whom he has defended against Canada's anti-discrimination or "hate" laws had all questioned the historical accuracy of the 'holocaust' and believed sincerely that they had a right to debate such issues in a free society.

WHAT BETTER WAY

from The Advocate (Adelaide), 22/7
"On the evening of July 16, I attended a meeting in the Banquet Hall of the Adelaide Town Hall about the proposed multi-function polis in Adelaide. The meeting was the final of a number of meetings called by the Community Consultative Panel on the M.F.P. and was attended by about 240 people. "After two hours of listening to a selected panel of speakers and numerous others from the floor, I proposed a motion that the meeting oppose the M.F.P. on economic and social grounds.
"The motion was immediately seconded by several people, but the chair, Mr. Lansdowne, refused to put the motion. He was supported by John Lesses secretary of the United Trades and Labor Council, who said he should have been able to inform his constituents if any vote were to be taken. "Presumably, the panel has been entrusted with the task of providing information and getting feedback on the M.F.P. proposal. What better way to do this than to have a vote on it at the end of a meeting?

"I proposed the motion in order to get an expression, in the form of a vote, of the views of the meeting. I don't believe anyone in the hall was under the impression that such a vote would carry any particular weight with the State Government but at least it would have made clear where the people attending the meeting stood on the issue.

"Needless to say, many people were very frustrated at their inability to express themselves through a simple vote and walked out of the meeting in disgust. "I have attended seven public meetings on the M.F.P. and at four of them people attempted to put motions. In each case the person chairing the meeting refused to accept the motion. Two of these meetings were organised by the Community Consultative Panel. "Whatever has happened to democratic meeting procedures and what are the organisers of these meetings afraid of?" (Ally Fricker, Henley Beach, S.A.)

THE SOLID STATES OF SURVIVAL

from the Weekend Australian, 12-13/10
"Mr. Neville Wran says 'abolish the States and get on with the business of Government' (The Australian, 9/10). In the 'business of government' there are two interdependent steps. First taking instructions from people on how to govern and, secondly, governing. Mr. Wran, like most politicians, clearly finds the first of these steps distasteful and inconvenient. "Mr. Wran's remarks display the type of misconception under which so many politicians labour. It is clear that he is among the many politicians who have, ideologically, lost their way on the path to understanding the theory of representative democracy.
"The fact that in modern society a rigid and disciplined party system already hinders the operation of true democracy is bad enough. To suggest that the State governments, which are democratically elected bodies representing the people of certain geographical regions (and this increasingly includes resistance to the encroachment by Canberra on the rights of the people of these geographical regions) should be abolished has a distinctly totalitarian flavor.
"The arrogance of Mr. Wran's 'we know best, let us get on with it' attitude is only surpassed by his ludicrous confident statement, 'The next step - I dare not say it - will be to abolish the States' which implies that such a step is within the power of Mr. Wran and his federal cronies. In fact, to abolish the States would involve a political restructuring the like of which Australia has never seen and, as referenda on various issues, would be practically impossible to achieve. Does Mr. Wran think that the States can be abolished merely by a recommendation from the Committee on Regulatory Reform?" (Stephen Davies, Perth, W.A.)

from the Weekend Australian, 12-13/10
"Neville Wran has proposed the abolition of State governments as a radical prescription for our ailing economy. He believes that the consolidation of fiscal and political control will allow for the implementation of more cohesive strategic planning. And the Federal Government cannot gain this consolidation, he argues, while State governments disrupt policy with independent and contradictory planning mechanisms.
"Such a proposal is indeed radical, but its parochial, even proscriptive focus, necessarily discounts the appalling consequences of such action. Cohesive policy in this context means little more than the centralisation of power at the federal level - centralisation that would amalgamate disparate State policies under a blanket of economic and political authoritarianism.
"From the economic point of view, such authoritarianism is not only outdated, but has consistently demonstrated its inherent tendency to stifle any type of dynamism. In the rapidly expanding global village of free trade, Wran's strategy of a centralised, regulatory economic policy would not only serve to ostracise Australia from the world market, we would be left with an isolated, stagnant domestic market which would have great trouble even catering to its own population.
"From the political viewpoint, the scenario is much worse. Abolition of State governments would reduce representation to an absolute minimum, with the least populated areas suffering severe discrimination. Minority groups would become 'anonymous' dissidents, and even the 'silent' majority would be reduced to a subservient proletariat, as its 'representatives' in Canberra swept their electorates under the same bureaucratic rug.
"There would be no autonomy in State and local enterprises, no recognition of, or distinction between State laws, and no accommodation of political or social initiatives other than at the federal level. In short, we would be reduced to a single entity with no toleration of economic, political, social or cultural diversity." (David K. Aylward, Austinmer, N.S.W.)

Our comment: Mr. Aylward, in his last paragraph (above) presents very well the Fabian rationale for the abolition of the States. The Fabians hold the firm resolve that there should be no distinction between State laws; and no political or social initiatives from the States, whatsoever. Indeed, no States!

FROM "OUR SHAM DEMOCRACY" 1946