Members of civil society, donor agencies and government representatives from various countries converged in Nairobi, Kenya to discuss ways to make the Internet free under the discussion topic “Who Controls the Internet.” Civil society representatives were mainly from African countries and the Kubatana Trust of Zimbabwe was part of the workshop. Global Partners and Associates organized the workshop with support from the Kenya Human Rights Commission, Ford Foundation and Association for Progressive Communication (APC).

Internet as a tool to democratize free speech has come under attack and surveillance especially from authoritarian governments. The race to control the Internet by governments under the disguise of protecting public interest and national security has made civil society realize the need to shape the Internet environment nationally, regionally and globally.

In order to shape the Internet environment delegates at the workshop shared ideas on how to engage governments in policy formulation, which addresses human rights online. The need to sensitize Parliaments was also seen as an effective in making policy makers aware of the changing and demanding environment of the Internet thereby helping them when crafting Internet friendly policies.

The launching of the Freedom Online Coalition in December last year was seen as positive step towards the direction of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms online. The Netherlands government representative at the workshop explained briefly about how the Freedom Online Coalition works by highlighting that the Coalition is made up of 17 countries across the world committed to promoting Internet freedom. At the launch last year the Coalition also pledged to provide greater support for cyber activists and bloggers under threat. As part of this effort, the United States and the Netherlands committed funds to a new Digital Defenders partnership. Currently the Netherlands government is working in Kenya on a program to make Internet free in that country.

Civil society representatives collaborated on a shared statement covering issues discussed in the three-day workshop covering effective strategies to use across the continent and what other stakeholders can do in the shaping of the Internet environment.

Join the biggest activist community in Zimbabwe! Get weekly email newsletters filled with civic and human rights information, notifications of events, news from the street, NGO job vacancies and most importantly, Inspiration … sign up by sending an email with “subscribe” in the title line to join [ at ] kubatana [ dot ] net

And don’t forget to visit www.kubatana.net to browse over 21 000 articles and connect to over 270 Zimbabwean NGOs.

I got a bit depressed this morning when I read The Herald article COPAC in gay storm. For all the bombast of the headline, and the frenzy around keeping gay rights out of Zimbabwe’s new Constitution, there really isn’t much of a story – which just makes the intolerance of the article all the more apparent.

The article references the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, where a non-discrimination clause provides that “Everyone has the right not to be treated in an unfairly discriminatory manner on such grounds as their nationality, race, colour, tribe, place or circumstances of birth, ethnic or social origin, language, class, religious belief, political or other opinion, custom, culture, sex, gender, marital status, age, disability or economic, social or other status.” It latches particularly onto the phrase “circumstances of birth,” and then proceeds to report feedback from a number of lawyers and analysts who acknowledge that yes, hypothetically, this could be used to make an argument to the courts against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Of course, depending on where you fall on the nature versus nurture debate, I suppose one could also make the same argument using the protection of opinion, custom, culture, or other status. But does this mean we must remove the broad notion of tolerance from our Constitution – because some group we might not like might use it to their own benefit? Racism, sexism and xenophobia remain prejudices in some people’s minds – which is why the Constitution explicitly protects people regardless of race, sex and nationality.

Regardless of whether it is used to make an argument in favour of tolerance for homosexuality, including protection against discrimination regardless of circumstances of birth demonstrates the sort of broad tolerance a Constitution should provide. This means it doesn’t matter whether your parents were married when they had you, if you were born in prison, on an inauspicious day, as the child of rape or incest, malnourished, premature and in need of extraordinary medical support, exposed to narcotics in utero, as conjoined twins, as an intersex baby, or any of the other myriad ways in which you might be different from others. You still have the same rights everyone else does.

All human beings are equal. That why they’re called Human Rights. We all get them, regardless. But all human beings discriminate. That’s why fundamental rights and freedoms are including in Constitutions, and why we need protection against intolerance – our own and other people’s. Finding yourself trying to take out a part of a clause designed to promote tolerance? Is all the more reason to work for its inclusion.

In one of the most ridiculous turn of events yet witnessed in the absurd drama called politics in Zimbabwe, the International Socialist Organisation‘s Munyaradzi Gwisai and his five co-accused (Antoinette Choto, Tatenda Mombeyarara, Edson Chakuma, Hopewell Gumbo and Welcome Zimuto) have been found guilty of conspiracy to incite public violence with a view to overthrowing the unity government.

Their sentencing is tomorrow, and the crime carries a prison term of up to ten years.

The six, and 39 others, were arrested on 19 February last year at a meeting convened by the International Socialist Organisation-Zimbabwe to discuss events in Tunisia and Egypt, and their implications for Zimbabwe. At the meeting, the group watched a video of news clips of events in Egypt, and heard a few prepared remarks from invited speakers, but actually had not even proceeded to the group discussion part of the event to even mention ideas such as public violence or overthrowing the unity government, before the meeting, which had been infiltrated, was raided by police and all participants were arrested.

On top of everything else, the notion that 45 people were gathered in Harare to discuss overthrowing the unity government – in a meeting which had been circulated via email and was open knowledge – is absurd. In an environment as repressive as Zimbabwe’s if I wanted to overthrow the government, I certainly wouldn’t announce my intentions to do so via email, nor would I invite anyone other than my closest friends into the discussion – in other words, it wouldn’t be me and my 44 acquaintances and colleagues.

To add insult to injury, the state’s case – on the back of which these 6 have been convicted – was founded solely on the testimony of the infiltrator mentioned above. This turned out to be Rodwell Chitiyo – aka Johnathan Shoko – who falsified his most basic personal information under oath, and who was exposed when the defence shared information from his Facebook page – under his real name.

One would have thought this would be enough to completely undermine both the witness and his testimony. But Magistrate Kudakwashe Jarabini, who handed down the guilty verdict, clearly has his own idea of what “perjury” actually means.

In February, Gwisai and his original 44 co-accused were detained for 16 nights before 39 were released, and the charges against them dropped. Gwisai and the 5 remaining defendants spent an additional 11 nights inside and were only released on 18 March. At the time of their release, the judge observed that the State case appeared weak, there being little in the facts presented to him to suggest a plot to topple the President.

This incarceration, for doing nothing more than watching some news footage and talking about current events, was already in itself unjust and inhumane, and has left physical and psychological impacts on all 45 of the original accused and their families, as was highlighted in a number of moving testimonials including:

• When is Baba coming home? – Interview with Munyaradzi Gwisai’s partner Shantha Bloemen
• One day I will find a way – Interview with the wife of one of Gwisai’s co-accused

The idea of convicting Gwisai +5, and imprisoning them for even one more day – never mind ten years – is an act beyond reason, justice or moral decency.

Protest the verdict

If you are in Johannesburg, join the picket at the Zimbabwe embassy on Tuesday 20th March from 12 – 1pm, at 13 Boeing Street West, Bedfordview (on the opposite side of the road to East Gate shopping Mall).

If you are anywhere else, please SMS your messages of protest and rejection of the guilty verdict to:

• Police spokesman Wayne Bvudzijena + 263 712 801 172
• Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri + 263 712 808 290
• Police Minister Kembo Mohadi +263 712 605 424
• Security Minister Didymus Mutasa +263 712 200 532

And if you have any better ideas as to how else we can protest this flagrant subversion of justice, please let us know!

I had a conversation with Melania Chiponda from Chiadzwa Community Development Trust yesterday.

This is what I learnt:

Families at Chiadwza are being forcibly relocated by diamond companies while the government and the judicial system look the other way. Here I thought the point of the Third Chimurenga was to restore land dignity to the peoples of this country. Mining companies have not bothered to hold consultations with the community about relocation; in fact the community found out they were being moved off their land in the newspapers. They have been given a relocation allowance of $1000. They have yet to receive compensation.

The first twelve families to be relocated by mining companies at Chiadzwa were moved into tobacco barns, until there were protests, upon which mining companies began building houses. 89 of the houses built by Anjin for the families they will be relocating were destroyed by the first storm of the rainy season last November. More were damaged.

Companies with majority government shareholding like Marange Resources are easier to negotiate with and more generous towards the community than those which are privately owned like Mbada or Anjin. It’s crazy that Mbada can spend a million dollars on a football tournament to better its public image, yet is miserly with the food packs they give the community and is among the major perpetrators of violence and human rights abuses against the community. The biggest perpetrator of human rights abuses is the police. When CCDT tried to discuss the matter with Police Commissioner Chihuri he was conveniently busy.

Chiadzwa is a dry area, and the little water the community has access to is being polluted by mining companies. Last year four men were detained and beaten by the police for digging for water in their own back yard. One of them died at the hands of a police officer. The other three sustained severe injuries. The police officer responsible for the beatings and murder has never been arrested.

The community doesn’t actually object to the mining or selling of diamonds, they just want it done in a way that their rights as human beings are also respected.

I’m angry. You should be too.

Kubatana! Get Up. Stand Up in Harare to mark International Human Rights Day. Join Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights on Thursday 8th. Meet 12:30 at High Court. Sharp!