Archive for 'Judicial Event'

At least four prisoners who were arrested as part of a mass roundup of dissidents in 2003 along with the dead dissident, Orlando Zapata Tamayo — who stopped eating solid foods on Dec. 3 to protest his detention and died on Feb. 23 — have begun their own hunger strikes, according to human rights activists. A fifth hunger striker, an outspoken psychologist and independent journalist, has joined them, according to activists on the island.

Freedom House, an organization that ranks countries on their level of freedom and considers Cuba “not free,” called Mr. Zapata the first prisoner in Cuba to die by starving himself since Pedro Luis Boitel, a student leader and poet, did so in 1972.

The death of Mr. Zapata, who was not widely known in Cuba but was labeled a “prisoner of conscience” by Amnesty International, has forced Cuban authorities to engage in damage control.

Cuba’s critics place responsibility for Mr. Zapata’s death on the Castro government, with his mother, Reina Luisa Tamayo, accusing government officials of murder. Mr. Zapata, 42, had been denied water during his for an extended period while being held at a maximum security prison in the eastern province of Camagüey, causing kidney failure, Cuban human rights officials have said. He later developed pneumonia at a Camagüey hospital before being sent to a prison hospital in Havana, where he died, activists say.

“The only way he would die is if the order was to let him die,” said one former political prisoner, Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo, adding that the authorities had forced nutrients on him during his own and that they could have done the same for Mr. Zapata. “In my 22 years, I had to do more than a dozen hunger strikes. The only form of protest you had was a hunger strike.”

President Raúl Castro said Wednesday that he regretted the death but that it was the government, not Cuba, that bore responsibility. Mr. Zapata was arrested in 2003 with 75 others whom Cuba considered mercenaries working for Washington.

Mr. Zapata was initially charged with “disrespect,” “public disorder” and “resistance,” but he later received decades of additional jail time for what the authorities described as disruptive behavior behind bars.

“We took him to Cuba’s best hospitals, and he died; we very much regret it,” Mr. Castro said during a joint appearance with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, according to The Associated Press.

Castro added that the only torture being carried out in Cuba was that performed by the American military at the base in Guantánamo Bay, where detainees have conducted hunger strikes as well. “The day the decides to live in peace with us, all these problems will end,” Mr. Castro said.

Granma, the state newspaper, did not mention Mr. Zapata’s death, but it featured an article on Friday that deplored prison conditions in the United States.

Mr. Zapata’s declining health was widely known as his hunger strike extended into its 11th week, and American officials said they raised the issue with their Cuban counterparts at previously scheduled talks over immigration held in Havana on Feb. 19, just four days before he died.

Hunger strikes, which are not uncommon in Cuban prisons, typically prompt reprisals by the authorities, said Human Rights Watch, citing the case of Yordis García Fournier, who stopped eating for more than a month in 2008 and was placed in solitary confinement and prevented from receiving family visits.

“Left with no other remedy for abuses, political prisoners routinely undertake hunger strikes and other drastic measures to call attention to their treatment,” the organization said in a report released late last year that criticized Raúl Castro as being as aggressive toward political prisoners as his predecessor and brother, Fidel Castro.

Other recent hunger strikers include Alexander Santos Hernánez, a longtime activist, who went on a 23-day hunger strike in 2006 to put pressure on prison officials to grant him medical attention; and two detained journalists, Victor Rolando Arroyo Carmona and Juan Adolfo Fernández Sainez, who have stopped eating to protest prison conditions.

In 2009, after a long imprisonment, Jorge Luis García Pérez, who is known as Antúnez, began a hunger strike in his home to call for an end to abuses against political prisoners. While serving his 17-year sentence, he had founded a political prisoner group named after Pedro Luis Boitel, who undertook his fatal hunger strike while behind bars for criticizing the Castro government.

The most frequent Cuban hunger striker may be Guillermo Fariñas, who stopped eating for several months in 2006 to press for unrestricted access to the Internet. At the time, it was reported that he had carried out 20 hunger strikes since 1995.

Mr. da Silva was criticized back home in Brazil for not speaking out against Cuba’s treatment of Mr. Zapata during his talks with the island’s leadership, including a face-to-face meeting with Fidel Castro.

Mr. da Silva expressed sorrow for Mr. Zapata’s death but also criticized his use of a hunger strike, noting that he once started one, but suspended it, while he was imprisoned as trade-union leader decades ago. “I am against hunger strikes,” he said.

View the original article here



Tags: prison hospital, Alexander Santos Hernánez, United States government, Freedom House, Victor Rolando Arroyo Carmona

A Brief History of Fasting as Social Protest

On 25th June 1909 Marion Wallace-Dunlop was charged “with wilfully damaging the stone work of St. Stephen’s Hall, House of Commons, by stamping it with an indelible rubber stamp, doing damage to the value of 10s.” According to a report in The Times Wallace-Dunlop printed a notice that read: “Women’s Deputation. June 29. Bill of Rights. It is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitionings are illegal.”

Wallace-Dunlop was found guilty of wilful damage and when she refused to pay a fine she was sent to prison for a month. On 5th July, 1909 she petitioned the governor of Holloway Prison: “I claim the right recognized by all civilized nations that a person imprisoned for a political offence should have first-division treatment; and as a matter of principle, not only for my own sake but for the sake of others who may come after me, I am now refusing all food until this matter is settled to my satisfaction.”

In her book, Unshackled (1959) Christabel Pankhurst claimed: “Miss Wallace Dunlop, taking counsel with no one and acting entirely on her own initiative, sent to the Home Secretary, Mr. Gladstone, as soon as she entered Holloway Prison, an application to be placed in the first division as befitted one charged with a political offence. She announced that she would eat no food until this right was conceded.”

Marion Wallace-Dunlop refused to eat for several days. Afraid that she might die and become a martyr, it was decided to release her after fasting for 91 hours. Soon afterwards a group of suffragettes in Holloway Prison who had been convicted of breaking windows, adopted the same strategy. After six days they were also released.

On 22nd September 1909 Charlotte Marsh, Laura Ainsworth and Mary Leigh were arrested while disrupting a public meeting being held by Herbert Asquith. As Michelle Myall has pointed out: “The police attempted to move the two women by, among other methods, turning a hosepipe on them and throwing stones. However, Charlotte Marsh and Mary Leigh proved to be formidable opponents and were only brought down from the roof when three policeman dragged them down.”

Marsh, Ainsworth and Leigh were all sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment. They immediately decided to go on hunger-strike, a strategy developed by Marion Wallace-Dunlop a few weeks earlier. Wallace-Dunlop had been immediately released when she had tried this in Holloway Prison, but the governor of Winson Green Prison, was willing to feed the three women by force.

C.P. Scott wrote to Asquith complaining of the “substantial injustice of punishing a girl like Miss Marsh with two months hard labour plus forcible feeding.” According to Elizabeth Crawford, the author of The Suffragette Movement (1999): “The Prison Visiting Committee reported that at first she had to be fed by placing food in the mouth and holding the nostrils, but that she later took food from a feeding cup.” Votes for Women, on her release, reported that Charlotte Marsh had been fed by tube 139 times.

Mary Leigh, one of the three women in Winson Green Prison, described what it was like to be force-fed: “On Saturday afternoon the wardress forced me onto the bed and two doctors came in. While I was held down a nasal tube was inserted. It is two yards long, with a funnel at the end; there is a glass junction in the middle to see if the liquid is passing. The end is put up the right and left nostril on alternative days.

The sensation is most painful – the drums of the ears seem to be bursting and there is a horrible pain in the throat and the breast. The tube is pushed down 20 inches. I am on the bed pinned down by wardresses, one doctor holds the funnel end, and the other doctor forces the other end up the nostrils. The one holding the funnel end pours the liquid down – about a pint of milk… egg and milk is sometimes used.” Leigh’s graphic account of the horrors of forcible feeding was published while she was still in prison. Afraid that she might die and become a martyr, it was decided to release her.

A few days after leaving prison, Mary Leigh, along with Emily Davison and Constance Lytton were caught throwing stones at a car taking David Lloyd George to a meeting in Newcastle. The stones were wrapped in Emily’s favourite words: “Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.”

The women were found guilty and sentenced to one month’s hard labour at Strangeways Prison. The women went on but once again the prison authorities decided to force-feed the women. The WSPU initiated legal proceedings against the home secretary, prison governor, and prison doctor on Mary Leigh’s behalf, opening a defence fund in her name. The case was brought to trial in December 1909, and the jury found for the defence, upholding the defence’s claim that forcible feeding had been necessary to preserve life and that minimum force had been used.

Emmeline Pankhurst’s sister, Mary Clarke, was the organiser of the WSPU in Brighton. According to Sylvia Pankhurst: “Facing the rude violence of the seaside rowdies at Brighton, where she was stationed, she displayed a quiet, persistent courage, which made peculiarly large demands on one so sensitive. Exerting her frail physique to its utmost, she was grievously ill on the eve of Black Friday, and her Brighton comrades had begged her not to go. She had promised to take the easier course of arrest for window-breaking, and had telegraphed to Brighton from the police court.”

Clarke was arrested and sent to Holloway Prison, where she endured a hunger-strike and forced-feeding. She was released on 22nd December, 1924 but two days later Emmeline Pankhurst found her unconcious and she died soon afterwards as a result of a burst blood vessel on the brain. Clarke, like several suffragettes, probably died as a result of being forced fed in prison.

In 1912 the WSPU organised a new campaign that involved the large-scale smashing of shop-windows. Frederick Pethick-Lawrence and Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence both disagreed with this strategy but Christabel Pankhurst ignored their objections. As soon as this wholesale smashing of shop windows began, the government ordered the arrest of the leaders of the WSPU. Christabel escaped to France but Frederick and Emmeline were arrested, tried and sentenced to nine months imprisonment. They were also successfully sued for the cost of the damage caused by the WSPU.

Frederick Pethick-Lawrence and Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence both went on and had to face the full rigours of forcible feeding twice a day for several days. He later recalled the experience in his memoirs, Fate Has Been Kind (1943): “The head doctor, a most sensitive man, was visibly distressed by what he had to do. It certainly was an unpleasant and painful process and a sufficient number of warders had to be called in to prevent my moving while a rubber tube was pushed up my nostril and down into my throat and liquid was poured through it into my stomach. Twice a day thereafter one of the doctors fed me in this way. I was not allowed to leave my cell in the hospital and for the most part I had to stay in bed. There was nothing to do but to read; and the days were very long and went very slowly.”

Christabel Pankhurst later recorded: “Mother and Mr. and Mrs. Pethick Lawrence went on hunger-strike. The Government retaliated by forcible feeding. This was actually carried out in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Pethick-Lawrence. The doctors and wardresses came to Mother’s cell armed with forcible-feeding apparatus. Forewarned by the cries of Mrs. Pethick-Lawrence… Mother received them with all her majestic indignation. They fell back and left her. Neither then nor at any time in her log and dreadful conflict with the government was she forcibly fed.”

Dr. Charles Mansell-Moullin joined forces with Sir Victor Horsley and Dr. Agnes Savill to write a report on the impact of the forced-feeding of suffragettes. In a speech on 13th March, 1913 he argued that Reginald McKenna, the Home Secretary, had been making misleading statements to the House of Commons: “Now Mr. McKenna has said time after time that forcible feeding, as carried out in His Majesty’s prisons, is neither dangerous nor painful. Only the other day he said, in answer to an obviously inspired question as to the possibility of a lady suffering injury from the treatment she received in prison, “I must wait until a case arises in which any person has suffered any injury from her treatment in prison.”…

He relies entirely upon reports that are made to him – reports that must come from the prison officials, and go through the Home Office to him, and his statements are entirely founded upon those reports. I have no hesitation in saying that these reports, if they justify the statements that Mr. McKenna has made, are absolutely untrue. They not only deceive the public, but from the persistence with which they are got up in the same sense, they must be intended to deceive the public.”

Kitty Marion was a leading figure in the WSPU arson campaign and she was responsible for setting fire to Levetleigh House at St Leonards (April 1913), the Grandstand at Hurst Park racecourse (June 1913) and various houses in Liverpool (August, 1913) and Manchester (November, 1913). These incidents resulted in a series of further terms of imprisonment during which force-feeding occurred followed by release under the Cat & Mouse Act. It has been calculated that Marion endured 200 force-feedings in prison while on hunger strike.

In 1913 the WSPU increased its campaign to destroy public and private property. The women responsible were often caught and once in prison they went on hunger-strike. Determined to avoid these women becoming martyrs, the government introduced the Prisoner’s Temporary Discharge of Ill Health Act.

Suffragettes were now allowed to go on hunger strike but as soon as they became ill they were released. Once the women had recovered, the police re-arrested them and returned them to prison where they completed their sentences. This successful means of dealing with hunger strikes became known as the Cat and Mouse Act.

Tags: David Lloyd George, Women's Social and Political Union, Pethick Lawrence, Frederick Pethick-Lawrence, hunger strike

Social Protest Fasting for India

Police arrested Lagadapati Rajagopal, a ruling party lawmaker from Vijayawada who was preparing to begin a high-profile to protest the splitting of the state, in Hyderabad on Monday. NEW DELHI — The Indian state of Andhra Pradesh sank into a contentious political paralysis on Monday as local lawmakers adjourned indefinitely without addressing a controversial resolution to divide the state.

Elsewhere in India, demands for statehood have intensified in several regions as the issue has mushroomed into a nationwide political tempest for the governing Congress Party.

In Hyderabad, the capital of Andhra Pradesh, the State Assembly adjourned Monday morning after shouting broke out and supporters of maintaining a unified state began waving banners.

The authorities moved to prevent potential confrontation in the streets after hundreds of pro-unity protesters were blocked from entering the capital city on Sunday and placed in police custody. Officers also denied permission for their leader, a lawmaker, to enter Hyderabad and start a .

For the Congress Party, inundated with criticism of its handling of the situation, the turmoil began this month. A regional politician, K. Chandrasekhar Rao, staged a 10-day hunger strike demanding that the Congress Party fulfill a past commitment to pursue statehood for the Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh. Thousands of pro-Telangana students demonstrated as Mr. Rao’s health began to deteriorate.

Late last Wednesday, India’s home minister announced that the central government would initiate the legislative process of creating a Telangana State. Mr. Rao ended his fast.

The Telangana statehood movement has existed for decades. Advocates say the region is deprived of equitable shares of resources, jobs, educational opportunities and other benefits.

But the government’s decision spurred a backlash in other regions of Andhra Pradesh that has steadily escalated. Indian news outlets reported over the weekend that protesters set two railroad stations on fire. Meanwhile, 130 members of the State Assembly tendered their resignations, though none have yet been accepted. Many of the resignations were from members of the Congress Party, threatening its majority status in the state government. News reports also suggested that as many as 90 people had started their own hunger strikes to prevent partition.

At some point, the Assembly is supposed to vote on a resolution for Telangana statehood. Though the central government can create a new state under its own authority, the process had been expected to begin at the state level.

Dharmana Prasada Rao, the state’s revenue minister, said Andhra Pradesh was now sharply polarized: Residents of Telangana want statehood while most people elsewhere oppose any division.

“We hope the central government will resolve the issue,” he said, adding that despite the controversy, the government was functioning. “The issue is very sentimental and serious for the people. It has long-term consequences for both sides.”

Late Monday, a Congress Party spokesman told the Indian news media that the central government would take no action on the issue until the Assembly in Andhra Pradesh passed a resolution calling for Telangana statehood. The Telangana situation has revived other statehood movements, even as the country’s powerful finance minister, Pranab Mukherjee, has warned that only Telangana is on the table.

In the most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, Chief Minister Mayawati has sent letters to the national government requesting that three new states be carved out of her state as well as a portion of the adjacent state of Madhya Pradesh. Her critics immediately accused her of opportunism and of trying to undermine the Congress Party to elevate her own Bahujan Samaj Party.

Farther east, in the state of West Bengal, advocates promoting a separate state for the Gorkhaland region have also been agitating. Advocates began a general strike in the region on Monday, and hunger strike campaigns are also under way.

Hari Kumar contributed reporting.

View the original article here



Tags: police custody, Telangana Praja Samithi, state assembly, Pranab Mukherjee, New Delhi

SEO Powered By SEOPressor

Fitness Through Fasting Blog is Stephen Fry proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache