Zimpapers Logo

They have found a way of killing people in other countries while at the same time preaching sanctity and for one reason or the other, the world listens to them.
It is ridiculous that, at the moment they are topping the global record on gross violation of human rights, and closure of democratic space.
Massive violence in London erupted out late Saturday (August 6, 2011) in the low-income, multi-ethnic district of Tottenham in the northern part of the city, where outraged protesters demonstrated against the fatal police murder of Mark Duggan, a 29-year-old father of four who was gunned down in disputed circumstances on Thursday (August 4, 2011). It is imaginarily believed he was a suspected drug dealer.
Duggan’s death stirred old animosities and racial tensions against the British authority whom they blamed for disregard for human life. Duggan was non-white and could have been slaughtered along racial spineless tyrannical cruelty lines.
Cameroon and his Britain should be reminded loudly that, non-discrimination is a cross-cutting principle in international human rights law.
The principle is present in all the major human rights treaties, and provides the central theme of some of international human rights conventions, such as, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
The principle applies to everyone in relation to all human rights and freedoms and it prohibits discrimination on the basis of a list of non-exhaustive categories such as sex, race, colour and so on. The principle of non-discrimination is complemented by the principle of equality, as stated in Article one of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
So no-one has the right to terminate one’s life willy-nilly like this callous murder of Mark Duggan by the British authority.
Mr David Cameroon, the British Premier in the 15- month-old conservative-led coalition Government, could not tolerate democratic protesters condemning the killing of Duggan. Therefore, he impulsively over-reacted by splashing 16 000 heavily armed police force to crush peaceful and democratic demonstrations led by human rights activists mainly composed of youths.
Cameroon’s irresponsible actions infuriated the protestors, whom he termed “gangsters and nihilists”.
In London, groups of young people in anger, rampaged, setting buildings, vehicles and garbage dumps alight, looting stores and pelting police officers with bottles and fireworks.
Police called in hundreds of reinforcements and deployed armoured vehicles in some of the worst-hit districts, but still struggled to keep pace with the chaos unfolding at flashpoints across London.
According to British standards, the military should not be used to quell violence perpetrated by unarmed civilians. Any attempt to do that is tantamount to gross violation of human rights.
So one wonders if at all the champions of human rights, like the British, are still sane to the extent of invading streets and residences with armed forces in a period outside war situation. Isn’t this gross and acute violation of human rights by the state machinery? Or a conspicuous state-sponsored terrorism against its people, who are expressing their democratic rights through peaceful demonstrations against Cameroon’s government terror on civilians.
Some 525 protestors were apprehended and their cases are jamming and over-loading the judiciary system.
The British citizens know no democratic fundamental freedoms in the modern times, as they languish under the typical repressive British leadership which was exported to Africa, Zimbabwe, two and half centuries ago by Cecil John Rhodes, their imperialistic predecessor and his like-minded group of oppressors.
Prime Minister David Cameroon, and his fore-runners, like embattled former British Premier, Tony Blair have habitually and unjustly terrorised the Republic of Zimbabwe, labelling it a haven for human rights abusers.
It is somewhat ridiculous to note that, the cheer-maker over human rights suddenly turns into a complete antithesis of the usual gospel about human rights.
Therefore, who will preach to the preacher about the vices and evils of such devilish deeds on innocent people who deserve protection from their abuser?
The British should live what they make us believe they subscribe to. They are hypocrites who should go back to the drawing board and reconstruct their perspectives on other nations, lest they would qualify to be called a nation of “hypocritical idiots”.
When a constitutional government in Zimbabwe over-powers subversion by curtailing wicked actions of hooligans/criminals from infringing upon national laws, they hasten to allege gross violation of human rights and state funded terrorism.
Should a nation allow anarchy to prevail when state institutions are in place meant to deal with pubic disorder?
Human rights are inalienable. They should not be taken away, except in specific situations and according to due process. For example, the right to liberty may be restricted if a person is found guilty of a crime by a court of law.
If human rights call for unlimited freedom, then Cameroon should have allowed the protestors to proceed unperturbed then.
Probably he should come to Zimbabwe for a professional attachment programme on how to deal with public disorder in a country where a constitutionally-elected government is in power.
This would allow him to develop a refreshed appreciation on his perspectives on what really is meant by human rights abuse.
Now London is burning, and the UK is now taking the lead as champions of human rights abuse, applying the same strategies they have always condemned as evil. Surely this a shameful precedent set by Britain.
The British should get it in crude and no uncertain terms, “To shut up their mouths with forked tongues, and leave us alone as a sovereign state!”
This is time for them to face head-on the chaotic situation created by rowdy citizens which is unfolding daily on British soil.
Britain should take note of the fact that, human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status.
We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.
Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law.
International human rights law lays down obligations of governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups. As opposed to labelling strategies used by the United Kingdom against us.
The principle of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of international human rights law. This principle, as first emphasised in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948, has been reiterated in numerous international human rights conventions, declarations, and resolutions. The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, for example, noted that it is the duty of States to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems.

l Hilton Munendoro is a Harare-based social commentator