“Free speech just ain’t what it used to be” to borrow an Americanism and the first amendment is seen as a right of all Americans even when on foreign soil. The recent arrest and trial of Peter Erlinder was a test case for whether foreigners can be held liable for breaking the law, even when the law was not broken on the soil where the suspect is charged. There have been many falsehoods purveyed about this case especially by a lawyer and blogger called Robert Amsterdam who called Erlinder “Kagame’s American political prisoner.”
In the world of online blogging opinion counts as facts and on that basis I will have to deal with Mr. Amsterdam’s opinions as such. The first lie is that he was a political prisoner, as if to say he is a prisoner of conscience and that he was being punished for what he said or thought. Freedom of speech is not free, it is like the analogy where a man runs into a theater screaming “Fire!” when there is no fire and causes a stampede, he doesn’t have the right to do that. Every country has its limits to free speech, for example if you quoted the Bible in UK saying that Leviticus says that homosexuality is an abomination, then you can be charged with hate speech.
Likewise in Rwanda, given our recent history we take the crimes of Genocide and Genocide denial very seriously. It is for that reason that this case cannot be seen as merely arresting someone for what they think or say. A person must be held responsible for their words while being free to say them. That is why this case was a challenge to Mr. Erlinder to explain his comments in full and defend his point of view. As an ongoing case, he would not be allowed to comment on it in the media but no doubt he would have prejudiced his case with a media blitz.
With regards to his case specifically it is essential that it still goes to trial, even though it could most likely be tried in absentia as he seeks medical treatment abroad. The fact is over 1,000 people have been charged under this law since it was introduced in 2003 but this was a chance to show our legal system on a global stage. Rwanda has many limitations in its legal system, most of our qualified legal practitioners were killed in 1994, our courts are run down and in need of repair and we make do with meager resources. Money cannot buy justice no matter how poor we are, we try to be as just as possible according to our laws.
Amsterdam claims that Erlinder was denied legal counsel and yet he had a team of 20 lawyers. He claims he couldn’t understand as the proceedings were in Kinyarwanda, that is our national language and interpreters were available, you cannot ask a Japanese or French court to conduct a trial in English for your benefit. He claims that Erlinder was held in inhumane conditions and denied medical treatment, but he had three doctors with him at all times and was regularly visited by the American consul. He claims that the charges are politically motivated but several other lawyers come and leave freely without being harassed. Rwanda is a sovereign nation and can prosecute any individual on its soil who it feels has broken the law, he was not extradited here, he came here freely.
Genocide denial is serious because it is the final stage of the genocide cycle and the link to the next cycle of killing. For example in 1959 there was a genocide as up to 100,000 Tutsi’s were killed and hundreds of thousands went into exile. However this genocide is referred to as “The wind of destruction” so it was reduced to a mere meteorological event, like the weather or climate. This allowed other waves of Genocide against Tutsi leading up to 1994 genocide. Those who do not know history are prone to repeat it, and in Rwanda we have repeated it over and over again. Ask the survivors of the 1994 massacres what they think of Erlinder’s trivializing comments and they all say the same thing – the trial should go ahead.
Genocide denial should be tried in a global context, so the facts are set straight. However the lawyers taking part might themselves be accused of Genocide denial. As a defence lawyer for one of the biggest criminal cases in history, his job required him to minimize and trivialize the Genocide against the Tutsi. As the crimes were obvious and well-known he had to muddy the waters, to create mitigating arguments to explain the crimes where all the victims were known, and to also make victims out of his clients.
The Genocide against the Tutsi is not a myth, it is accepted and commemorated around the world as one of the worst murder sprees in history. Nothing will change that, even the inane ramblings of an eccentric lawyer. Most Americans felt an automatic sense of sympathy for their own, as if to think that one of their own citizens cannot be accused and tried in a Third World country. Even Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State was reluctant to plead his case but felt compelled to do so as a matter of course. His release on humanitarian grounds was the only reasonable thing to do, considering his health and his insistence on representing himself. This reminds me of the old joke – “A man who defends himself in court has a fool for a client.”
No comments:
Post a Comment