Keep Calm! This Murder Was Legal

Image by Werth Media 

Seventeen months on from his death, Trayvon Martin’s family have been denied justice, as the jury declare George Zimmerman as ‘not guilty’ of second-degree murder. On the evening of February 26th 2012, Zimmerman followed Martin from his car on his own charge of Martin looking “up to no good”. Within twenty-one minutes of Zimmerman phoning the police declaring his unfounded concerns, Martin was declared dead after having been shot by the neighbourhood watch coordinator. The evidence suggests that this was a completely unprovoked attack on an innocent teenager, yet strangely, Zimmerman has been acquitted.

Despicably, there was nothing to suggest that Martin was involved in any criminal activity. In fact, it appears that Martin was returning to his home, and only began running from Zimmerman as he became aware of the fact that he was being followed. Ludicrously, according to the transcript between Zimmerman and the police dispatcher, Martin deserved the attention, because “it [was] raining and he [was] just walking around, looking about”. That hardly calls for active pursuit – when did it become a crime to walk around in the rain and use your eyes to look at things around you. The dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin, but he continued. Zimmerman was also reluctant to give his address to the dispatcher. This already screams guilt.

If the injuries that Zimmerman suffered were a result of Martin’s actions, it can only be assumed that they were in self-defence against the unwarranted pursuit and aggravation of the powerless neighbour watchman. The attack escalated quickly and resulted in the shooting of the teenager; Martin was shot within seven minutes and dead within twenty-one minutes of Zimmerman calling the non-emergency line. Zimmerman cries that he acted in self-defence, but if we are to believe that he followed Martin and acted to detain him before the police arrived, with no justification outside of supposed suspicious activity, then Trayvon is the only one who could have cried self-defence. It’s not a legitimate claim to argue that you acted in self-defence against someone else who was already acting in self-defence. You can’t claim that you acted in defence when it was you that instigated the altercation.

Some might argue that this verdict of ‘not guilty’ does not proclaim Zimmerman’s innocence, but that there was simply not enough evidence to convict him as guilty. But the call with the dispatcher, testimonies from witnesses, and no evidence to suggest that Trayvon was involved in any criminal activity at the time, only suggest that there was no legitimate motivation for Zimmerman to pursue and kill the teenager. Furthermore, Zimmerman was told not to follow Trayvon, did not have any power as a police officer and, thus, no right to use his gun in defence, and may have acted with a racist motivation - did Zimmerman see him as suspicious because he was a black male walking around? He was recorded stating “fucking punks” and “these assholes, they always get away”, implying that he discriminated against Trayvon on the basis of being part of the group that he named as “punks” and “assholes” – this group most certainly could have been based on race. This may not be just a case of murder, this may be a new case of anti-racism.

The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman shot dead an innocent male, with no real power to use such force. The police arrived just a moment later, and that one moment could have been enough to save this young male’s life. Yet, the jury declare Zimmerman as ‘not guilty’ of murder and even manslaughter, which seems ludicrous. There is no doubt here that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin – it is also likely that he planned the action from the moment he set his eyes on him – and that his response was not a proportionate response to the attack he alleges he was defending himself from.

As such, the string of protests in response to the verdict are justified, pronounced and internationally supported. There is real cause for concern in this case and the appeal for a further case should be backed by millions of supporters. Yet, Obama has called for calm, seemingly acknowledging the verdict as final and dismissing the distress the case has caused for people across the world.

However, if this appeal to the civil rights case is unsuccessful, Zimmerman will be unlikely to live his life as an innocent man. In the minds of many across the United States (and indeed the world), he remains a guilty man, and he will not be allowed to forget the death of the young teenager that he caused.

It’s Time to Tackle Climate Change

Image by 350.org

Barack Obama yesterday announced a wide-range of reforms to tackle climate change to make himself the most committed president to challenging growing ecological problems. From cutting carbon emissions to developing renewable energy, the demands from the President demonstrate an acceptance that climate change is a real problem that needs to be tackled. However, is his speech simply a demonstration of rhetoric, or is there something to look forward to?

The President of the United States released his plans to the public yesterday via a document and a speech at Georgetown University, and he makes some very promising points. His commitment to reducing carbon pollution in America, following on from mercury and arsenic, is a particularly important step, making the world a safer and more sustainable place for generations beyond us and the wider animal kingdom and their habitats. Furthermore, by doing this, he is committing to developing more renewable energies, which is not only good for the environment, but it also increases employment opportunities and helps to strengthen the economy. Obama positively suggests that this can be carried out alongside keeping the economy growing.

He also addressed the problem of natural disasters that climate change has caused, by announcing plans to protect people from the adverse effects of severe weather. This is perhaps where the UK can learn a lesson. With flooding increasing in recent years, it is certain that we need to tackle the problem at its source, but also increase flood defences, strengthen bridges and protect people’s homes to ensure that people are not made homeless and lose their possessions over and over again.

However, despite Obama’s great intentions, his announcements fall short. His continued commitment to nuclear energy and fracking allow cause for great concern. Both of these energy sources are dangerous to the population, with scientists proving that the latter has been linked to rare earthquakes in the UK. It also relies on a limited amount of shale gas resources and involves the destruction of habitats and the environment in the search and extraction of it. In addition to these concerns, he neglected to make any indication as to his decision on the Keystone tar sands pipeline, only stating that climate implications would be considered before making his decision. He also failed to mention any way of combating those who emit too much carbon and pollution, such as a tax or a penalty charge. Whilst the capitalist system allows for companies to exploit the environment with no consequences, we are unlikely to see any real change from such big industries.

Unfortunately for him and environmentalists, the US political system works in such a way that the President can’t just get what he demands and anything Obama wishes to push through must first go through Congress. So, was his speech yesterday another display of rhetoric, or a real commitment to making sure the progress starts during his administration? After all, we’ve seen his previous promises about Guantanamo Bay and no real action has been made on that front.

Nevertheless, the announcements made by the President push thought on climate change in the right direction; the problem needs to be addressed and tackled before it is too late. It is hopefully a step that his citizens will climb on board with, and one that nations around the world will learn from. To tackle climate change, everyone needs to be in it together.

The Illiberal Reaction of the US Government to Snowden

  Image by Michael Fleshman
The revelations surrounding the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States and the Global Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) in the United Kingdom show the disturbing penetration into people’s private lives that two of the “most liberal” Governments claim the authority for. It’s been nearly three weeks since The Guardian published the information that they had received from ex-CIA employee, Edward Snowden, much in the same way as information previously provided by WikiLeaks. This case continues to demonstrate the immense difficulties and dangers presented to those few whistle-blowers.

Positively, in this case, Snowden was well aware of the consequences of his actions and prepared his line of escape, flying to Hong Kong and taking temporary refuge there. Yet, it is a dismal state of affairs that a man should seek political asylum from such a “liberal” nation for something that amounts to accountability of a tax-paid scheme. The mass surveillance programs used by the NSA were not voted for by the US citizenship and do not solely pervade the home country, but also reaches out across the world in their attempts to spy on people and their governments. Now, I’m not saying that the US Government is the worst for invading privacy, but the secret nature of these operations make them ten times worse. At least in the countries that are renowned for their lack of privacy, they are renowned for it; you know what you’re getting there. Within the US, it was a different story; it was another case of the US deciding that liberty needed to be sacrificed in the name of security, without consulting their citizens on the issue.

Snowden faces three charges from the US Government: theft of government property, unauthorised communication of national defence information, and wilful communication of classified intelligence with an unauthorised person. It is easy to take issue with each of these charges. Firstly, the US Government works for US citizens, is paid for by US citizens and is elected by US citizens, so everything it creates and receives should surely be the property of US citizens. Surely the charge here then is synonymous with “theft of public property” or “theft of civilian property”. But, Snowden is a US civilian, and he can’t steal from himself and he’s not inhibiting others’ access to it – in fact, he’s making it more accessible – so can this charge be applied. I’d argue not, but this is most certainly not a view that the US Government or, perhaps, the courts will agree on. The other two charges follow on from this point; the Government were not authorised to intrude on people’s lives by those who have the authorisation – the public – so how was Snowden supposed to get authorisation from the public to communicate the Government’s secret work? Now, you may disagree with the fact that this information and operation does indeed belong to the US citizens but there remains a case for Government accountability and a warrant for the public to know what their Government is doing in their name.

The continued reaction by the US Government only serves to deepen the frustration and anger with the administration. In their desperation to shut Snowden’s mouth, gag him and take him away to Guantanamo Bay, they are making outlandish demands on the international community; not to harbour him, or to let him travel, unless it is back to the US. With joy, many countries have ignored this command from the self-proclaimed President of the World, as Hong Kong, Russia, Ecuador and Cuba rally behind Snowden. The US’ hope that they could get away with unilaterally enforcing security in the world has failed. They are deepening the cut by continuing their hostility, secrets and heavy-handedness.

Let us join in with the international solidarity for Edward Snowden who has performed an incredible and brave action that he should most certainly not be persecuted for.