Can we stop arming Bahrain’s tyrants please?

A former foreign minister makes a valid point, as another Arab tyranny wobbles.

It's getting ugly in Bahrain – the BBC is reporting three dead and hundreds injured, as the emir's security forces disperse thousands of anti-government protesters in Pearl Square in the centre of the capital, Manama.

It's also getting worryingly sectarian. As the BBC notes in its online report:

Since independence from the UK in 1971, tensions between the Sunni elite and the less affluent Shia have frequently caused civil unrest. Shia groups say they are marginalised, subject to unfair laws and repressed.

Along with Iran and Iraq, Bahrain is one of three Shia-majority countries in the Middle East. There are rumours of Saudi support for Bahraini security forces; the Sunni elite have long been paranoid about a so-called Shia crescent emerging in the region. As the New York Times's Nicholas Kristof tweeted earlier:

Witnesses say #Bahrain police cursed Shia as they attacked peaceful demonstrators. I haven't found 1 Sunni victim.

So what can we do, here in the UK? I have a suggestion. How about we stop arming the Bahraini security forces? Is that such a radical or crazy suggestion, in the midst of all this bloodshed? The Labour MP and former Foreign Office minister Denis MacShane has just sent out a press release stating that:

According to the Department of Business's report on weapons exports, minister in the third quarter of 2010 agrees to export licences to Bahrain for the equipment listed below:

Q3 2010 Pivot Report
OIEL issued for CS hand grenades, demolition charges, demolition devices, exploding simulation devices, fire simulation equipment for small arms ammunition, illuminators, military devices for initiating explosives, signal flares, signal hand grenades, smoke ammunition, smoke canisters, smoke generators, smoke hand grenades, stun grenades, tear gas/irritant ammunition, tear gas/riot control agents, thunderflashes, training anti-aircraft ammunition, training hand grenades; (Source House of Commons Library)

MacShane says:

William Hague is shockingly complacent about the exports of British weapons used to kill, wound and repress innocent people protesting for their rights in Bahrain. At the very least all these exports should be suspended.

He makes a valid point. I'm not sure what the government's counter-argument would be!

If I wanted to be mean, though, I might remind Denis that the New Labour government – and Foreign Office – he was part of had no qualms about supplying weapons and training to some of the world's most repressive governments, including regimes in the Arab world. Plus ça change . . .

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.