ARAC UPDATE No. 34
5 November 2010
Dear Farmer,
It seems the rains are at last truly here and I am sure for many of us off the land, the familiar smells of rain on earth evoke particular memories of past farming seasons. I have recently read a bit of information on identity and often reflect just how difficult it has been for many of us to make the adjustment from actively farming. On a trip to the UK a couple of years ago I was required to fill in a form on entry that needed details of occupation. I filled out FARMER and then put a line through it…. I was indeed just a crossed out farmer! However the critical factor in the crossing out was another trait of my identity…whiteness!
I am sure there are many who felt the loss of occupation as a damaging loss of much more… our identity no less… Losing livelihood at the same time has been a real challenge and it amazes me how resilient people have been. What is extremely difficult is to speak with farmers whose rights have been so maliciously violated and be able to offer so little immediate hope of recovery and compensation. Nonetheless it is essential that you are aware that no opportunity to advance the issue is left unvisited. We are constantly meeting people and doing our best to articulate the urgent need that exists to unlock the debt owed to farmers and remove the blockage to opportunity of the current exclusion.
Today I received the transcript of the judgement in the case of Zimbabwean woman who sought refugee status in the UK. She has lost her appeal and will now have to face the consequences as is apparent from the following extracts from the court record:
This case concerns crimes against humanity. Article 7 of the ICC Statute provides:
“1. For the purpose of this Statute “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:…………………………
k. Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical heath.
This case is concerned with the responsibility of someone who, on her own evidence, used violence herself on black farm workers to help to drive them from their homes during two farm invasions, which were intended to remove those workers as well as the white farmer, so that his land could be taken by others, usually regime acolytes or its marauding supporters. She was not a ring leader, nor one of the hard core of the Zanu-PF youth militia, but she was one of the large group of militia members, one of the mob, who were taken to the farms to drive out the workers, burn their homes and ensure that they were too intimidated ever to return. Of course, we accept that it is necessary to look at what she personally actually did, and with what intent. But we reject what seemed to be her defense suggestion that her personal acts and intent are the end of the matter, as if there were no context to what she did, as if she were not doing what she did as part of an invading mob which had a clear and violent purpose. This has to be examined to judge whether she was part of this joint enterprise.
The Appellant was not merely present. She was on each occasion a voluntary, even if reluctant, actual and active participant in beatings; even taking her evidence at face value, beating many people hard as part of the aim of driving them away. She specifically tried to demonstrate her loyalty to Zanu-PF in her actions.
She is plainly criminally liable on a joint enterprise domestic law basis.
If there is an additional requirement that, in these circumstances, there be a substantial contribution to the crime, we consider that she provided it. That expression is not intended to exclude all but ringleaders and major participants. Each of those who guard extermination camps, for example, make a substantial contribution to genocide.
Active participation in mob violence which itself falls within sub-paragraph (k) makes a substantial contribution to that crime against humanity, and is a sufficient basis for exclusion from refugee status of those who actively and intentionally participated in the violence, seeking to achieve its purpose.
This appeal is dismissed.”
What is of interest to us is that the group dynamics used to mobilize and evict the farmers and workers concerned were clearly judged to be “crimes against humanity.” For those who participated intent was sufficient to deduce responsibility… clearly a ‘choice’ had been made and thus there was no basis for the appeal. Justice in this case has been done and indeed establishes precedent for the examination of so many other violations experienced by farmers and their employees.
The ‘choice’ to classify and exclude or include a sector of society has driven the land acquisition process and left our country morally and economically destitute. Only when the definition of identity becomes inclusive and seeks to draw all into the full enjoyment of the rights of citizenship will Zimbabwe recover. We may not become an African Tiger; perhaps we can become a Leopard Economy where there is room for diversity! In that there is great hope.
Best regards,
Ben Gilpin
ARAC – Agricultural Recovery & Compensation
COMMERCIAL FARMERS’ UNION OF ZIMBABWE
Tel: +263 4 309800-19 ext 249
Email: [email protected]
The information contained in this email is strictly confidential and solely for the intended addressee(s). Written without prejudice. Unauthorised reproduction, disclosure, modification, and/or distribution of this email may be unlawful. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of either the sender, or the CFU. Requests for publication or forwarding may be obtained from CFU. If you receive this email in error please delete it and inform the sender.
Telephone 263-04-309800-16. Cell 263-712-861726