Tag Archives: suppression

New COVID variants have changed the game, and vaccines will not be enough. We need global ‘maximum suppression’

Posted on by

Daniel Cole/AP

Susan Michie, UCL; Chris Bullen, University of Auckland; Jeffrey V Lazarus, Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal); John N. Lavis, McMaster University; John Thwaites, Monash University; Liam Smith, Monash University; Salim Abdool Karim, Centre for the AIDS Program of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA), and Yanis Ben Amor, Columbia UniversityAt the end of 2020, there was a strong hope that high levels of vaccination would see humanity finally gain the upper hand over SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In an ideal scenario, the virus would then be contained at very low levels without further societal disruption or significant numbers of deaths.

But since then, new “variants of concern” have emerged and spread worldwide, putting current pandemic control efforts, including vaccination, at risk of being derailed.

Put simply, the game has changed, and a successful global rollout of current vaccines by itself is no longer a guarantee of victory.

No one is truly safe from COVID-19 until everyone is safe. We are in a race against time to get global transmission rates low enough to prevent the emergence and spread of new variants. The danger is that variants will arise that can overcome the immunity conferred by vaccinations or prior infection.

What’s more, many countries lack the capacity to track emerging variants via genomic surveillance. This means the situation may be even more serious than it appears.

As members of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission Taskforce on Public Health, we call for urgent action in response to the new variants. These new variants mean we cannot rely on the vaccines alone to provide protection but must maintain strong public health measures to reduce the risk from these variants. At the same time, we need to accelerate the vaccine program in all countries in an equitable way.

Together, these strategies will deliver “maximum suppression” of the virus.

What are ‘variants of concern’?

Genetic mutations of viruses like SARS-CoV-2 emerge frequently, but some variants are labelled “variants of concern”, because they can reinfect people who have had a previous infection or vaccination, or are more transmissible or can lead to more severe disease.



Read more:
UK, South African, Brazilian: a virologist explains each COVID variant and what they mean for the pandemic

There are currently at least three documented SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern:

  • B.1.351, first reported in South Africa in December 2020
  • B.1.1.7, first reported in the United Kingdom in December 2020
  • P.1, first identified in Japan among travellers from Brazil in January 2021.

Similar mutations are arising in different countries simultaneously, meaning not even border controls and high vaccination rates can necessarily protect countries from home-grown variants, including variants of concern, where there is substantial community transmission.

If there are high transmission levels, and hence extensive replication of SARS-CoV-2, anywhere in the world, more variants of concern will inevitably arise and the more infectious variants will dominate. With international mobility, these variants will spread.

South Africa’s experience suggests that past infection with SARS-CoV-2 offers only partial protection against the B.1.351 variant, and it is about 50% more transmissible than pre-existing variants. The B.1.351 variant has already been detected in at least 48 countries as of March 2021.

The impact of the new variants on the effectiveness of vaccines is still not clear. Recent real-world evidence from the UK suggests both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines provide significant protection against severe disease and hospitalisations from the B.1.1.7 variant.

On the other hand, the B.1.351 variant seems to reduce the efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine against mild to moderate illness. We do not yet have clear evidence on whether it also reduces effectiveness against severe disease.

For these reasons, reducing community transmission is vital. No single action is sufficient to prevent the virus’s spread; we must maintain strong public health measures in tandem with vaccination programs in every country.

Why we need maximum suppression

Each time the virus replicates, there is an opportunity for a mutation to occur. And as we are already seeing around the world, some of the resulting variants risk eroding the effectiveness of vaccines.

That’s why we have called for a global strategy of “maximum suppression”.

Public health leaders should focus on efforts that maximally suppress viral infection rates, thus helping to prevent the emergence of mutations that can become new variants of concern.

Prompt vaccine rollouts alone will not be enough to achieve this; continued public health measures, such as face masks and physical distancing, will be vital too. Ventilation of indoor spaces is important, some of which is under people’s control, some of which will require adjustments to buildings.

Fair access to vaccines

Global equity in vaccine access is vital too. High-income countries should support multilateral mechanisms such as the COVAX facility, donate excess vaccines to low- and middle- income countries, and support increased vaccine production.

However, to prevent the emergence of viral variants of concern, it may be necessary to prioritise countries or regions with the highest disease prevalence and transmission levels, where the risk of such variants emerging is greatest.



Read more:
3 ways to vaccinate the world and make sure everyone benefits, rich and poor

Those with control over health-care resources, services and systems should ensure support is available for health professionals to manage increased hospitalisations over shorter periods during surges without reducing care for non-COVID-19 patients.

Health systems must be better prepared against future variants. Suppression efforts should be accompanied by:

  • genomic surveillance programs to identify and quickly characterise emerging variants in as many countries as possible around the world
  • rapid large-scale “second-generation” vaccine programs and increased production capacity that can support equity in vaccine distribution
  • studies of vaccine effectiveness on existing and new variants of concern
  • adapting public health measures (such as double masking) and re-committing to health system arrangements (such as ensuring personal protective equipment for health staff)
  • behavioural, environmental, social and systems interventions, such as enabling ventilation, distancing between people, and an effective find, test, trace, isolate and support system.



Read more:
Global weekly COVID cases are falling, WHO says — but ‘if we stop fighting it on any front, it will come roaring back’

COVID-19 variants of concern have changed the game. We need to recognise and act on this if we as a global society are to avoid future waves of infections, yet more lockdowns and restrictions, and avoidable illness and death.The Conversation

Susan Michie, Professor of Health Psychology and Director of the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change, UCL; Chris Bullen, Professor of Public Health, University of Auckland; Jeffrey V Lazarus, Associate Research Professor, Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal); John N. Lavis, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Evidence-Informed Health Systems, McMaster University; John Thwaites, Chair, Monash Sustainable Development Institute & ClimateWorks Australia, Monash University; Liam Smith, Director, BehaviourWorks, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University; Salim Abdool Karim, Director, Centre for the AIDS Program of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA), and Yanis Ben Amor, Assistant Professor of Global Health and Microbiological Sciences, Executive Director – Center for Sustainable Development (Earth Institute), Columbia University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Eradication, elimination, suppression: let’s understand what they mean before debating Australia’s course

Posted on by

Anita Heywood, UNSW and C Raina MacIntyre, UNSW

The current surge in community transmission of COVID-19 in Victoria has brought renewed discussion of whether Australia should maintain its current “suppression” strategy, or pursue an “elimination” strategy instead.

But what do these terms actually mean, and what are the differences between the two?



Read more:
As restrictions ease, here are 5 crucial ways for Australia to stay safely on top of COVID-19

In theory

Disease eradication means a global absence of the pathogen (except in laboratories). We achieved this for smallpox in 1980. Diseases suitable for eradication are usually those where humans are the only host, and where there’s an effective vaccine or other prevention strategy.

Disease elimination relates to a country or a region, and is usually defined as the absence of ongoing community (endemic) transmission.

Elimination generally sits in the context of a global eradication goal. The World Health Organisation sets a goal for eradication, and countries play their part by first achieving country-wide elimination.

Cases and small outbreaks may still occur once a disease is eliminated — imported through travel — but these don’t lead to sustained community transmission.

Finally, disease control refers to deliberate efforts to reduce the number of cases to a locally acceptable level, but community transmission may still occur. Australia’s current suppression strategy, though seeking to quash community transmission, can be classified as disease control.

In practice

Elimination and suppression strategies employ the same control measures. For COVID-19, these include:

  • rapid identification and isolation of cases

  • timely and comprehensive contact tracing

  • testing and quarantining of contacts

  • varying degrees of social distancing (lockdown, banning mass gatherings, keeping 1.5m distance from others)

  • border controls: restricting entry through travel bans, and quarantine of returning international travellers

  • face masks to reduce transmission.



Read more:
Grattan on Friday: Does Victoria’s second wave suggest we should debate an elimination strategy?

The differences between a suppression strategy and an elimination strategy are the strictness, timing, and duration with which these measures are applied, especially travel restrictions.

For example, under a suppression strategy, physical distancing requirements might be lifted while there’s still a low level of community transmission. But under an elimination strategy, these measures would remain in place until there’s no detectable community transmission.

What’s realistic for COVID-19?

First, the prospect of eradicating COVID-19 is likely no longer feasible, even with a vaccine.

People without symptoms may be able to spread COVID-19, which makes it difficult to identify every infectious case (SARS, for example, was only spread by people with symptoms). And if the virus has an animal host, animal reservoirs would also need to be eradicated.

So what about elimination?

For measles, elimination is defined as the absence of endemic measles transmission for more than 12 months. Countries must demonstrate low incidence, high quality surveillance and high population immunity.

Imported cases in unvaccinated returning travellers and occasional small outbreaks continue to occur, but a country will lose its elimination status if community spread lasts longer than one year.

The majority of the Australian population are immune to measles, which lowers the probability of sustained outbreaks. But most Australians remain susceptible to COVID-19.

So future sustained outbreaks, like the current Victorian outbreak, will remain possible until we can vaccinate the population — even under an elimination strategy.



Read more:
Lockdown, relax, repeat: how cities across the globe are going back to coronavirus restrictions

Like we have with measles, for COVID-19, we need a definition of elimination with specific criteria that can be measured.

Declaring COVID-19 “eliminated” after the absence of community transmission for a few weeks means little during a pandemic, and may lead to complacency in the community. This period should be more like a few months.

Effective suppression can lead to elimination

While the federal government continues to advocate for its suppression strategy, some states have demonstrated absence of community transmission.

International arrivals to these states (and to New Zealand) are comparatively small, and the virus was always going to be more difficult to contain in cities with substantial international arrivals and high population densities, such as Sydney and Melbourne.

To achieve and sustain national elimination of any infectious disease during a pandemic is ambitious. It requires an epidemiologic definition with measurable criteria, significant resources and almost complete closure of international borders.

But maintaining the right for Australian citizens and residents to return to Australia means the borders are never fully closed, whether under a suppression strategy or elimination strategy.

So ultimately, both strategies are susceptible to outbreaks of COVID-19 in the community as long as the pandemic endures.

It will always ebb and flow

An elimination strategy would not necessarily have prevented the current outbreak in Victoria, particularly if social distancing restrictions had already been lifted.

Whether Australia continues with its suppression strategy or opts to switch to a defined elimination strategy, either approach will require continued vigilance. This could include intermittent reinstating of restrictions or targeted containment around hotspots as transmission ebbs and flows.

And whatever name we give to Australia’s approach, neither Victoria or New South Wales have accepted any level of community transmission. Both have gone hard to stop community outbreaks that have arisen, and that’s a good thing.

But long-term maintenance of periods of elimination are unlikely to be possible until we have a vaccine.



Read more:
Which face mask should I wear?


The Conversation

Anita Heywood, Associate Professor, UNSW and C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC Principal Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

View from The Hill: Why not have an inquiry to examine the pros and cons of suppression versus elimination?

Posted on by

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Scott Morrison on Wednesday once again ruled out any consideration of moving to an “elimination” strategy for dealing with COVID-19.

He told Triple M Melbourne: “You don’t just shut the whole country down because that is not sustainable.

“There’d be doubling unemployment, potentially, and even worse.

“The cure would be worse than what arguably wouldn’t be delivered anyway, because as we’ve seen with the outbreak in Victoria, it came from a breach of quarantine.

“So unless we’re going to, you know, not allow any freight or any medical supplies into Australia or not allow any exports or anything like this, there is always going to be a connection between Australia and the rest of the world.”

Morrison’s sentiments were backed by the business lobbies. Innes Willox, head of the Australian Industry Group, praised the prime minister for “calling out the prohibitive costs” of an elimination strategy.



Read more:
Lockdown, relax, repeat: how cities across the globe are going back to coronavirus restrictions

This would mean closing ourselves off from the rest of the world “indefinitely” and require “draconian restrictions” on citizens and businesses, Willox said.

NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian, commenting on the NSW outbreak, also eschewed an elimination strategy.

Even if they are all correct in rejecting elimination, they haven’t properly addressed the arguments, or produced enough evidence to back their assertions.

Instead the government at least – excuse the pun – has sought to suppress the debate about elimination.

Morrison said there would be a “doubling” of unemployment, or worse. Could we have the figures underpinning this please?

At present, in all states and territories apart from Victoria and NSW the virus is effectively or nearly eliminated. So what would happen to unemployment in those states? Maybe a small tick up but you wouldn’t think a lot.

Victoria is once again shut down – triggering more unemployment under the current suppression strategy.

Presumably the treasury could produce some numbers to shed light on the prime minister’s claim.

Morrison’s statement that an elimination strategy would not allow any freight or medical supplies into Australia nor “allow any exports” smacks of exaggeration (at the least). Maximum care would be needed but border issues regarding crews are being managed now.

Willox says elimination would mean closing ourselves off to the rest of the world “indefinitely”.

The first point to be made is that, in terms of the movement of people, we are already closed internationally, apart from those coming home or foreigners leaving. This closure has no end date.

Secondly, after elimination presumably the border could eventually be open to a greater or lesser extent, with a very strict quarantine system.

Morrison’s claim that pursuing elimination would mean shutting down the whole country seems hyperbolic, when we already have extensive elimination. Apart from that, where shutdowns may be needed there can be a trade off – you can have a less severe shutdown but keep some restrictions for longer.

Admittedly, if elimination were successful there would be the danger of complacency, but we’ve seen this under suppression.

Elimination doesn’t mean there will never be cases. It means they are few enough for potential community transmission to be quickly dealt with.

Health experts are divided over whether elimination would be worth pursuing. Victoria’s chief health officer Brett Sutton said on Wednesday: “I’d love elimination. We’re not at a point where it’s the right time to make a detailed consideration of its feasibility, but … it’s worthy of consideration. There’s no question that it’s got its own challenges, but it’s got its benefits as well.”



Read more:
More deaths in Victoria, as NSW COVID cluster triggers reactions in Queensland and South Australia

Nick Talley, editor-in-chief of the Medical Journal of Australia, a physician and an epidemiologist, believes elimination would be the best strategy for both the society and the economy.

“We eliminated the virus – almost by accident – in large parts of the country during the last lockdown. I suspect this was in part because most of the cases were from international travellers who could be traced and isolated – there was limited community transmission.

“This is very different from the current outbreak in Victoria, and possibly NSW, because there is extensive community transmission,” Talley says.

“I’m not convinced the suppression strategy is going to work. If we don’t eliminate the virus the economy won’t be able to fire up across the country.”

The multiple federal medical officers have backed suppression. Aware of the government’s firm view, they do not freelance.

Both Morrison and Berejiklian have condemned in principle having a stop-start situation. But neither is saying Victoria should have stayed open through its current second wave.

While Morrison and business point to the potential costs of elimination, are they talking short term or long term costs?

For example, New Zealand’s elimination policy is projected to impose a greater economic hit than expected in Australia. But the difference might be somewhat lessened by the second Victorian shutdown, and narrowed further if there are future stop-starts.

It may be that elimination is not the way to go. But why not, say, have a short sharp inquiry, to gather evidence on the health and economic implications, so we know more about the options?

Actually we know why not. The government does not want its course seriously contested.The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Christians in Middle East Fear Violence from Anti-Quran Protests

Posted on by

Those in the West who provoke Muslim extremists are not the ones who will suffer, they say.

ISTANBUL, October 5 (CDN) — Christians across the Middle East said they will be the ones to suffer if a group of anti-Islamic protestors in the United States goes through with its plans to publicly tear up or otherwise desecrate the Quran.

They roundly condemned the proposed actions as political stunts that are unwise, unnecessary and unchristian.

“This kind of negative propaganda is very harmful to our situation in Muslim countries,” said Atef Samy, assistant pastor for networking at Kasr El Dobara, the largest Protestant congregation in Egypt. “It generates uncontrollable anger among the people around us and gives the impression that all Christians feel this way about Islam.”

Samy said U.S. Christians who are protesting Islam need to think about the results of their “irrational actions.” The desecration, he said, will lead to protests and will incite people to commit anti-Christian violence.

“How do they expect Muslims to react?” he said. “And has anybody thought how we will pay for their actions or even their words?”

Tomorrow and Thursday (Oct. 6 and 7), political activist Randall Terry will host “Hear Muhammad Speak!” a series of demonstrations across the United States that he said are meant to “ignite national and world-wide debate/dialogue/education on the anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and at times violent message of the Quran.” During these protests, Terry plans to tear out pages from the Quran and encourage others to do the same.

He has said he is conducting the protest because he wants to focus attention also on the Hadith and the Sunnah, the recorded sayings and actions of Muhammad that Muslims use to guide their lives. Terry said these religious documents call “for the murder, beheadings, etc. of Christians and Jews, and the suppression of religious freedom.”

Known for his incendiary political approach, Terry is founder of Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion rights group. After stepping down from Operation Rescue, he publicly supported the actions of Scott Roeder, who murdered a Kansas physician who performed late-term abortions. Terry also arranged to have a protestor present an aborted fetus to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton at the 1992 Democratic National Convention.

On this year’s anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Terry stood outside the White House and denounced Islam as one of five other protestors ripped out pages from the Quran and threw them into a plastic trash bag, which along with Florida Pastor Terry Jones’ planned (though ultimately cancelled) Quran-burning provoked isolated attacks across the Islamic world that left at least 19 dead.

Terry is part of a seemingly growing tide of people destroying or threatening to destroy the Quran as an act of protest against Islam or “Islamic extremism.”

 

Objections

Terry has said that he wants to “highlight the suffering of Christians inflicted by Muslims” and to call on Islamic leaders “to stop persecuting and killing Christians and Jews, and well as ‘apostates’ who leave Islam.”

But Christian leaders in the Middle East said protests in which the Quran is desecrated have the opposite effect. They are bracing themselves for more attacks. Protestors in the West can speak freely – about free speech, among other things – but it’s Christians in the Middle East who will be doing the dying, they said.

“This message of hate antagonizes Muslims and promotes hatred,” said Samia Sidhom, a Christian and managing editor of the Cairo-based newspaper Watani. “Thus churches and Christians become targets of counter-hate and violence. Islam is in no way chastised, nor Christianity exalted. Only hate is strengthened. Churches and Christians here find they need to defend themselves against the allegations of being hateful and against the hate and violence directed at them.”

Martin Accad, a Lebanese Christian and director of the Institute of Middle East Studies at Arab Baptist Theological Seminary in Beirut, agreed with Sidhom.

“We are held guilty by association by extremist Muslims, even though the vast majority of Muslims will be able to dissociate between crazy American right-wingers and true followers of Jesus,” he said.

Leaders in the Arabic-speaking Christian world said Terry’s protests and others like it do nothing positive. Such provocations won’t make violent Muslim extremists re-examine their beliefs or go away.

“Islam will not disappear because we call it names,” said Samy, of the Egyptian Protestant church. “So we must witness to our belief in Jesus without aggressively attacking the others.”

Accad, a specialist in Christian-Muslim relations and also associate professor of Islamic Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary, said positive engagement is the best approach for Christians to take toward Islam.

“Visit their places of worship and get to know them, and invite them to yours,” Accad said. “Educate your own congregation about Islam in a balanced way. Engage in transformational partnerships with moderate Muslim leaders who are working towards a more peaceful world.”

The element of the protests that most baffled Christians living in the Muslim world was that burning or tearing another religion’s book seemed so unchristian, they said.

“In what way can burning or ripping the Quran serve Christianity or Christians?” Sidhom of Watani said. “It is not an action fit for a servant of Christianity. It merely expresses hate and sends out a message of extreme hostility to Islam.”

Accad called publicly desecrating the Quran an act of “sheer moral and ethical absurdity.”

“These are not acts committed by followers of a Jesus ethic,” Accad said. “They will affect the image of Christianity as badly as the destruction of the World Trade Center affected the image of Islam.”

Accad added, “Since when do followers of Jesus rip an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?”

Such protests also defeat the purposes of churches in Islamic nations, Christians said. H. Ramdani, a church leader in Algeria, said Christians must strive to build bridges with Muslims in order to proclaim Christ.

“It’s destroying what we are doing and what we are planning to do,” he said of the protests. “People refuse to hear the gospel, but they ask the reason for the event. Muslims are more radical and sometimes they are brutal.”

At press time Compass was unable to reach Terry by phone or e-mail for a reply to the Middle Eastern Christians’ complaints about the planned protests, but after he staged a Sept. 11 Quran-tearing event he released a statement expressing “great sadness” over the deaths that followed while denying that it was right for Muslims to react violently to such protests.

“Such logic is like saying that a woman who is abused by her boyfriend or husband is guilty of bringing violence on herself because she said or did something that irritated him,” Terry stated.

In the weeks leading up to the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attack, Terry Jones, leader of a small congregation in Gainesville, Fla., made his mark in the media by threatening to burn a stack of Qurans in protest of Islam. At the last minute, after wide condemnation from around the world, Jones stated that he felt “God is telling us to stop” and backed out of the protest.

Despite Jones’ retreat, protestors unaffiliated with him burned Qurans in New York and Tennessee, and demonstrations swept across the Muslim world. In the relatively isolated attacks that ensued, protestors set fire to a Christian school and various government buildings, burning the school and the other structures to the ground. In Kashmir, 17 people were killed in Islamic assaults, and two protestors were killed in demonstrations in Afghanistan.

Report from Compass Direct News

Church services banned as believers pray for persecuted church

Posted on by

Christians in Iran are facing even more persecution. International Christian Concern has learned that the Iranian government forced the Central Assemblies of God Church in Tehran to shut down its Friday worship services. The incident took place October 30. Some fear this episode is the beginning of a new campaign of government suppression of public Christian worship gatherings, reports MNN.

According to reports by Farsi Christian News Network, Rev. Sourik, the bishop of the Assemblies of God churches in Iran, resolved to close the church on Fridays, the weekly Islamic day of prayer, after encountering acute pressure from the security network within the Ministry of Information.

Initially, Sourik resisted the government sanction. However, the Revolutionary Guard demanded that the church close Friday public services by October 31, and threatened to shut down all services and close the church permanently. Sourik ultimately submitted to the government’s ruling out of concern for the congregation. “The announcement of the termination of the Friday services was received with shock and utter surprise, and resulted in many openly weeping in the church service,” reported FCNN. The church leadership affirmed that its Sunday services will remain open.

The Assembly of God Church in Tehran is among the largest church buildings designated for public worship in Iran, a country where the majority of Christians observe their faith in underground house churches. Registered “above ground” churches in Iran have been allowed relative independence to worship freely while being closely monitored by the government. However, ICC sources fear that the closure of Friday services–a heightened trend of government coercion upon “above ground” churches–may commence.

The targeting of registered churches discloses a regression in Iran’s policy of toleration toward Christians who choose to worship publicly. “I believe the main reason they closed those service is to send a strong signal to all Christians inside and outside Iran that they will not tolerate Christianity in Iran. Its purpose is mostly to intimidate,” said one ICC source.

Historically, it has been the underground church, not the open public churches, that have faced the brunt of government-imposed oppression.

Iran issued no official statement explaining the reasons for its recent crackdown.

Aiden Clay, ICC Regional Manager for the Middle East, says, “We oppose Iran’s resolution to prevent the Christians of the Assembly of God Church in Tehran from fellowshiping freely on Fridays, or any other day of the week. We urge Iran to respect the rights of Christians to practice their faith freely without government interference, or authoritarian rule.”

Clay adds, “History has shown us that external persecution actually causes the church to grow.”

Clay says that the services have had “great success in bringing in new believers, converting Muslims to Christ, and I think Iran views that as a threat.”

Report from the Christian Telegraph 

CHINA: AUTHORITIES REFUSE TO RENEW LICENSES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYERS

Posted on by

Key attorney for Uyghur Christian among those effectively disbarred.

DUBLIN, June 11 (Compass Direct News) – Li Dunyong, one of several lawyers involved in the defense of Uyghur house church Christian Alimjan Yimit (Alimujiang Yimiti in Chinese) was effectively disbarred at the end of May when Chinese authorities turned down an annual application to renew his law license.

Zhang Kai, another Beijing lawyer who had defended Alimjan, suffered the same fate.

Authorities failed to renew licenses for at least 15 other lawyers who had defended civil rights cases, religious and ethnic minorities and political dissidents, according to watch group Human Rights in China (HRIC).

During a process of “Annual Inspection and Registration” for all lawyers and law firms, with a closing date of May 31 for renewal applications, authorities also denied three law firms the necessary approval to practice. Officials harassed and physically abused several of the affected lawyers in the months prior to the loss of their licenses.

The lawyers can technically appeal this decision or re-apply at a later date, but most see this as a clear warning to avoid handling sensitive cases.

“The process of building a country ruled by law has suffered a serious setback,” HRIC claimed in a statement on June 4.

The rejection of applications followed the Feb. 4 disappearance of Gao Zhisheng, a high-profile Christian human rights activist who once said that every human rights lawyer would eventually become a human rights case. Gao’s whereabouts remained unknown at press time. (See “Action Urged for Missing Rights Activist,” March 25.)

Lawyer Li had planned to visit Alimjan in northwest China early this month, but recent events have forced the legal team to reconsider its defense strategy.

Alimjan, a member of the troubled Uyghur minority in Xinjiang province, remains in arbitrary detention awaiting trial, 16 months after his arrest. Officials initially closed the foreign-owned business Alimjan worked for in September 2007 and accused him of using it as a cover for “preaching Christianity.” He was then detained in January 2008 on charges of endangering state security and was formally arrested on Feb. 20, 2008 on charges of “inciting secession” and leaking state secrets.

Court officials returned Alimjan’s case to state prosecutors in May 2008, citing lack of evidence. Last May 21, government sources told Alimjan’s mother that the Public Security Bureau (PSB) in Kashgar planned to quietly sentence him to three years of re-education through labor, thereby circumventing the court system.

Under Chinese law the PSB, which originally filed the case against Alimjan, may authorize such sentences without approval from the court or other state agencies.

The case was returned to court for consideration last October, but at press time there was no indication of another date for a court hearing.

Li petitioned for and was granted permission for a rare meeting with his client on April 21 after witnesses saw police and a prison doctor escorting Alimjan to a hospital on March 30; Compass sources said Alimjan had been beaten in prison, although it was not clear who beat him or why. When Li questioned him, Alimjan indicated that he was not allowed to speak about his health.

The beating followed a previous meeting with his lawyer – only the second of such visits permitted during his detention – on March 24.

Human Rights Advocates Threatened

On April 13, China’s State Council released a new “National Human Rights Action Plan” that focused heavily on protecting the rights of prisoners and included a pledge to abolish torture and other forms of abuse within two years.

Issued at least partially in response to a United Nations review of China’s rights record in February, the plan also affirmed the right of prisoners to hire and meet with lawyers and to report abuses in writing to the appropriate authorities.

Contrary to such promises, however, the detention and physical abuse of lawyers has multiplied in recent months, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). Sophie Richardson, Asia advocacy director for HRW, maintains that control over the yearly renewal of licenses remains one of the main obstacles to the independence of China’s legal profession.

Authorities placed several human rights lawyers under house arrest or heavy surveillance in the first week of June as China marked the 20th anniversary of the June 4, 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square. According to HRIC, policemen seized one of the 15 temporarily disbarred lawyers, Tang Jitian, from his home early on the morning of June 4; they had already detained him for 10 hours the previous day.

“This is a display of meticulously planned suppression of lawyers who enforce and uphold the law and are dedicated to public interests,” Tang told HRIC.

One lawyer, Jiang Tianyong, said officers barred him from leaving his home on June 3 and told him, “Think of your wife and child.” Jiang is among those whose licenses were not renewed.

In late May, HRW reported that Beijing authorities had pressured several legal firms not to endorse the renewal applications of members who had defended civil rights cases.

Report from Compass Direct News

IRAN: AUTHORITIES PRESSURE FATHER OF CONVERT

Posted on by

Government trying to quell Christian son’s human rights activities.

LOS ANGELES, May 20 (Compass Direct News) – In an attempt to silence a Christian human rights activist living in England, Iranian authorities arrested and interrogated his Muslim father for six days before releasing him yesterday .

Abdul Zahra Vashahi, a retired 62-year-old suffering a heart condition, was arrested on Thursday (May 14) in Iran’s southwestern city of Bandar Mahshahr and interrogated about the human rights activities of his son, a Christian convert who has been living in England since 2003. His son, John (Reza) Vashahi, converted to Christianity while in England and in 2008 founded the Iranian Minorities Human Rights Organization (IMHRO).

In February the elder Vashahi had received a call from local authorities telling him that if his son didn’t stop his activities, they would arrest him instead.

While his father was in custody, authorities asked the elder Vashahi many questions about his son’s activities and had him fill out forms with detailed information about his extended family and friends.

“He is very tired, because the interrogations were very long,” his son told Compass. “All the questions were about me.”

The younger Vashahi said the Iranian government started putting increased pressure on his family, whom he has not seen in six years, since he founded IMHRO.

“It is a good example of harassment even outside the country,” Vashahi told Compass by telephone today. “It is just showing how far the government will go if we let them. Inside we can’t talk, and we come to Europe and still they want to silence us; it’s a very worrying sign.”

Vashahi, unlike his father, was involved in politics when he lived in Iran. His family belongs to Iran’s Arab-speaking community, the Ahwazi, most of whom live in the southwestern province of Khuzestan.

He said that even when he was living there, police had come to his father’s workplace to ask him questions, but that after he fled the country six years ago, the pressure seemed to have stopped. It began anew when he became an outspoken Christian campaigning for the rights of minorities in Iran and especially with the establishment of IMHRO, he said.

The activist is an active member of Amnesty International, and through his own organization he publicizes Iran’s human rights violations of minorities, especially Christians. He has also started a blog called “Jesus for Arabs.”

Fighting for Minority Rights

Vashahi acknowledged that his family, which is Muslim, was never happy with his choice of faith or vocation.

Asked whether he believed the government arrested his father because of his faith or his work, the younger Vashahi said, “I think it’s both, because part of my human rights activity is in regard to Christians in Iran, and we’ve been in touch with Christians and persecuted churches.”

The 30-year-old activist said that when the Revolutionary Guard arrested his father, they confiscated all of his books and compact discs, as well as a computer and his sister’s university dentistry textbooks.

“It’s a bad situation, and I hope we find some solution,” Vashahi said, “No one has the right to talk about anything in Iran. Suppression of the church is increasing in Iran; they don’t want us to talk about that. They don’t want us to talk about it inside, and also they want to silence us outside.”

Vashahi said that despite the government pressure, he is not planning to stop his human rights activism.

“I’m not going to be silent, because if I do, then I’m accepting their logic, which means I caused the arrest of my dad,” Vashahi said. “My dad is innocent, and that system is wrong to arrest someone instead of somebody else.”

In 2008, when deciding to establish the IMHRO, he said he felt torn between confronting Iran’s injustices and wanting to ignore them from his comfortable, safe distance.

“Another part of me was saying, ‘you are safe now, but you should do your fair share, you should make noise, and if people inside can’t talk and you are outside and you don’t want to talk, how will people learn what is happening?’” he said. “I felt responsibility, and in the end that part won.”

In a phone conversation with his mother yesterday while his father was sleeping to recover from his time in prison, he said he felt that she was choosing her words very carefully. She told him not to contact them or other family and friends.

“She emphasized that we are all Muslims, and that this is an Islamic country,” Vashahi said. “So she was giving me hints that it [the arrest] had to do with the change of religion.”

Although there were no official charges against his father, Vashahi said it is possible that authorities still could take him to court or detain him again for more interrogation.

“I hope this doesn’t happen again,” he said. “In fact, they’ve taken my family as hostage. They did this type of policy to other people and they’ve always failed, and I don’t know why they keep doing it, because people like me they are not going to stop. Others didn’t stop, and they’re just bringing more condemnation on themselves and exposing themselves to more condemnation in the eyes of the world.”

New Wave of Arrests

Compass has learned of four confirmed arrests of Christians in the last two weeks in the capital city of Tehran, while sources said a new wave of arrests has rolled across the country.

Authorities have been warning arrested Christians not to speak to foreign news agencies.

“The government is treating people like they don’t want them to talk,” said a source. “The government is really afraid of international news agencies, they really don’t like them. That is why they put pressure on the believers, and they are really scared.”

Although in most cases of arrests and interrogations Christians have been released with no physical harm, a source said in some instances they were told to sign papers that they would stop Christian activities and were threatened if they continued.

“It’s happening everywhere,” said the source. “This is the strategy of the government. They are doing it everywhere.”

Maryam Rostampour, 27, and Marzieh Amirizadeh Esmaeilabad, 30, are in their second month of detention at the notorious Evin prison house in Tehran, accused of “acting against state security” and “taking part in illegal gatherings.”

Report from Compass Direct News