It's not like you state your case, show the damage, the injustice... and then they say they're sorry and mend their ways.
 

Let's face it: some opponents are ruthless. They just don't seem to care. Public opinion doesn't sway their behaviour.

Take gold mining corporations that have wrought horrible, unspeakable environmental destruction. Some use cyanide — cyanide! — to extract from open pit wounds the 2% to 3% of precious gold content, leaving the remaining poisonous 97% to leach and seep, for generations.

Water. Public health. Farming and the right to eat. The environment. Global sanity. What can you do? Whole communities are at stake.

A number of mining companies don't care much about communities. They will, and they have, killed for the money. And once the money is gone, they're gone.

How do you influence a company that doesn't seem to care about anything? Faced with an opponent that is impervious to logic, human sensitivity and public pressure, where do you turn?

Human rights form the indispensable foundations that make it possible for human beings to lead meaningful, satisfying lives. They define the basic entitlements and freedoms that are our birthright. Centuries in the making, the new, growing culture of respect for human rights has been driving the modern push for democracy, development, and accountable governance.

Everyone is entitled to live in dignity, with their basic needs being met. We were all born with a heart longing to be free and equal.

Human rights are universal — they belong to individuals and also to communities. Human rights are interrelated and indivisible — none can be taken away without hurting the others.

A mock tribunal is not a kangoroo court. The more your mock tribunal adheres to recognized standards of a fair trial, and resembles the existing proceedings in your country, the more credibility the endeavour can earn.

We have explained previously how citizen-based mock tribunals make good use of premonitory power, discussed the impact of repressed testimonies towards making truth and reconciliation possible, and covered 14 things to think about before you organize a mock tribunal.

In this last piece on paralegal forums, we turn to practical advice on conducting non-governmental "trials", with some ideas for follow-up activities that can prolong and widen the tribunal's impact.

Photo cc: JaHoVil

When faced with problems such as weak or no enforcement of human rights law, or even the lack of proper national legal instruments, how can you determine whether a mock tribunal is the right tactic for you? What factors should you weigh in before you decide?

And if you thought a citizen-based tribunal could be a useful tactic, how would you go about organizing it? What are some of the steps involved in setting up such a large-scale, public event? For instance, how should you choose those who will play a direct part in it, especially judges (or commissioners)?

In A Mock Tribunal to Advance Change, Mufuliat Fijabi has helped us answer those questions. The following checklist includes some of her advice, and other tips.

You can quickly scan through the list to see what organizing a tribunal entails. The checklist includes 11 "before you organize" items, and 3 "early prep" tasks.

When whole systems were erected for the sole purpose of repressing and silencing you, how do you recover your voice?

On far too many continents, in far too many remote villages, tumultuous townships and forgotten urban alleyways, whole generations have witnessed their pregnant daughters being raped as evening entertainment for armed men, have survived the terror of disappearances in the dead of the night, and have seen the charred bodies of their sons in bombed car carcasses.

Where can these communities turn for a silver lining of justice, a possibility to heal and recover, a sense that the future may be livable?

When the level of atrocities finally recedes, what great big tide can come to cleanse with salty waters the bruised bodies and tortured souls left as wrecks on the shores of history?

Truth be told. Reconciliation is hard. But the only thing harder than that, apparently, is a lifetime of bitterness and hatred, being eaten away with fantasies of revenge, and the unspeakable grief that secret crimes beget.

"Although you are standing here before us, you are standing before the entire nation and the international society by standing on the podium to share your sufferings and the violence you have suffered as women. The tribunal is long overdue."

— Senator Khairat Gwadabe, member of Nigeria's Upper House, quoted in A Mock Tribunal to Advance Change.

Problem 1: When laws are inoperative

In most countries of the world, the law says one thing, and the reality says another. That's because changing rules is easier than changing practices. Likewise, adopting laws is not as taxing as enforcing them. Hence the problem of ineffectual legislation.

So what can you do when human rights statutes say one thing, and the facts another? How can you bring the rule of law when it is systematically ignored or violated?

Problem 2: When there is no law

It gets worse. Sometimes no relevant legislation is even in place. Think of the dismal state of the law regarding the abuse of women, marital rape, and sexual violence in many countries. Violations are not only ignored with impunity, they are often trivialized, and may even be glorified. When the legal system offers no specific provisions, technically and legally, there is no abuse.

So how can you seek redress, when there are no lawful mechanisms, no statute you can invoke? If a practice or behaviour is not even seen as a problem, how can you hope to change it?

There is a seldom used format that has the power to reframe a problem into a paralegal framework, to bring violations into the spotlight, and call for real enforcement. Enter one tactic that bridges consciousness raising and the legal world: the non-governmental, or citizen-based "mock" Tribunal.

Ottawa, Sept. 2003 — Monia Mazigh holds a procession for the return of her husband, Maher Arar. She's joined by their two children, Barâa (to her side) and Houd (in stroller), her own mother (left) and Maher Arar's mother (right). Photo: Philippe Duhamel.

When I met Monia Mazigh in 2003, she was a dignified, immensely worried lone campaigner for her husband's release. 

On September 25, 2002, Maher Arar left his wife Monia, their 5-year old daughter Barâa and 7-month baby son Houd in Tunisia, where they were vacationing on her side of the family. He had to return to work in Canada. The rest of the family would return later. They bade him farewell and he took a taxi to the airport. 

This was the last time Monia and the kids saw him for over a year.

Maher Arar was pulled aside during his stopover in New York, while waiting for his connecting flight to Canada. He was interrogated for hours, detained incognito, and then "renditioned" (sent secretly) to Syria, where he was tortured and held for 10 months and 10 days in a tomb-like cell where rat packs would run, and cat pee would rain from an opening in the ceiling.

It was a slow buildup. First there was radio. Then a news headline in the local paper. 

So you've taken the time to survey your social landscape. Your organization has figured which constituencies are your natural friends and which are your opponents, and the various groups in between. You have run the Spectrum of Allies. Now what?

How do you decide what to do? How do you identify the key constituencies on which to focus your limited energies?  If winning means moving different segments in your general direction, however slightly, how can you collectively develop tailor-made arguments and tactics that target these particular slices of the social pie you want to pull over to your side?

Here's a recently developed workshop exercise, a shiny new strategy tool to help your gang define next steps in campaign design. It includes step-by-step instructions, so you can facilitate the tool with some confidence in your group.

Click for full view. Original graphic from Movement for New Society.

"It might have been prudent at the beginning to identify potential groups that would oppose the movement, and solicit their support, but we did not anticipate such opposition."

— Emile Short in Powerful Persuasion 

“The media”, I asked, “where should we put the media?”

“Somewere in the middle”, said someone in the group. “No, the media's more like a hostile neutral”, said another.

As I moved the marker across a crescent shape drawn on the flip chart, we settled on a wedge between Neutrals and Opponents.

Nonviolent Peaceforce members Bella Desai and Eldred de Klerk during the 2005 Sri Lankan elections. Photo: Bob Fitch.

In case you are just catching up, we ran a dialogue on unarmed accompaniement from January 23 to 29, 2008. And what an outstanding exchange it's been. It started with a few questions, to which our generous resource people provided a wealth of answers. If you haven't had a chance to follow, I would hate for such gold nuggets to be lost on you.

So I have compiled a list of highlights from the dialogue. The list is subjective, but hey, that's what you get for relying on other people's reading... 

The excertps were edited for conciseness (from 28,000 words down to 2,000, it's a sizeable summary still), and I corrected a few typos. I also added emphasis to allow you to scan quickly.  Do feel free to explore further if you want; the names link back to the specific posts. 

Oh, and some of the very best resources and training guides on protective accompaniment were also interspersed in the conversation. So yes, I have compiled a list.  

No. You don't have to thank me. I'm here for you. ;-)