Four Kenyans allowed to sue British government over torture
21st July 2011
Four elderly Kenyans were give the go-ahead at the High Court today to sue the British government over alleged colonial atrocities committed during the Mau Mau uprising.
The test case claimants, Ndiku Mutwiwa Mutua, Paulo Muoka Nzili, Wambugu Wa Nyingi and Jane Muthoni Mara, who are in their 70s and 80s, flew 4,000 miles from their rural homes for the trial this spring which concentrated on events in detention camps between 1952 and 1961.
Fashionable ethnic groups have long memories for injuries received, short memories for injuries inflicted. You will note no mention of anybody getting sued for the atrocities committed by the Mau Mau during that period — mostly against fellow Kikuyu, as it happens.
July 21st, 2011 at 11:42
The Mau Mau don’t have any moolah, so they are of no interest. Plus, the Mau Mau are clearly included as part of a fashionable ethnic group.
July 21st, 2011 at 11:45
Um, who ARE the Mau Mau, currently? Are they a sue-able entity?
You need a defendant in order to have a trial.
Besides, the Kikuyu are/were just savages, primitive and illiterate. You have to expect these sorts of things from the backward blacks.
The British govt., on the other hand, was/is a supposedly a civilized and enlightened White nation, which shouldn’t be indulging in crass and ignoble behavior like internment camps, torture, pissing in the punch bowl, wearing white after Labor Day, etc.
Yes, I’m positing a double standard. When the disparity between Rule of Law and Rule by Force is demonstrated, and a nation-state is purported to live under the former, a double standard is apppropriate.
July 21st, 2011 at 13:47
Suing for stuff that happened 50 years ago? C’mon, Dennis, even you have to call BS on this one! Kenya was a mess back during the Mau Mau uprising and there were plenty of atrocities to go around. At some point, history is history and you cannot second guess the decisions that were made and carried out by folks that are long dead.
For that matter, a double standard is never appropriate. That includes judging past centuries by the so-called standards of the 21st century.
The suit is ridiculous, but the fact that the courts allow it is just certifiably crazy.
July 21st, 2011 at 16:44
Ah, yes, the ol’ Let Bygones Be Bygonse ‘Cause We Didn’t Live Through It argument.
So had it happened 30 years ago, would it then be acceptable? How about 20? 10, perhaps?
I didn’t know atrocities and uncivilized behaviour had a statute of limitations. How foolish of me.
I, personally, am still waiting for some Japanese survivors to sue the US government for the internment camps in California during WWII. But then, that’s just the Quixote in me.
July 21st, 2011 at 23:53
Ummm, Dennis, the government was forced to settle with the Japanese-Americans a decade or so back.
Don Quixote was not right in the head.
“Atrocities and uncivilized behavior” in the cited case seems only to apply to those who might have money. The Mau Mau uprising was incredibly brutal and atrocities were attributed to all sides. But then again, war is all hell. Only liberals seem to think there are rules that apply to brutality.
July 22nd, 2011 at 09:30
We settled with the Japanese-Americans? Good to hear it. That was, what, some 50 years after the fact? Guess that puts paid to the statute of limitations idea…
Only liberals, it seems, believe there are rules which apply in ALL cases. Conservatives, evidently, believe in rules that only apply while they are convenient, then jettisoned like last week’s garbage in the name of expedience. I sumbint Guantanamo and “extraordinary rendition” as two concrete and recent examples.
So war is hell? Then damn the Geneva Accords and break out the poison gas. But let’s make sure we still thump our chests and broadcast to the world how morally superior we are. In the end, what separates us from our enemies is…let me see…I’m sure there’s something…