29216: lyall (comment) on the study published in the lancet (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Jd Lyall <postmaster@lyalls.net>

Ok, I'm reading the study now. One has to register at the lancet to download a 
copy. It is free.

Since the question of inventing of data has been addressed, as well as 
political bias, I thought I'd do a quick analysis.
**********
"Human rights abuse and other criminal violations in
Port-au-Prince, Haiti: a random survey of households"
(R A Hutson PhD,
A R Kolbe MSW)

The introduction to the paper is politically loaded. For those following the 
dramas of Haiti these past few years the phrase 'democratically elected 
president' is heard from those advocating for the virtue and accomplishments of 
the 2001 Aristide government.

Here is something interesting; the second paragraph of the body has an peculiar 
phrasing:

"gross human rights abuses had occurred and perhaps even increased in frequency 
and severity under the interim Haitian government"

Perhaps even increased. Increased from what base? From before the interim 
government? Are the authors implying that gross human rights abuses occurred 
before the overthrow of the democratically elected president? An inadvertent 
implication.

Further on, they say that murders are counted only if they occurred to members 
of the household being surveyed. Someone objected that many families will know 
of the same murder. This objection is dispensed with quite clearly. The 
randomizing elements seem valid. They even state that the adult with the most 
recent birthday was chosen to be interviewed.

One political oddity: They state on page two that "None of the interviewers 
were a current or past member of the Lavalas or Lespwa political parties". The 
Lespwa party was not previously mentioned at all. This would only have meaning 
to Haiti political junkies.

They question people (page 4) whether they were arrested, and "whether the 
arrested person saw a judge within 48 h, as is mandated by the Haitian 
constitution". I'd place a good wager that no suspect has ever seen a judge 
within 48 hours since this constitution was ratified 19 years ago. I do know 
from direct testimony of friends that this was not the case before the 
departure of the democratically elected president on 29 Feb 2004. I also have 
experience of the partisans of Aristide using the abuse of this 48 hour rule by 
the interim government as evidence of persecution of partisans of Aristide. 
This statement is therefore politically loaded.

Hm. On page five they report that one out of 36 reported detentions saw a judge 
within 48 hours. I'm surprised. I just lost a bet.

Page 6 has  a nice chart. Criminal elements committed ,

Page 8 mentions some events presumably prior to the selected study period of 29 
Feb 2004 to Dec 2005. "we surmise that some serious human rights violations 
occurred in the areas of St Marc and Cap Haitian during early 2004 as rebel 
forces were seizing the country. However, in this study, we did not examine 
human rights abuses occurring in the areas where prolonged fighting took place 
during early 2004" No obvious political bias in this phrasing. Unless one 
actually knows what happened in the month of February 2004. In the week prior 
to 29 Feb 2004 I personally witnessed human rights violations by "partisans of 
Aristide".  Staffing of roadblocks by armed irregular forces calling out 'senk 
ans' can reliably be considered "partisans of Aristide" rather than unknown 
criminal elements I think.

Page 8 has a sentence "We did not investigate the violations to Haitians’ 
social and economic rights during the post-Aristide period. From news reports 
we know that some Haitians have been expelled from their homes, fired from 
their jobs, prevented from going to school, and forced to become refugees; all 
these circumstances can include human rights violations, but we did not address 
such violations in this study"
This is all hearsay which does not belong in a paper aspiring to methodical 
rigor. They address but say that they do not address such violations.

Now, if we want to consider hearsay and testimony of friends I have family 
members who were burned out of their houses by criminals chanting "senk ans". 
The Police did run away from this Nazon neighborhood. I have hearsay knowledge 
of schools burned down by political gangs. I saw testimony on television of 
people saying "chimere lavalas" attacked their schools. These are all human 
rights violations, yes. According to this impartial, academic, non-political 
study, all such acts were committed by 'criminals', not "lavalas members or 
partisans".

Page 9; "Media reports of abuses by UN peacekeepers". Well, all these media 
reports that I am aware of are from people who celebrate Dread Wilme and 
General Toutou as anti-imperialist crusaders. I tend to discount all reports 
from those sources, although I am sure that some such abuses do occur. That 
these "Media reports" are cited in what alleges to be an academic study casts 
significant doubt as to the intent of the studyer. (studyist?)

Final page; "Conflict of interest statement
We declare that we have no conflict of interest."

Two of the references are from "Duff, L", which is alleged to be an alter ego 
of A. Kolbe. "A Kolbe was principally responsible for survey instrument design, 
hiring, training, and overseeing the interview staff, leading the study teams, 
coordinating all logistical aspects of the study, and data entry and 
organisation"



********
The recently posted review of this study (article in counterpunch) stated that 
the co-author of the study was conducting an interview of a woman who had been 
sexually assaulted.
The methodology section at the beginning of the paper says that all 
interviewers (save one) were haitian university graduates and:
"Because of the politically polarised nature of the human rights situation in 
Haiti, none of those chosen to be research team members were politically active 
beyond voting in elections"
Ok, good idea. But apparently the co-author of the report was politically 
active in haitian politics under another name in the past. Perhaps the 
co-author was not "chosen" to be a research team member because she was the 
director of the study?
********

So, my conclusion? Well written for the most part; an easy read, not too thick 
with jargon. Not rigorous though. Many off the subject (as defined) entries 
which are designed to pre-judge a conclusion outside the declared object of the 
study.

This study was designed to produce a pre-determined result. I hope the 
supervising professor has tenure. If not, he should be looking for another job. 
Does this paper qualify the study designer for a degree in Social Work? Sure 
shouldn't.

Were the results invented, as is the current subject on the Corbett list? It is 
impossible to tell if the results were invented, but it is clear to this reader 
that the conclusion was reached before any interviews were conducted.

Aside: What about that period before 29 Feb, 2004 anyway? The week before, for 
instance?