2019 will see the Right Livelihood Award being presented for the 40th time. The RLF maintains an open nomination process, so anyone is able to propose any individual or organisation they feel are creating structural changes through concrete and successful work. The deadline for submitting a nomination is 1 March, 2019. For more on this and other such award see: http://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/awards/right-livelihood-award
Read more about the nomination process here. Do not hesitate to contact the RLF via email at research@rightlivelihood.org or by phone at +41 (0)22 555 0943 if you have questions about the nomination process. As is stated in the guidelines, proposals for the award must remain confidential and will not be published, as publicising of a proposal will unfortunately result in disqualification.
For last year’s winners: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2018/09/24/laureates-of-the-2018-right-livelihood-award-announced/
So the likelihood that tomorrow – 24 February – one or more are included in the final nominee list is pretty high.Here’s a quick guide to the five HRWFF title that made the short list.
Working with local journalists and spending more than three years with communities in Baltimore, Maryland, has made for one of the most unassuming films we have seen on policing and racism in the U.S. This brilliant film was directed by Marilyn Ness (who produced E-Team, a film featuring Human Rights Watch researchers working in crisis situations).
A hauntingly beautiful film, The Distant Barking of Dogsby Simon Lereng Wilmont embeds the viewer into the lives of two young boys growing up in eastern Ukraine on the conflict’s frontline. The film captures the boys’ diminishing innocence in the midst of war, while bringing to the fore the most basic human rights of life, liberty, and security.
Filmmaker Bing Liu shares a coming-of-age story shot over 12 years in Rockford, Illinois, where he captured footage of himself and two friends, young men bound by a love of skateboarding and the desire to escape volatile family life. The film grapples with the cycles of shame and abuse in a town with some of the highest rates of domestic abuse in the U.S. While navigating a relationship between his camera, his friends, and his past, Liu weaves a rich and epic story while remaining intimate and immersive.
Almudena Carracedo and Robert Bahar’s film has won awards around the world, shedding light on a dark era of Spain’s history that haunts it to this day. Under General Francisco Franco’s rule, it is estimated that 100,000 people were disappeared and murdered. With its “Amnesty Law,” Spain prohibited legal recourse by survivors and families. The film follows brave people, assisted by others navigating international criminal processes in Chile and Guatemala, as they break the silence and seek justice.
In the last few years, the Academy Awards nominees for Best Documentary have diversified, as the Academy expanded the number of its members able to vote for documentaries, and increased the number of women and people of color who are members. We hope this will open up additional opportunities and support for people to tell their stories and share their perspectives,
Kaleck’s work has taken him to Buenos Aires, to stand with the mothers of youngsters “disappeared” under the Argentinian military dictatorship; to exiled Syrian communities, where he assembled the case against torture mandated by those high up in the Assad government; to Central America, where he collaborated with those pursuing the Guatemalan military for its massacres of indigenous people; to New York, to partner with the Center for Constitutional Rights in taking action against Donald Rumsfeld for the “enhanced interrogation techniques” he greenlighted after 9/11; and to Moscow, where he represents the whistle-blower Edward Snowden, “a likeable man whose talents go far beyond his technical skills.” In recounting his involvement in such cases, Kaleck gives voice to those he is representing, emphasizing the courage and persistence they bring to the global search for justice.
The Berlin book launch will take place on 6 February 2019 in Berlin (19h00) at the Denkerei, ORANIENPLATZ 2, where Wolfgang Kaleck will discuss – with Nadja Vancauwenberghe, publisher and editor in chief of Exberliner – today’s challenges and opportunities in the struggle for human rights. Syrian musician Abdahllah Rahhal is an international artists whose work aims to highlight humanity in every moment of life.. The event will be held in English and can be followed via livestream.
The body of 34-year-old Rafael Murua Manriquez was found by the side of a road in Northern Mexico Sunday 20 January 2019, the same day he had been reported missing by his family. The former director of the community radio station, Radiokashana in Santa Rosalia, has become the first Mexican journalist to be killed in 2019.
Within his news reporting, Rafael Murúa Manríquez, is believed to have denounced the aggressions of the municipal president of Mulegé Felipe Prado, according to El Comercio. Following a statement from the Mexican representative of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Jan-Albert Hootsen, it has also been confirmed that the young journalist had already received threats since last year and had been placed under the country’s journalist protection programme since 2016.
It is the second journalist to have been reported as murdered within the presidency of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the first of which was killed just one day after his inauguration. The country’s leading NGOs and media protection agencies have since called upon a thorough investigation into the murder, in hopes of finding the people responsible.
At least ten journalists were killed last year alone, and in 2018 Mexico recorded the highest rate of press disappearances around the globe. The attacks continue on a long line of violence against the press throughout the past decade in Mexico as cartels brush shoulders with politicians creating a violent treat towards the investigation of ‘narcopolitics’. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2018/03/24/new-national-award-to-honor-slain-mexican-journalists/
The Federal Mechanism for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders and Journalists, which is used by Mexicans who have had their lives threatened, came into play in 2012. However, the initiative is believed to already be overwhelmed with recent enrollment. …With both federal and state protection mechanisms, there are also concerns that journalists with state-level support are often seeking protection from the very authorities trusted with guarding them. Last year, Mario Gómez Sanchez was gunned down by armed motorbikers, however, human rights groups could not explain why his protection mechanism was removed before his killing. The State Attorney General’s office declined to comment when contacted by Aztec Reports.
Josephine Christopher reports that two human rights groups have initiated a special campaign on Tuesday, 22 January 2019, seeking to encourage the public to speak against violation of rights of suspects when they get arrested by the police force. The campaign titled: “Tetea haki za watuhimiwa (Defend the rights of suspects)” is a brainchild of the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) in association with the Tanzania Human Rights Defenders Coalition (THRDC). [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2014/04/09/journalists-get-training-in-africa-examples-from-tanzania-and-south-sudan/]
Speaking in Dar es Salaam, the THRDC national coordinator Mr Onesmo Ole Ngurumo said violation of rights of suspects – held by law enforcers – was becoming a new normal in Tanzania, citing the recent ‘unlawful’ detention of three human rights defenders and two citizens at the Loliondo Police Station. “While in custody, the suspects were badly beaten badly. Besides, though they needed emergency medical care, the police continued to hold them in cells until their fellow inmates start rioting for their rights,” he said “Putting suspects under police custody for more than 24 hours without any legal assistance is a violation of human rights, considering that police don’t have the skills and resources to hold people for such long time,” he said.
he Russian authorities have for the first time used the repressive “undesirable organizations” law to open a criminal case against human rights defender Anastasia Shevchenko, exposing her to the risk of a six-year prison term. Until now, violations of this law were punished under administrative law.
This morning Anastasia Shevchenko, a Coordinator with the Otkrytaya Rossiya (Open Russia) movement, was charged with “repeated participation in the activities of an undesirable organization.” “In recent years, the Russian authorities have progressively suffocated and criminalized dissent. The Open Russia movement has become the latest victim of this crackdown,” said Marie Struthers, Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia at AI.
It’s clear that the authorities are expanding their toolkit for imprisoning human rights defenders and activists, so if applied broadly this practice will have far-reaching implications for the right to freedom of expression.”In recent days, police have opened criminal investigations, conducted searches and arrests of Open Russia’s activists across the country. [see also my older post: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2015/05/21/russia-human-rights-ngos-likely-to-become-officially-undesirable/]
Background: On 17 January, Open Russia Coordinator in Pskov Liya Milushkina and her husband Artyom Milushkin were arrested and accused of selling drugs, an offense punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment. Artyom, who is also a political activist, previously reported that police officers threatened to plant drugs on him during his recent arrest in November. Amnesty International has interviewed several associates of the Milushkins all of whom are adamant that the criminal case against the couple is fabricated. Amnesty International has documented a number of cases in which activists in Russia have been prosecuted on trumped-up drug charges, including human rights defender Oyub Titiev who is currently standing trial in Chechnya. On 18 January, police filed a case against Open Russia Coordinator in Krasnodar Yana Antonova for posting a video about the shortage of schools in the region. She was charged with “participation in the activities of an undesirable organization”, an administrative offence when “committed” for the first time.
The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos is going on and has this year a strong humanitarian element as shown inter alia in the article “Why businesses are nothing without strong human rights” published on 16 January 2019 by 3 authors, who have earned their reputation:
Profit depends on a rule of law maintained by courageous campaigners. Image: Reuters/Ivan Alvarado
This article summarizes many aspects of the debate on ‘business and human rights’, some of which were referred to in earlier posts [see e.g. https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/business-and-human-rights/]. To do honor to the scope of the article, here is the full text:
Let’s start with a seemingly unconventional proposition: civil society and business share the same space, and therefore should share an interest in defending what unites them. How controversial is that proposition, really? This “shared space” is anchored in accountable governance. Civil society actors and companies both depend on the same legal and institutional frameworks that define the shared space to operate. Civil society cannot flourish, and business will struggle to thrive, without the rules and standards that hold public and private powers accountable.
Civic freedoms – freedoms of expression, association, information and assembly – allow citizens to expose abuses related to corruption, workplace safety, public health, toxic pollution and gender discrimination. These rights support stable, predictable legal and regulatory environments. At the same time, they enable the free flow of information, investment and entrepreneurial innovation. When these civic freedoms are undermined, business and civil society alike are subject to the law of the jungle instead of the rule of law. Companies should recognize the positive role that civil society organizations and human rights defenders play in protecting this space. Moreover, where reasonably possible, they have a responsibility to support these crucial actors when under pressure or threat.
From the murder of the Honduran environmentalist Berta Cáceres and the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi to politically motivated charges against Cambodian trade unionists, attacks on human rights defenders and civic freedoms around the world should and do concern the business community. These freedoms are being eroded as authoritarian governments act with impunity and democracies embrace illiberal populism and nationalism. Nearly six in 10 countries are seriously restricting people’s fundamental freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression, according to the global civil society alliance CIVICUS. Sometimes, companies are complicit in this repression. Since 2015, there have been close to 1,400 recorded attacks against citizens and organizations working on human rights issues related to business.
Image: Business and Human Rights Resource Centre
Multinational corporations and their investors can no longer afford to be bystanders with so much at stake. All too often, companies take the rule of law, accountable governance and stable environments for granted. Recent research by the B Team, a leading non-profit initiative formed by a global group of business leaders, has found clear evidence that limits on important civic freedoms may produce negative economic outcomes. Countries with higher degrees of respect for civic rights experience higher economic growth rates and higher levels of human development. Issues and incidents in and out of the headlines are presenting inescapable challenges to business leaders. A growing number of corporate leaders are recognizing that they must defend the interests and values that they share with civil society around the world. Some are making public statements; others are registering their concerns privately. Increasing awareness of the “shared space” in which companies and civil society operate, and expectations of the responsibilities of businesses, are compelling shareholders and employees to take sides and pressure companies, however difficult the choices and trade-offs may be.
The rise of corporate activism
Five prominent examples from 2018 demonstrate this trend:
• Eight multinational corporations and investors issued a call to protect civic freedoms, human rights defenders and rule of law in a landmark joint statement developed through the Business Network on Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders. The statement is the first of its kind, with supporters ranging across the consumer goods, mining, apparel, banking, jewellery and footwear sectors, and stresses that when human rights defenders are under attack, so is sustainable and profitable business. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2018/12/13/first-time-major-companies-say-that-human-rights-defenders-are-essential-for-profitable-business/]
• Adidas and Nike were among global apparel brands that urged the Cambodian government to drop politically motivated criminal charges against labour rights activist Tola Moeun and others – and have publicly supported freedom of association.
• In the US, companies have spoken out in unprecedented tone and numbers against the current administration’s immigration policies: Microsoft, Cisco, Airbnb, Apple, Salesforce, and the US Chamber of Commerce, among others, challenged the travel ban imposed on citizens from half a dozen Muslim-majority countries and opposed the separation of migrant families at the US-Mexico border.
• In Germany, BMW and Daimler engaged with their employees to combat xenophobia and racism following far-right riots against immigrants; Siemens even urged employees to speak out and emphasized that tolerance and respect are important business values (as its CEO, Joe Kaeser, has made explicitly clear in public statements).
• A group of 14 human rights organizations and more than 1,400 Google employees called on Google to refrain from launching a censored search engine in China (known as “Project Dragonfly”), and partly as a result, the company has discontinued the project. These advocacy efforts illustrate that employees too are leading movements within companies, especially within the tech sector, to respect human rights. Companies will need to be mindful of rising employee expectations, or risk reputational damage and the loss of valuable talent, as younger workers seek to align their values with those of their employers.
Protesters remember Berta Cáceres, an environmental and indigenous rights campaigner murdered in 2016. Image: Reuters/Jorge Cabrera
Inescapable challenges
“Corporate activism” – whether reluctant or deliberate – is not easy. New guidance published by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre and the International Service for Human Rights anticipates these inescapable challenges for companies and their leaders. The guidance, titled Shared Space Under Pressure: Business Support for Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders, provides an analytical and operational framework, with specific examples from different countries, sectors and initiatives, to inform companies as they decide whether and how to act. It highlights five specific decision factors that companies should consider:
1. Whether the company has a normative responsibility to act, based on the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights. All companies must ensure – through the application of the UN Guiding Principles – that their operations do not cause, contribute and are not linked to attacks on activists and civic freedoms. If they do, they must address the causes and consequences.
2. Whether the company has a discretionary opportunity to act. If so, whether there is a compelling business case to support civic freedoms and human rights defenders and/or a willingness to make a moral choice to do so. Besides defending the core elements of the shared space, the business case rests on managing operational and repetitional risks; building competitive advantage; and overcoming mistrust and securing the social licence to operate. Companies can also make a moral choice to act, both to do no harm anywhere and to do good where possible.
Image: Business and Human Rights Resource Centre
3. How the company will act in a particular situation or on a certain issue.There is no one type of action that applies to all circumstances: a spectrum of actions (individual and collective, public and private) may be combined to address an issue or situation. In some situations, such as the increasing restrictions on Hungarian civil society, companies prefer to raise concerns individually and privately with the government. In others, such as Cambodia’s crackdown on striking workers, companies choose to make collective and public statements. Companies should be guided by pragmatic flexibility as they consider circumstances, relationships and opportunities to make a positive difference.
4. Who within the organization decides whether and how, a company will act. it is essential that these decisions are involving corporate headquarters and in-country executives and staff. It is important to integrate legal counsel, human rights and corporate responsibility experts, government, public affairs and (in certain circumstances) security and human resources staff into the deliberative process. Equally, local civil society and other stakeholders with which the company should maintain steady engagement should be consulted. CEO-level decisions are essential when a company’s core values, reputation, operations and relationships are at stake.
5. Whether the risks of inaction outweigh the risks of action. Responsible companies should evaluate both the risks of action and inaction. Companies may perceive that taking critical positions, especially in public, may put relationships with host country governments at stake. But often companies will conclude that the risks and potential costs of inaction are more difficult to anticipate, mitigate and manage over the long-term than the risks of action. It is unwise to be on the wrong side of history based on a shortsighted cost-benefit analysis.
These decision factors provide practical steps that companies can and should take to be allies of civil society and not just bystanders – or worse, casualties – in the global crackdown against the “shared space”. It is not the business of companies to pick fights, but fights are already coming to companies that could make or break them. Companies should engage carefully but deliberately – in their own interest – to support and defend this invaluable but fragile shared space.
With a poster created from a photography by Zuko Wonderfull Sikhafungana, filmmaker and theatre director from South Africa, the 17th edition of the Geneva International Film Festival and Forum on Human Rights (FIFDH) will take place from 8 to 17 March 2019 in more than 60 locations of the Greater Geneva and French-speaking Switzerland. The programme for this edition will be unveiled on Thursday, 14 February. The online ticketing will be open the same day.
The Lutheran World Federation published on 18 January a profile of Colombia HRD María Ruth Sanabria: “40 years of taking risks to defend the rights of others“.
María Ruth Sanabria, Colombian human rights defender. Photo: LWF Colombia
Despite continued threats on her life, María Ruth Sanabria remains undeterred in the struggle for the rights of marginalized people. This includes a project called “Towards the territorialization of peace through women’s bodies, voices and words,” supported by The Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.
Ever since she was young, Sanabria always felt drawn to dealing with “the pain of others,” and describes this characteristic as the essence of a true human rights defender. Looking back at more than 40 years of advocacy work, she remembers the people who lost their lives because of their work as human rights defenders, a task that is becoming increasingly dangerous in Colombia. Sanabria is gravely concerned about the prevailing discrimination and attacks against human rights’ defenders in her country. She has been the target of attempts against her life. And, she is not the only one. According to the Piedra en el Zapato [A pebble in your shoe] report published by the organization Somos Defensores [We Are Advocates] in 2017, there were more than 500 attacks against human rights’ defenders, leading to 106 murders, 370 threats, 23 arbitrary detentions, nine case of legal prosecution and two instances of theft of sensitive information. [see also my: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2018/04/28/2018-latin-america-still-the-graveyard-for-environmental-human-rights-defenders/]
She was aged only 17, when she first became involved in the peasants’ struggle for land rights in San Alberto, a small village in the northern department of Cesar. She later became acquainted with the Indupalma’s Union of palm tree workers, many of who were persecuted and killed during the 1984 economic liberalization crisis, and the subsequent paramilitary attacks.
Following the murder of her husband, a peasant leader, in the early 1990s, and a series of threats against her, Sanabria fled San Alberto in 1994, and sought refuge in Arauquita town in the northeastern department of Arauca. She recalls arriving there with her four children, four boxes and 10,000 Colombian pesos (USD 3).
Fleeing meant she not only had to leave behind a major part of her life, but she also had to gain recognition as a woman leader and advocate in an unfamiliar environment. Gradually, she began to participate in political fora via the Unión Patriótica party, which saw 3,500 of its members murdered during the second half of the 1990s.
In 2001, she met Armando, her partner, who is also a human rights advocate. Together, they formed the Arauquita’s section of the Permanent Committee for the Defence of Human Rights – Arauca Chapter (CPDH). The threats from armed groups resumed, and there were new attempts against her life again, which forced her to seek refuge in Argentina in September 2006. She returned in 2007 only to witness the vicious attacks that paramilitary forces meted on peasant leaders and human rights advocates.
Her contact with the LWF started with a meeting involving its office in Colombia, CPDH and the Arauca Peasant Association (ACA), where joint work was initiated. The strong bond of trust that was established then is still going strong. Thanks to the LWF, “the CPDH was able to open its first offices in Arauquita and Fortul, although the latter was dismantled after the conflict took a turn for the worse,” she says. The office also acted as a center for workshops, which previously had been held under trees, in slums, and in the streets. “The people from the Lutheran World Federation have always been there for us through the toughest of times,” Sanabria concludes.
2019 will see the Right Livelihood Award being presented for the 40th time. The RLF maintains an open nomination process, so anyone is able to propose any individual or organisation they feel are creating structural changes through concrete and successful work. The deadline for submitting a nomination is 1 March, 2019. For more on this and other such award see: http://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/awards/right-livelihood-award
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 