At the 2015 Oslo Freedom Forum, on 27 May 2015, Tunisian human rights defender Amira Yahyaoui talks about the global youth as an underrepresented force in many governments. She draws attention to the fact that while the world’s citizenry is increasingly young, the global leadership remains old. She criticizes the lack of representation of women and youth by reminding us that these so-called “minorities” are, in fact, majorities in the world population. If we don’t fix this problem, she argues, more and more young people will be driven to extremist groups like the Islamic State where they are given the opportunity to lead.
On 15 June 2015, 0ver 200 human rights NGOs urge the Democratic Republic of Congo to show respect for freedom of expression and assembly by freeing the “Filimbi activists“. Expression, Assembly The two activists were arrested three months ago, on 15 March during a pro-democracy youth workshop in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Fred Bauma and Yves Makwambala were arrested at the workshop organized to launch “Filimbi,” a platform to encourage Congolese youth to peacefully and responsibly perform their civic duties. Read the rest of this entry »
On 17 June 2015 Open Democracy carried an article by Mauricio Lazala (Deputy Director at Business & Human Rights Resource Centre) and Joe Bardwell (Corporate Accountability and Communications Officer at the same) under the title: “What human rights?” Why some companies speak out while others don’t.”
It states that many companies nowadays speak out for human rights when it relates directly to their operations, but not to take a stand on broader human rights issues. It opens with the case of Formula One in Azerbaijan (Bernie Ecclestone, on the country’s human rights record,: “I think everybody seems to be happy. Doesn’t seem to be any big problem there.”
Companies tend to see the risks outweighing the benefits of publicly speaking out. The greater the leverage, the greater the risk, and the greater the reluctance to speak out. For example, earlier this year, Leber Jeweller, Inc., Tiffany & Co. and Brilliant Earth released statements calling on the Angolan government to drop charges against Rafael Marques, a journalist on trial for defamation after exposing abuses in the diamond industry, but none of these companies actually had operations in Angola. In fact, ITM Mining, who does have operations in Angola, pressed their case forward even when settlement with other parties looked likely.
Even where a company has significant leverage over a government, it might be reluctant to use this to further human rights. BP, for example, is the largest foreign investor in Azerbaijan, investing billions each year. Asked to respond to human rights concerns around its sponsorship of the European Games (being held in Azerbaijan in June 2015), BP replied that it does “not believe that seeking to influence the policies of sovereign governments could be considered to be a part of our role as a sponsor of the European Games”. Of course, as David Petrasek said, BP would certainly seek to ‘influence the policies of sovereign governments‘ when the company’s interests are at stake.
Where the protection of human rights clashes with business interests, even some companies with strong human rights commitments show disregard for them. Earlier this year, 31 Swedish companies released a letter highlighting their concerns around statements by the Swedish Foreign Minister, Margot Wallström, criticizing Saudi Arabia’s human rights record. The Swedish companies called for the protection of economic relationships over these human rights considerations.
The article list some cases of companies speaking out:
In January 2014, clothing companies sourcing from Cambodia, including Adidas, Columbia, Gap, H&M, Inditex, Levi Strauss and Puma, condemned the government for its violent crackdown on striking garment workers that resulted in deaths and injuries.
In March 2013, in Peru, six US textile firms urged the Peruvian Government to repeal a law that condoned labour rights violations, making it difficult for them to implement their own sourcing codes of conduct.
And in 2009, in response to the coup in Honduras, major apparel companies called for the restoration of democracy.
In the ICT sector, Google pulled out of China in 2010 over censorship attempts.
In the food sector, two Thai seafood associations provided the bail for rights activist Andy Hall, who was imprisoned and charged in 2014 following his investigations into abuses of migrant workers in the food industry.
In March of this year, 379 businesses and organizations submitted a public statement to the US Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage, including corporate behemoths such as Coca-Cola, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft and Morgan Stanley.
And in the last couple years, hundreds of companies have publicly expressed their support for the peace process between the Colombian Government and the FARC guerrillas, when in the past most companies in Colombia kept a very low profile in relation to the armed conflict.
More recently, civil society has called on FIFA sponsors to respond to human rights concerns at construction sites for the Qatar 2022 World Cup. So far, Adidas, Coca-Cola and Visa have issued statements supporting workers’ rights in the country.
A “business case” to support tolerant and open civic spaces is not too difficult to make. Businesses clearly benefit when the rules of the game are clear, consumers are empowered, employees are respected, and the judicial system works well. Where human rights thrive and defenders are protected, companies will also find it easier to comply with their own codes of conduct and meet their public commitments to human rights.
Speaking out for human rights could even help companies. Firms in the US are discovering that taking an enlightened public stance on social justice issues hasn’t hurt their bottom line and makes business sense—it helps attract and retain new customers and the best staff. Investors are also increasingly looking at the social and environmental records of companies, and companies needing access to multilateral banks and export credit agencies need to comply with strict international standards. And sometimes businesses just don’t want the bad press that comes with being associated with a repressive government.
Companies can be a powerful voice in the protection of the vulnerable in repressive countries, particularly where abuses are taking place linked to their industry and when they are major investors. Unfortunately, many companies remain unwilling to speak out for human rights, especially when they think that doing so might hurt them financially. However, a few brave companies are helping to create and expand “enabling environments” for human rights. Perhaps they can set a new trend for companies speaking out to protect civic
President of the Australian Human Rights Commission Professor Gillian Triggs:”Were I to receive warm and congratulatory words from the government on a constant basis I think that taxpayers would be justified in asking for my resignation because I wouldn’t be doing my job.”
In March of this year the Australian government attacked Professor Gillian Triggs, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), for having published a critical report on the presence and treatment of children in Australian immigration detention centres. Other differences followed. Gillian Triggs has refused to resign and vowed not to bow to personal “attacks” from senior ministers (Attorney-General George Brandis and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton), who have labelled her a partisan “disgrace” whose position has become untenable. Gillian Triggs said that resigning would be the reverse of what she should do.
Michael Forst, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, wrote to the government calling on it to cease verbal attacks. [In a letter sent to Australia’s mission in Geneva in February 2015, he urged the government to “halt the alleged violations and prevent their recurrence“, saying the government’s response would form part of a report to the UN’s Human Rights Council. In its written response, dated April 24, the government insisted it had not “sought to remove any member of the commission” and “Though the government will not always agree with the Commission’s recommendations, it welcomes a vigorous and diverse human rights debate in Australia, and the Commission plays a constructive role in that debate.“]
This statement is in contrast to Mr Dutton’s continued attacks on Professor Triggs describing her conclusions as “a stitch up”, “lacking credibility”, “biased” and “hopelessly untenable”.. Professor Triggs delivered the keynote address at a human rights dinner in Melbourne only hours after his attack, warning that overreach by the Executive represented “a growing threat to democracy“. She was given a standing ovation by many in the room, with the president of the Court of Appeal of Victoria, Justice Chris Maxwell, declaring: “Tonight we have been privileged to have amongst us one of our foremost warriors. As we have been pleased to see, Gillian, you might be bloodied but you are certainly unbowed.”
The nation’s first federal human rights commissioner, Brian Burdekin, responded on ABC radio: “I’m not sure whether the Prime Minister is presiding over it or whether he’s orchestrating it but [it appears to be] a campaign to denigrate, debilitate and I think possibly destabilise or even destroy an independent commission“.
[Attorney-General George Brandis got a Canberra bureaucrat to offer her a nice job overseas if she decided to retire from AHRC. Labor and the Greens asked the Australian Federal Police to investigate whether this constituted bribery, but Professor Triggs refused to make a formal complaint.]
OMCT and FIDH (within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders) in cooperation with the ISHR organise on 16 June (16:00-17:30, room XXII, Palais des Nations – Geneva) a side event on Attacks and Reprisals against Human Rights Defenders, focusing on the issue of reprisalsand accountability. As readers know by now, I believe that this is the topic which the human rights movement HAS TO TAKE more serious lest all progress of the last decades will be lost. My blog contains quite a few posts on reprisals (https://thoolen.wordpress.com/tag/reprisals/), but the key one is: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/zero-tolerance-for-states-that-take-reprisals-against-hrds-lets-up-the-ante/.
BACKGROUND:
The UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) each year provides a global platform for exchange and networking for women’s organizations working on furthering women’s rights all across the world, but this year’s session (March) was also the occasion to present the ‘Future organization and methods of work of the CSW which provides less space to NGOs to influence the outcomes of the session, through increasingly limited access to official negotiations and space to contribute to outcome documents. It seems that governments are intent limiting the (sometimes) robust participation of non-governmental organizations, restrict recognition of the human rights of women and girls and the norm-setting role of the CSW in this regard and skirt responsibility for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals.
The statement says: “It seems they are intent on discussing everything about us, without us….Let us be clear: we do not come to the CSW to attend side events. We come to the CSW to hold our governments to account to the commitments they have made to guarantee gender equality, eliminate all forms of discrimination and violence against us and achieve the full realization of all of our human rights. We come to the CSW to advance progressive policies that, if implemented, will make a meaningful difference in our lives. If the CSW no longer provides us with a forum for policy change and accountability that fully involves us, we will stay at home.”
Unfortunately, Israel joined the countries that think non-cooperation with the UN pays: last week it refused entry to Makarim Wibisono, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, who is working on a report on rights violations in east Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. “Since taking up his mandate in June 2014… Wibisono has sought Israel’s cooperation with his mandate, including access to the occupied Palestinian territory and meetings with Israeli officials. His requests to access Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory in order to carry out his mandate have not received a formal response from the government of Israel,” said Xabier Celaya, from the media unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Right.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry justified its decision by saying that “Israel cooperates with most human rights mechanisms of the UN. Israel does not cooperate with unfair and unbalanced mandates such as the… rapporteur’s mandate, and consequently his entry to Israel is not allowed.”
[Israel remains the only country for which a special investigator is permanently assigned. The position of special investigator to the Palestinian territories was first created in 1993 and that Wibisono of Indonesia is the sixth person since then to hold that post.]
Earlier in the month, Wibisono spoke out against Israeli plans to relocate Palestinian Beduin communities in the West Bank “I am alarmed at indications that the rollout of plans, which in their full effect are believed to entail the forced eviction and forcible transfer of thousands of people, contrary to international human rights law and international humanitarian law, now appears imminent,” Wibisono said
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 