The Stockholm-based NGO Civil Rights Defenders hosts regular morning seminars called “One Hour of Human Rights” at its head office in Stockholm. These seminars are broadcasted live on its Bambuser channel and are also available to be viewed afterwards. The next one will be on 23 January 2013 on Burma/Myanmar: “Strengthened or weakened rights in the advancement of foreign investment?” [Burma/Myanmar is opening up after decades of military dictatorship, isolation and conflict. Rich natural resources and low production costs attract international companies. In the process there is a real risk that human rights may be disregarded. Hear Donna Guest, leading expert on human rights in Burma, speak about the challenges facing investors.]
As the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 was disappearing from people’s minds, the Azeri government has put all its efforts on controlling freedom of expression, assembly and association in the country. Rasul Jafarov is Chairman of the Human Rights Club and Campaign Coordinator for Sing for Democracy, spoke about human rights in Azerbaijan. Special guest: Loreen.http://www.civilrightsdefenders.org/category/events/
From Monday 14 – Friday 18 January 2013 Tactical Dialogue and New Tactics in Human Rights are organizing again an on-line conversation on Using Humor to Expose the Ridiculous.
All over the world, human rights activists use humour, irony, satire, parody and lampooning to express dissent and challenge the absurdities of institutional power.
They expose the lies, deceptions and sheer absurdities in their speech.
However, this is not without risks, which are particularly high in times of political turmoil.
So how exactly do activists in different parts of the world use humor to take on institutional power? How do they choose their tactics? What are the challenges they face in their work? And how do they overcome them? This online conversation will be an opportunity to exchange experiences, lessons-learned and ideas among practitioners using humor to challenge regimes and societies, and provoke citizens to reevaluate the way they think, and sometimes even push them to join them in their campaigns.
A few years ago, the same organizations hosted a conversation on a topic similar to this month’s conversation. It was called “Tactical that Tickle: Laughing all the way to the win”. Lessons from that exercise are available on-line via:
From the MacArthur Foundation in the USA comes this short, welcome announcement:
Insecurity in Mexico has resulted in mounting pressures against activists and journalists in Mexico, causing some to flee or cease their work for fear of retaliation. In the fall of 2012, Mexico inaugurated a new government initiative to protect human rights defenders and journalists through transparent protection measures. The initiative’s governing body, composed of government officials and civil society representatives, will receive and analyze reports of threats to advocates and journalists, decide which cases are to be granted protection, and oversee effective implementation of its resolutions, which will be mandatory for government agencies. The initiative was supported by MacArthur grantees Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos “Todos los Derechos para Todos” and the Instituto Mexicano de Derechos Humanos y Democracia; leaders of these organizations will serve on an Advisory Council responsible for ensuring the initiative’s protection measures are comprehensive, context-specific, and gender-sensitive.
Following the killing, on 15 December 2012, of the ninth member of her family since 1998, the NGO Front Line Defenders is extremely concerned for the safety of human rights defender Eloísa Barrios and her family. Eloísa Barrios has previously submitted petitions to the Inter-American Commission (IACHR) and Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), on 16 March 2004 and 30 December 2005, requesting protection measures for the family as a result of persecution, allegedly by members of the Police of Aragua State.
Eloísa Barrios,together with local NGOs, has publicly denounced human rights violations in Aragua State. She has also actively promoted the committees of victims and families of victims in Aragua, and in particular has mobilised mothers of those extrajudicially killed by the state police and accompanied them through the process of filing complaints, the court process and speaking out in social media. Eloísa Barrios has been vocal in speaking out about the Venezuelan State’s failure to effectively protect her family from extrajudicial killings and other human rights violations and has reported an increase in the threats made against her and her family after she denounced the killings before the Inter-American system. She has been threatened by state police officials in retaliation for the constant complaints to the 20th Prosecutor’s Office of the Public Ministry in Aragua concerning her son’s detention on three occasions and ill-treatment in custody. In January 2012 the human rights defender moved from her home as a result of the intimidation.
Since 1998 nine members of the Barrios family have been murdered and several others have been detained and subjected to illegal and arbitrary searches of their homes, suffered threats against their lives and personal integrity, and been forced to move from their place of residence.
The IACHR and the IACtHR have followed the case through all available mechanisms after concluding that Venezuela has violated the rights to life, physical integrity and freedom of several members of the Barrios family, including some minors, however the State has failed to comply with the recommendations of either institution and the Barrios family continue to be at risk.
One month after being physically assaulted, human rights defender and journalist António Capalandanda continues to be subjected to threats and acts of surveillance and intimidation. António Capalandanda is a journalist at on-line news and radio site Voz da América (Voice of America) in Angola. His work has focused on human rights and political violence in the country, as well as investigation of corruption cases involving public officials.
On various occasions in early January 2013, António Capalandanda was reportedly followed by unidentified men in a vehicle, who parked close to his residence and followed him as soon as he left for work. During the same period the email of António Capalandanda was hacked by unknown individuals according to his email service provider, which registers the time and Internet Protocol (IP) address when his account is accessed.
On 7 December, 2012, two unidentified men on a motorbike assaulted the journalist and stole his camera, a voice recorder and two notepads. One of the men also attempted to take his backpack, unsuccessfully. On the same day, António Capalandanda filed a complaint at Huambo Provincial Police Directorate for Criminal Investigation. The officer who registered the case stated that this type of assault was unusual in the region and added that it seemed the human rights defender was being subjected to surveillance.
António Capalandanda has previously received a number of death threats from individuals identified as state security agents and has been offered to work for the Government in return for the ceasing of his journalism work. The human rights defender’s family members and friends have also been reportedly subjected to acts of harassment.
On 5 December 2012, two days prior to the abovementioned assault, António Capalandanda was approached by a man who identified himself as an agent of the state security services, and issued death threats against the journalist.
Front Line Defenders expresses serious concern at the continued acts of threats, surveillance and intimidation directed at António Capalandanda, as well as his family members and persons close to him, and believes that these acts are motivated by the legitimate and peaceful activities of António Capalandanda as an investigative journalist and human rights defender in Angola.
A short documentary about the five winners of the Human Rights Tulip Award, the award of the Dutch government for human rights defenders. The winners are from Honduras, Congo, Iran, China and India. The films were done by the True Heroes Foundation (THF).
Dutch newspapers and human rights groups concerned with the Dalits (untouchables) report that the winner of the Dutch Human Rights Tulip of 2012 has been barred from traveling to the Netherlands to receive his award in person on Wednesday 9 January. Marimuthu Bharathan, a Dalit human rights defender from Tamil Nadu, was refused a passport by the Indian authorities, according to a press release by International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN).This is the second year in a row that the recipient of the Dutch Human Rights award will not be present at the ceremony in The Hague [Last year, Chinese activist Ni Yulan was in custody awaiting trial during the award ceremony.]The jury of the Tulip has recognised Marimuthu Bharathan as a “tireless champion of better living and working conditions for his country’s Dalits”. Himself a Dalit, he works against caste discrimination by supporting Dalits who as manual scavengers are condemned to clean dry latrines with their bare hands. He also sets up Dalit organisations, campaigns for reforms of the corrupt police system, and fights for compensation and rehabilitation of Dalits who suffer human rights violations. Mr Bharathan’s work as director of the Human Rights Education and Protection Council in Tamil Nadu has put him on a collision course with the state’s authorities who consistently prohibit demonstrations for Dalit rights organised by him and disrupt his work.
According to Indian human rights organisations, this refusal appears to be connected with a false murder charge. “The passport refusal is yet another example of the disenfranchised position of the 200 million Dalits and the defenders of their rights in India. The Indian authorities clearly fail in combating discrimination and exclusion of Dalits and are themselves often the perpetrator of crimes against them. The systemic abuse and torture in police stations is an example of that,” said Gerard Oonk, director of the India Committee of the Netherlands and co-ordinator of the Dalit Network Netherlands.
ARTICLE 19 AND VIET TAN ON 9 JANUARY REPORT ON THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF 14 ACTIVISTS IN VIETNAM
Ho Duc Hoa (13 years in prison, 5 years house arrest)
Dang Xuan Dieu (13 years in prison, 5 years house arrest)
Paulus Le Son (13 years in prison, 5 years house arrest)
Nguyen Van Duyet (6 years in prison, 4 years house arrest)
Nguyen Van Oai (3 years in prison, 2 years house arrest)
Ho Van Oanh (3 years in prison, 2 years house arrest)
Nguyen Dinh Cuong (4 years in prison, 3 years house arrest)
Nguyen Xuan Anh (5 years in prison, 3 years house arrest)
Thai Van Dung (5 years in prison, 3 years house arrest)
Tran Minh Nhat (4 years in prison, 3 years house arrest)
Nong Hung Anh (5 years in prison, 3 years house arrest)
Nguyen Dang Vinh Phuc (probation)
Nguyen Dang Minh Man (9 years in prison, 3 years house arrest)
Dang Ngoc Minh (3 years in prison, 2 years house arrest)
The men and women were convicted of “carrying out activities aimed at overthrowing the people’s administration” under Article 79 of the penal code. The criminal activities the group are said to have engaged in include writing commentary that is critical of the Government and distributing this on the internet, and both participating in and encouraging peaceful protest. ARTICLE 19 believes that these activities should not be considered to be criminal. The Vietnamese authorities have failed to recognise basic human rights and these convictions fail to meet international standards freedom of expression. “Thirteen people [one was given probation – ed] are now behind bars for doing nothing more than expressing legitimate political concerns. They have been locked away for sharing views about matters of public importance on the internet and for taking part in peaceful demonstrations. These are not things which should be considered criminal. It seems that the real crime here is the appalling abuse of fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of expression, by the state” said Agnes Callamard, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19.
The group, many of them bloggers and citizen journalists, were arrestedbetween August and December 2011 and held for more than a year before standing trial.
Phyllis Bennis, a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam, wrote in her blog through Al-Jazeera, on 9 January 2013, a very informative piece under the title: “Human Rights Watch: Time to stand with human rights defenders” with the provocative byline: It is disappointing to see HRW’s unwillingness to stand with those who are working to promote and defend human rights.
In short, the pro-Israeli, UN-bashing UN Watch discovered that the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, US lawyer Richard Falk, was still ‘on the Board’ of HRW. HRW quickly replied that he was only a member of HRW’s local support committee in Santa Barbara, California, where he lives and that it was an oversight that he still held this honorary position and that it was rectified (“longstanding policy, applied many times, that no official from any government or UN agency can serve on any Human Rights Watch committee or its Board. It was an oversight on our part that we did not apply that policy in Richard Falk’s case several years ago when he assumed his UN position”). UN Watch of course cried victory implying that Falk was expelled an enemy of human rights or because he is anti-Semitic.
The author of the blog finds fault with HRW’s meek response that did indeed not amount to a strong defense of Richard Falk’s credentials, impartiality and expertise. Should HRW not have made clear that substantively it stands with Richard Falk, that he was removed for technical reasons only and would be welcomed back as soon as he ceases to be UN Rapporteur? These are policy question that each NGO should answer for itself but in the context of UN Watch’s obsession to undermine the work of the UN in general and Richard Falk in particular a more robust stance would have been useful. I think that the similarity – even confusion – in name should also have led HRW to take a tougher public stand.
Phyllis Bennis concludes with: “Given his Middle East staff’s consistent work, there is no question that Ken Roth and the HRW board understand that human rights criticism of Israeli occupation is well-grounded in fact, and that such criticism remains a crucial element in changing the public, media and policymaking discourse in the United States. If we are ever to have any hope of changing US government policy in Palestine-Israel towards one grounded in human rights and international law, consistent human rights criticism and a willingness to stand with human rights defenders like Richard Falk when they face attack, remain crucial tools – for all human rights activists, including the leadership of Human Rights Watch.”
Geneva-based NGO “Media and human rights” reports that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has proclaimed the 13th of February “World Radio Day”. It is a moment to pay homage to one of the most important and resilient media. A time also to remember that local radio journalists are often in the firing line, especially in regions where citizens do not have access, due to lack of infrastructure or resources, to other media like TV or the Internet.
As the Eurovision Song Contest 2012 was disappearing from people’s minds, the Azeri government has put all its efforts on controlling freedom of expression, assembly and association in the country. Rasul Jafarov is Chairman of the Human Rights Club and Campaign Coordinator for Sing for Democracy, spoke about human rights in Azerbaijan. Special guest: Loreen.
AND VIET TAN ON 9 JANUARY REPORT ON THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF 14 ACTIVISTS IN VIETNAM
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 