During the current session of the Human Rights Council there will again many side events in Geneva. I will refer to some of them not only in the hope that you may able to attend, but also to illustrate the concerns of the NGO movement:
On Tuesday 9 September from 12.00 to 13.30 (Palais des Nations, Room XXI) there will be a side-event organised jointly by Amnesty International, CIVICUS, Human Rights Watch, FIDH, ISHR and the International Bar Association. Speakers are:
Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch
Souhayr Belhassen, Honourary President, International Federation for Human Rights FIDH
Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Program, Amnesty International
Phillip Tahmindjis, Director, International Bar Association Human Rights Institute
Today, 23 June 2014, Amnesty International launches its open source ‘Panic Button’ app to help human rights defenders facing imminent danger. The aim is to increase protection for those who face the threat of arrest, attack, kidnap and torture. In short:
On14 May 2014 Amnesty International published a new campaign video on torture.It is specially interesting as a very short summary – in images – of the history of the anti-torture campaigns started by AI under the leadership of Martin Ennals more than 40 years ago. Read the rest of this entry »
As this blog testifies, across the globe, individuals suspected of posing a threat to state authority are routinely kidnapped, arrested and forcibly disappeared, often without any warning.Amnesty international launches today the easy-to-use app launched by Amnesty International. “Panic Button”, a mobile app for Android, transforms a user’s smart phone into a secret alarm which can be activated rapidly in the event of an emergency, alerting fellow activists and enabling them to respond faster.
“Defending human rights is an incredibly dangerous job in large parts of the world, with activists facing anything from threats to imprisonment and even torture as punishment for their legitimate work,” said Tanya O’Carroll, Technology and Human Rights Officer for Amnesty International. “By introducing technology to the fight for human rights ‘Panic Button’ is bringing them a new tool to alert others about the danger they may be facing with a simple click.”
AI is are currently working with HRDs in 16 countries on how to use the tool and on the growing and omnipresent threat of surveillance so they are clear on the risks they take when using a mobile phone in their work,but the official website for the “Panic Button” app is up and running.
[Amnesty International hopes that activists and members of the public will help to improve the tool by downloading and testing Panic Button in their country as part of the beta – or testing – phase. Authorities know that campaigners coordinate meetings, protests and other activities using mobile phones and have ramped up their surveillance capabilities to monitor and track activists, journalists and campaigners. In a bid to mitigate some of these dangers, the “Panic Button” tool uses a screen disguise feature and requires users to enter a pin number before accessing the application. The alarm itself is triggered by rapidly pressing the phone’s power button, after which an SMS message is sent to three pre-entered contacts chosen by the user, alerting them of the distress call. When a GPS function is enabled, this message includes a map link showing the user’s coordinates and the user can pre-set regular location updates so their network is updated every few minutes when active.]
(Cao Shunli, the Chinese activist who died in custody (c) Photograph: Reuters)
For those with an interest in how the UN Council deals with criticism – in this case of China – should follow the debate on the UN webcast (or see the video on demand later) [http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/25th-regular-session-of-the-human-rights-council/2178978642001/#]. What happened in short is that during the debate on the adoption of China’s UPR report on 20 March, the International Service of Human Rights (ISHR) called for a few moments of silence to remember Cao Shunli, the human rights defender who recently died in detention (see references below). China then invoked a point of order saying that speakers should make general statements and that did not include asking for silence. During a long procedural debate many views were expressed – mostly supportive of China – but some others clearly stating that freedom of speech included the right not to speak. The interpretation of the rules of procedure then seemed to lead to the conclusion that the UPR (Universal Periodic Review) should not be ‘politicized”….and that from the eminently political entities called Governments! Sensing that a majority would support it, China insisted on a ruling by the Chairman that this kind of intervention needs to be ruled out for the future. The big majority of States, fearing a ‘precedent-setting’, rejected even the compromise proposal by the Chair to discuss the issue further in the Bureau (at a later time) with a vote of 20 against 13 (and 12 abstentions). The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the second NGO to get the floor, then continued the request for a minute of silence for Cao Shunli. This was of course again interrupted. So, the Council ended up supporting China’s tough stance, in spite of several other NGOs and a few countries coming out with strong support for the moment of silence.
When the FIDH then let one its member organisations (including the Campaign Against Tibet) speak on its behalf, the Chinese delegation (perhaps emboldened by its earlier success) decided to interrupt again asking that the FIDH only identifies itself and not its members. This led to another procedural debate on whether NGOs with consultative status are allowed to mention other NGOs that have no such status (a standing practice I should add, which was established far back in the 80s when Argentina tried – in vain – to stop the ICJ from letting an Argentinian lawyer, Emilio Mignone, to speak about the disappearance of his own daughter).
Perhaps there will be further debate on these procedural aspects, but it is unlikely that the UPR comes out of this as a serious innovation in dealing with human rights violations.
While the whole of the Syrian population suffers terribly, it is important to recognize that human rights defenders, activists, media and humanitarian workers have been particularly targeted for their work since the beginning of the Syrian uprising three years ago. Many have been arrested or abducted by either government forces and pro-government militias or by non-state armed groups. The channels for obtaining reliable information are drying up and that is certainly not a coincidence.
Now several international NGOs such as Amnesty International, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network, FIDH, Frontline Defenders, Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders have come together to work jointly, with other international, regional and Syrian organizations, to campaign for the release of these Silenced Voices of Syria. The campaign is starting with the documentation of 37 emblematic cases.
This campaign will use a three-pronged strategy of 1. Research and Documentation, 2. Information/Sensitisation and 3/ Mobilization.
(People hold candles at Light the Dark – a vigil in response to tragic turn of events on Manus Island that left one person dead and 77 injured. Source: News Corp Australia)
On 26 February the Australian Herald Sun contained an article by Rita Panahi under the provocative title: “Human rights lectures are little more than a joke“. In it she hits hard at some countries that criticize Australia’s interception and detention policy of refugees. “Being lectured to by China and Iran about human rights abuses is a bit like taking advice on etiquette from Miley Cyrus. It’s not just the pot calling the sparkly stainless steel kettle black, but then accusing it of racial profiling.” Quite rightly she points to the irony that Iran feels “emboldened to attack, despite the fact the young man killed was supposedly fleeing that country.”[The riots in Manus Island detention centre escalated into a riot on Monday and 23-year-old Iranian Reza Berati was killed’]
Even China, with its record of silencing dissidents, felt entitled to question Australia’s record. China’s Foreign Affairs Vice-Minister, Li Baodong, criticised our asylum policy and expressed concern for “the protection of refugees and asylum seekers and the right of the children of refugees”. He said: “We have also asked about whether these refugees will be illegally repatriated to other countries.”
In looking at the China’s own human rights record the author then states: “Of course, China’s human rights abuses are not restricted to terrorising pregnant women. According to Amnesty International, “harassment, surveillance, house arrest and imprisonment of human rights defenders are on the rise and censorship of the internet and other media has grown. Repression of minority groups, including Tibetans, Uighurs and Mongolians, and of Falun Gong practitioners and Christians who practise their religion outside state-sanctioned churches, continues”. China and Iran indeed also execute more people than any other country.
However, to conclude now that these nations have “no right to question any country, let alone one with values of freedom and fairness, such as Australia” is a bit much. If only ‘sparkly’ clean countries are allowed to address human rights issues, it is going to be extremely silent. Would it not be preferable to have a substantive discussion of human rights issues? One that would include – in the case of Rita Pahani – at least a mention of the statement by Amnesty International – so eagerly quoted on above on China – on Australia’s refugee policy. It should not have escaped the author as the Amnesty statement came just two days before her own writing.
To help in her research: “On Monday 24 February, Amnesty International in a report took a swipe at Australia for the way the country has responded to the global refugee crisis. Amnesty said Canberra should have accepted more refugees fleeing the bloody crisis in Syria. The group said the country had the capability to take in seven thousand five hundred Syrian refugees. The rights group also called on Canberra not to send and detain vulnerable refugees on Islands in Papua New Guinea and the Republic of Nauru.” http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/02/24/352094/aussies-under-fire-over-refugee-stance/
On 27 February 2014 it was reported by TwoCircles.net that Amnesty International India is asking political parties contesting the 2014 parliamentary elections to commit to and adopt as part of their manifestoes 14 key goals to improve India’s human rights record. … India’s political parties need to show their commitment to respect, protect and fulfill fundamental human rights. Amnesty representatives are meeting leaders from various political parties with the following 14 points of the ‘Human Rights Charter’:
Protecting the rights of communities affected by corporate-led projects.
Ending torture, extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances.
Ending arbitrary detention and reducing excessive under-trial detention.
Protecting the rights of all persons in custody.
Ending the use of the death penalty.
Ensuring justice for marginalized communities who have suffered abuses.
Reforming the criminal justice system to better tackle violent crime.
Tackling all forms of violence against women more effectively.
Holding armed forces accountable for human rights abuses.
Protecting people’s rights to privacy and freedom of expression.
Protecting the rights of migrant workers and domestic workers.
Strengthening human rights institutions and protecting human rights defenders.
Building a culture of respect for human rights through education.
Adopting a more principled approach to human rights abuses around the world.
Amnesty Ireland has voiced serious concern about the government’s failure to raise human rights issues during its trade mission to the Middle East. The group wrote to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Jobs to ask if it is now part of our foreign policy to allow trade issues to trump the government’s human rights commitments, sending a copy of its report from November 2013 which details abuses of the rights of migrant workers in Qatar.
Colm O Gorman, executive Director of Irish Amnesty, says Ireland needs to show leadership on human rights issues: “It is of grave concern to us Read the rest of this entry »
On 14 January 2014 the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs published its report “On the situation with human rights in the European Union” (posted on the ministry’s website ) in which it claimed that the EU was struck by “serious human rights illnesses.” A large part of he report relies on information from international human rights organizations, such as AI. In the document the Russian Foreign Ministry Read the rest of this entry »
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 