Are you an artist passionate about human rights and social justice? We’re looking for talented creators to develop original art pieces for our 2024 Write for Rights campaign. This is your chance to use your creative skills to fight injustice and show your solidarity with people who are advocating for change.
What We’re Looking For
We are looking for a wide range of artistic expressions, including but not limited to:
Graphic design artwork
Videos of spoken-word art
Musical pieces (vocal, instrumental…etc.)
Videos of dances, skits
Animations
Paintings
Comic Illustrations
Project Details
Objective: Create an original art piece representing a specific Write for Rights case. Compensation: TBD Timeline: September 15, 2024 – October 15, 2024 Submission Deadline: August 30th, 2024
How to Apply
Submit your application including:
A brief introduction of yourself, your artistic background and your interest in social justice
A short proposal outlining:
Two Write for Rights cases you are interested in working on and why
A short description of your artistic vision for the piece
Don’t miss this chance to make a global impact with your art. Join us in advocating for human rights through powerful, creative expression.
Write for Rights Cases
Manahel al-Otaibi (Saudi Arabia)
Manahel al-Otaibi is a fitness instructor and a brave outspoken advocate for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. In November 2022, she was arrested after posting to Snapchat photos of herself at a shopping mall. In the photos, she was not wearing the traditional long-sleeved loose robe known as an abaya. Manahel has been sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Wet’suwet’en Nation Land Defenders (Canada)
The Wetʼsuwetʼen Nation are deeply connected to their ancestral lands, but this is threatened by the construction of a fossil fuel pipeline through their territory. Their Hereditary Chiefs did not consent to this construction. Land defenders have been charged for blocking pipeline construction sites, even though these sites are on their ancestral lands. They could face prison and a criminal record.
Maryia Kalesnikava (Belarus)
Political activist Maryia Kalesnikava dared to challenge the repressive Belarus government. On 7 September 2020, Maryia was abducted by the Belarus authorities. She was taken to the border where she resisted deportation by tearing up her passport. She was detained and later sentenced to 11 years in prison on false charges. Maryia’s family haven’t heard from her for more than a year.
Floraine Irangabiye (Burundi)
Floriane Irangabiye is a mother, journalist, and human rights defender from Burundi. In 2010 she relocated to Rwanda where she co-founded a radio station for exiled Burundian voices. In August 2022 she was arrested while visiting family in Burundi. In January 2023 she was sentenced to 10 years in prison for “undermining the integrity of the national territory”, all for criticizing Burundi’s human rights record.
Kyung Seok Park (South Korea)
Kyung Seok Park is a dedicated disability rights activist. Holding peaceful protests on Seoul’s public transport systems, Kyung Seok Park has drawn attention to how hard it is for people with disabilities to easily access trains and subways safely – denying them the ability to travel to work, school, or to live independently. Kyung Seok Park’s activism has been met with police abuse, public smear campaigns and punitive litigation.
On July 1, 2024 AI published the findings of a survey which says that three out of five child and young human rights defenders face online harassment in connection with their activism, according to a new analysis of 400 responses to an Amnesty International questionnaire, distributed to young activists across 59 countries. More than 1400 young activists participated in the survey conducted as a part of Amnesty International’s global campaign to “Protect the Protest.”
Of those, 400 youth activists aged between 13 to 24 years agreed to the publication of their data.
They faced harassment in the form of hateful comments, threats, hacking and doxing which is often linked to offline abuse and political persecution often perpetrated by state actors with little or no response from Big Tech platforms resulting in the silencing of young people.
The highest rates of online harassment were reported by young activists in Nigeria and Argentina.
“I have been harassed […] by a stranger because of my pronouns. The stranger told me it is not possible to be a ‘they/them’ and kept sending messages about how I am crazy for identifying the way I identify. I had to ignore the person’s messages,” said a 17-year-old Nigerian queer LGBTI activist who asked not to be identified.
Another young activist – 21-year-old male Nigerian LBGTI rights activist said, “People disagree with my liberal progressive views, and immediately check my profile to see that I am queer Nigerian living in Nigeria, and they come at me with so much vitriol. I am usually scared to share my opinion on apps like TikTok because I can go viral. The internet can be a very scary place,” he said adding that, “Someone cat fishing as a gay man, lured me into coming out to see him after befriending me for a while, and then he attacked me with his friends. This is Nigeria, I couldn’t go to the police for secondary victimization.”
Twenty-one percent of respondents say they are trolled or threatened on a weekly basis and close to a third of the young activists say that they have censored themselves in response to tech-facilitated violence, with a further 14 percent saying they have stopped posting about human rights and their activism altogether.
“I always think twice before making a comment, when I express my political position, I start to get many comments that not only have to do with my position, but also with my body, my gender identity or my sexuality,” said Sofía*, a 23-year-old human rights defender from Argentina shared her experience on X formerly known as Twitter.
The survey respondents said they faced the most abuse on Facebook, with 87 percent of the platform’s users reporting experiences of harassment, compared to 52 percent on X and 51 percent on Instagram.
The most common forms of online harassment are upsetting and disrespectful “troll” comments (60 percent) and upsetting or threatening direct messages (52 percent).
Five percent of the young activists say they have faced online sexual harassment, too, reporting that users posted intimate images (including real and AI-generated images) of them without consent.
For many of the survey participants harassment in relation to their online activism is not limited to the digital world either. Almost a third of respondents reported facing offline forms of harassment, from family members and people in their personal lives to negative repercussions in school, police questioning and political persecution.
Twenty-year-old non-binary activist Aree* from Thailand shared their experience of facing politically motivated prosecution in five different cases whilst they were still a child.
Abdul* a 23-year-old Afghan activist reported being denied work at a hospital after authorities found out about his social media activism.
The Israel-Gaza war currently stands out as an issue attracting high levels of abusive online behaviour, but the threat of online harassment appears to be omnipresent across all leading human rights issues. Peace and security, the rule of law, economic and gender equality, social and racial justice, and environmental protection all served as “trigger topics” for the attacks.
However, the way young activists are targeted varies and appears to be closely linked to intersectional experiences of discrimination, likely harming survivors of identity-based abuse in longer lasting ways than issue-based harassment.
Twenty-one percent of respondents say they have been harassed in connection with their gender and twenty percent in connection with their race or ethnicity. Smaller percentages said they face abuse in connection with their socio-economic background, age, sexual orientation and/or disabilities.
“At first it was simply hateful comments since the posts I published were daring and spoke openly about LGBT rights, which later made me receive threats in private messages and it went further when my account was hacked,” said Paul a 24-year-old activist from Cameroon, on being targeted for his LGBTI related activism adding that, “For 2 years, I have been living in total insecurity because of the work I do as an advocate for the rights of my community online.”
For Paul and many other young activists, online harassment is having deep effects on their mental health. Forty percent of the respondents say they have felt a sense of powerlessness and nervousness or are afraid of using social media. Some respondents have even felt unable to perform everyday tasks and felt physically unsafe. Accordingly, psychological support is the most popular form of support which young activists call for, ahead of easier to use reporting mechanisms and legal support.
Many of the young activists voiced frustrations over leading social media platforms’ failure to adequately respond to their reports of harassment saying the abusive comments are left on the platforms long after being flagged.
Some respondents also felt that social media platforms are playing an active part in silencing them; multiple activists reported that they found posts about the war in Gaza removed, echoing previous reports of content advocating for Palestinian rights being subject to potentially discriminatory moderation by various platforms.
Others highlighted platforms’ role in enabling state-led intimidation and censorship campaigns, undermining activists’ hope for government regulation to provide answers to the challenge of tech-facilitated violence.
On 12 June 2024, a group of important NGOs addressed the following letter to Josep Borrell, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs:
We, the undersigned civil society organisations, are writing to reiterate our request for the European Union to suspend its human rights dialogue with China, and to consider other, more impactful measures at the EU’s disposal to address the Chinese government’s assault on human rights at home and abroad.
While appreciative of the open and frank discussion and engagement with the EEAS in preparation of each round of human rights dialogue with China, we regret that the EU continues this exercise despite its amply proven ineffectiveness over 38 rounds. While the EU raises concerns during these dialogues, it knows that the Chinese government will not acknowledge abuses, will not undertake any effort to secure accountability, and will not be persuaded to undertake any policy or legislative action to comply with China’s international human rights obligations. The EU’s reluctance to establish any measurable benchmark of progress, or even to establish clearly defined objectives beyond having a dialogue, exacerbates the ineffectiveness of this exercise.
This year’s human rights dialogue would also entail EU officials sitting down with authorities in Beijing to “engage… through dialogue and cooperation” on human rights, days after the 35th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre.
Since Xi Jinping came to power in 2013, the Chinese government has intensified its crackdown on dissent, harassing and imprisoning human rights defenders and activists including the Swedish bookseller Gui Minhai, the Uyghur economist and Sakharov Prize laureate Ilham Tohti [7 human rights awards, see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/37AE7DC4-16DB-51E9-4CF8-AB0828AEF491], the Hong-Kong barrister and human rights activist Chow Hang-tung and human rights lawyers Yu Wensheng and his wife Xu Yan, who were arrested a little over a year ago on their way to meet with the EU delegation [see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/69fc7057-b583-40c3-b6fa-b8603531248e and https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/07/12/new-wave-of-repression-against-human-rights-lawyers-unleashed-in-china/]. The Chinese government has committed egregious violations against Uyghur and other Turkic communities in Xinjiang/The Uyghur Region, which a report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in August 2022 stated “may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.” Beijing has also intensified its repression in Tibet, while in Hong Kong the creation of a new national security architecture at Beijing’s behest has severely restricted the rights and freedoms long enjoyed by Hong Kong’s people.
Beijing’s foreign policy has also been increasingly detrimental to human rights, both in the region and beyond. The Chinese government continues to support highly abusive governments, to challenge international efforts to secure accountability for grave abuses, and to intensify efforts to undermine the international human rights system and rewrite its norms. The Chinese government has also engaged in increasingly brazen transnational repression – abuses committed outside its borders – including in EU countries.
The EU has already suspended human rights dialogues with highly repressive countries such as Russia, Syria, Belarus, and Myanmar, among others, in light of the nature, scale and pervasiveness of their authorities’ human rights abuses and violations of international law. The Chinese government has committed serious crimes amounting to crimes against humanity. It has long been evident that the human rights dialogue is not an appropriate nor an effective tool to address them. There is no reason to expect the 39th round will prove more beneficial to the rights of people in China than the previous 38. The EU and its member states should pursue different, more effective actions to press the Chinese government to end its crimes against humanity and other serious violations – and to hold accountable those responsible for failing to do so.
We have long been suggesting alternative action, latest in this February 2023 letter. We stand ready to discuss these and other options with you any time.
Signatories: Amnesty International Front Line Defenders Human Rights Watch International Service for Human Rights World Uyghur Congress
In a new report of 6 June 2024, the Amnesty International insists the world governing body “must terminate any agreement to host the tournament if human rights are jeopardised or violated“.
Last year Fifa confirmed Spain, Portugal and Morocco will be co-hosts in 2030, with the opening three matches taking place in Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay. Saudi Arabia is the sole bidder for the 2034 tournament. Amnesty says the Gulf kingdom has an “appalling human rights record and its bid carries a broad range of very serious risks”.
But it also warns the 2030 tournament “carries human rights risks primarily related to labour rights, discrimination, freedom of expression and assembly, policing, privacy and housing”. It adds that greenhouse gas emissions generated by travel related to the expanded 48-team tournament across three continents “are likely to be significant, despite Fifa’s stated commitment on climate change to halve carbon emissions by 2030 and be ‘net-zero’ by 2040”.
Amnesty claims Fifa has not responded to its requests to speak to consultants involved in human rights-based assessments of the bids.
Fifa has been approached for comment. It is set to formally confirm the hosts of the two tournaments later this year at a meeting of its congress. When unveiling its choices for hosting the World Cups, it said it was “fully committed” to ensuring the competitions were held to “sustainable event management standards and practices, safeguarding principles for the protection of children and adults at risk and to respecting internationally-recognised human rights in accordance with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”.
It has also said it will “conduct a targeted dialogue with bidders, to ensure complete, comprehensive bids are received and evaluated against the minimum hosting requirements….[It] will focus on the defined priority areas of the event vision and key metrics, infrastructure, services, commercial, and sustainability and human rights.”
Steve Cockburn, Amnesty’s Head of Labour Rights and Sports, said: “With only a single bid to host each tournament and major human rights concerns surrounding both, there are huge questions about Fifa’s willingness to stand by the pledges and reforms it has made in recent years, including exercising its right to reject any bid which does not meet its stated human rights requirements.
“History shows that the World Cup can be a source of dignity or exploitation, inclusion or discrimination, freedom or repression, making Fifa’s award of the hosting rights for the 2030 and 2034 tournaments among the most consequential decisions ever taken by a sporting organisation.”
Assessing the human rights risks related to the respective bids, Amnesty claims that in Spain, Morocco and Portugal “migrant workers are at risk of exploitation”, “excessive use of police forces is a proven risk” and “racial discrimination is an issue in all three countries”. It says an independent Fifa evaluation of Morocco’s previous bid – to host the 2026 World Cup – “noted its criminalisation of same-sex acts was particularly problematic” and that the country “restricts freedom of expression”.
It adds that “discrimination is deeply embedded in legislation and practices, and could impact fans, workers, players and journalists… women fans face the risk of unfair and disproportionate prosecution… and there have been sweeping arrests and imprisonment of journalists, human rights defenders, political activists.” Amnesty says reforms to prevent human rights violations related to the World Cup in Saudi Arabia would need “sweeping changes to labour laws to protect workers, and the release of activists and human rights defenders who’ve been unjustly imprisoned”.
Last year the Saudi Sports Minister rejected claims of ‘sportswashing’ and defended the country’s right to host the 2034 tournament, telling the BBC: “We’ve hosted more than 85 global events and we’ve delivered on the highest level. We want to attract the world through sports. Hopefully, by 2034, people will have an extraordinary World Cup.”
AI asked three older activists to reflect on their experiences, the changes they are campaigning for, and how being an older person gives them unique perspective and motivation.
Cecile de Ryckel, 78, Belgium
Cecile is a lifelong activist working on anti-racism and climate change.
Why did you become an activist?
After a homelessness crisis amongst migrants in Belgium in 2015, my husband and I hosted two people from Ethiopia who the authorities had left to sleep in a city park. They told us that in Ethiopia they were small-scale farmers and grew food for their families. However, it was raining less frequently, and growing food was becoming more difficult. That was when I realized that climate change was one of the most important issues in the world today, and that it would have far-reaching consequences. Soon after that I participated in a citizens assembly discussing how best to address climate change and reduce carbon emissions. We learned how to mobilize people and change behaviours. I joined an advocacy collective, Grandparents for the Climate, and started working actively on the issue.
We have a responsibility to future generations to address this challenge today. It already has wide-ranging impacts on people of all ages. I remember when I was a child that we would joke that an older person was someone who “wouldn’t make it through the winter”, but today due to rising temperatures we sadly have to ask whether some older people can “make it through the summer”.
I recently saw how a group of older women won a landmark court case that the Swiss government’s weak climate change policy had violated their rights. This will help advance the cause greatly, for people of all ages.
Amina Musa, 72, Nigeria
Amina is an activist on behalf of victims of the armed conflict in north-east Nigeria and their families, including those who have been unlawfully killed or detained.
Why did you become an activist?
I became an activist nine years ago when Boko Haram forced us to leave our homes, and we found ourselves living in camps controlled by the Nigerian government. The military made baseless accusations that our sons were associated with Boko Haram. Our sons were blindfolded and arrested and held in dehumanizing conditions. I had no choice but to start campaigning for their release. As mothers, we came together and started a movement to seek justice. We are demanding that all those detained unlawfully be released immediately and that the government investigate the gross violations we have experienced. Some of our sons have been in detention for more than 10 years. We have had enough, we want justice.
I tell other older people that they should continue with their activism and bear with the challenges, and that our activism can also inspire younger people. I know it is not easy, but these causes are important. Age should not and will not deter us from making our society free from injustice.
Juan Jacobo Hernández, 82, Mexico
Juan is an activist on social issues and LGBTQ+ liberation.
Why did you become an activist?
In the 1960s, I was part of Mexican student movements. Then Stonewall happened: I had a boyfriend at the time who lived in New York, and he told me that I had to come and see it for myself. I witnessed the first LGBTQ+ rebellion: the first time gay men, trans people, lesbians were standing up and confronting the police. Coming back to Mexico, we started the Frente de Liberación Homosexual (Gay Liberation Front). I had learned a lot about how to make protests visible and how to make our voices heard. Finally, there was a space where we could be active, where we could do something. When I started my activism, we didn’t use the term “human rights” – but that’s what it has always been about. We held large demonstrations against political repression, for the abolition of the death penalty, and to fight restrictions on social protest. Persecution by the government was very real and close to us at the time – gay men and trans women were persecuted, raided by the police, extorted and beaten up.
Whenever we were out in the street, we felt that something bad could happen. We were struggling for our lives, for our security, for our right to be in the street without being beaten up, robbed or killed.
My whole life, I have never stopped being an activist. The AIDS epidemic collapsed the first phase of gay liberation. So many activists died and [as I grew older], I recognised the need to transmit my experience, knowledge and values [to the younger generation]. Since 1981 I’ve been part of Collective Sol, where we work to build and strengthen the capacity of small, grassroots organizations that are working on the most pressing LGBTQ+ issues they see today.
My life as an activist means I can look back and say I have witnessed three great moments in LGBTQ+ liberation. The first was when we formed political organizations, coming out of the shadows and breaking the silence. The second was the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the way it created a connection between LGBTQ+ liberation and people living with HIV, irrespective of whether they were LGBTQ+. This connection was powerful and drove the movement forward.
Mozilla is highlighting each year the work of 25 digital leaders using technology to amplify voices, effect change, and build new technologies globally through its Rise 25 Awards. On 13 May 2024 was the turn of Raphael Mimoun, a builder dedicated to making tools that empower journalists and human rights defenders. Aron Yohannes talked with Raphael about the launch of his app, Tella, combatting misinformation online, the future of social media platforms and more.
Raphael Mimoun: So I never worked in tech per se and only developed a passion for technology as I was working in human rights. It was really a time when, basically, the power of technology to support movements and to head movements around the world was kind of getting fully understood. You had the Arab Spring, you had Occupy Wall Street, you had all of these movements for social justice, for democracy, for human rights, that were very much kind of spread through technology, right? Technology played a very, very important role. But just after that, it was kind of like a hangover where we all realized, “OK, it’s not just all good and fine.” You also have the flip side, which is government spying on the citizens, identifying citizens through social media, through hacking, and so on and so forth — harassing them, repressing them online, but translating into offline violence, repression, and so on. And so I think that was the moment where I was like, “OK, there is something that needs to be done around technology,” specifically for those people who are on the front lines because if we just treat it as a tool — one of those neutral tools — we end up getting very vulnerable to violence, and it can be from the state, it can also be from online mobs, armed groups, all sort of things.
There’s so much misinformation out there now that it’s so much harder to tell the difference between what’s real and fake news. Twitter was such a reliable tool of information before, but that’s changed. Do you think that any of these other platforms can be able to help make up for so much of the misinformation that is out there?
I think we all feel the weight of that loss of losing Twitter. Twitter was always a large corporation, partially owned by a billionaire. It was never kind of a community tool, but there was still an ethos, right? Like a philosophy, or the values of the platform were still very much like community-oriented, right? It was that place for activists and human rights defenders and journalists and communities in general to voice their opinions. So I think that loss was very hard on all of us.
I see a lot of misinformation on Instagram as well. There is very little moderation there. It’s also all visual, so if you want traction, you’re going to try to put something that is very spectacular that is very eye catchy, and so I think that leads to even more misinformation.
I am pretty optimistic about some of the alternatives that have popped up since Twitter’s downfall. Mastodon actually blew up after Twitter, but it’s much older — I think it’s 10 years old by now. And there’s Bluesky. So I think those two are building up, and they offer spaces that are much more decentralized with much more autonomy and agency to users. You are more likely to be able to customize your feeds. You are more likely to have tools for your own safety online, right? All of those different things that I feel like you could never get on Threads, on Instagram or on Twitter, or anything like that. I’m hoping it’s actually going to be able to recreate the community that is very much what Twitter was. It’s never going to be exactly the same thing, but I’m hoping we will get there. And I think the fact that it is decentralized, open source and with very much a philosophy of agency and autonomy is going to lead us to a place where these social networks can’t actually be taken over by a power hungry billionaire.
What do you think is the biggest challenge that we face in the world this year on and offline, and then how do you think we can combat it?
I don’t know if that’s the biggest challenge, but one of the really big challenges that we’re seeing is how the digital is meeting real life and how people who are active online or on the phone on the computer are getting repressed for that work in real life. So we developed an app called Tella, which encrypts and hides files on your phone, right? So you take a photo or a video of a demonstration or police violence, or whatever it is, and then if the police tries to catch you and grab your phone to delete it, they won’t be able to find it, or at least it will be much more difficult to find it. Or it would be uploaded already. And things like that, I think is one of the big things that we’re seeing again. I don’t know if that the biggest challenge online at the moment, but one of the big things we’re seeing is just that it’s becoming completely normalized to grab someone’s phone or check someone’s computer at the airport, or at the border, in the street and go through it without any form of accountability. People have no idea what the regulations are, what the rules are, what’s allowed, what’s not allowed. And when they abuse those powers, is there any recourse? Most places in the world, at least, where we are working, there is definitely no recourse. And so I think that connection between thinking you’re just taking a photo for social media but actually the repercussion is so real because you’re going to have someone take your phone, and maybe they’re going to delete the photo, or maybe they’re going to detain you. Or maybe they’re going to beat you up — like all of those different things. I think this is one of the big challenges that we’re seeing at the moment, and something that isn’t traditionally thought of as an internet issue or an online digital rights issue because it’s someone taking a physical device and looking through it. It often gets overlooked, and then we don’t have much kind of advocacy around it, or anything like that.
What do you think is one action everybody can take to make the world and our lives online a little bit better?
I think social media has a lot of negative consequences for everyone’s mental health and many other things, but for people who are active and who want to be active, consider social networks that are open source, privacy-friendly and decentralized. Bluesky, the Fediverse —including Mastodon — are examples because I think it’s our responsibility to kind of build up a community there, so we can move away from those social media platforms that are owned by either billionaires or massive corporations, who only want to extract value from us and who spy on us and who censor us. And I feel like if everyone committed to being active on those social media platforms — one way of doing that is just having an account, and whatever you post on one, you just post on the other — I feel like that’s one thing that can make a big difference in the long run.
We started Rise25 to celebrate Mozilla’s 25th anniversary. What do you hope that people are celebrating in the next 25 years?
I was talking a little bit earlier about how we are building a culture that is more privacy-centric, like people are becoming aware, becoming wary about all these things happening to the data, the identity, and so on. And I do think we are at a turning point in terms of the technology that’s available to us, the practices and what we need as users to maintain our privacy and our security. I feel like in honestly not even 25, I think in 10 years, if things go well — which it’s hard to know in this field — and if we keep on building what we already are building, I can see how we will have an internet that is a lot more privacy-centric where communications are by default are private. Where end-to-end encryption is ubiquitous in our communication, in our emailing. Where social media isn’t extractive and people have actual ownership and agency in the social network networks they use. Where data mining is no longer a thing. I feel like overall, I can see how the infrastructure is now getting built, and that in 10,15 or 25 years, we will be in a place where we can use the internet without having to constantly watch over our shoulder to see if someone is spying on us or seeing who has access and all of those things.
Lastly, what gives you hope about the future of our world?
That people are not getting complacent and that it is always people who are standing up to fight back. We’re seeing it at. We saw it at Google with people standing up as part of No Tech for Apartheid coalition and people losing the jobs. We’re seeing it on university campuses around the country. We’re seeing it on the streets. People fight back. That’s where any change has ever come from: the bottom up. I think now, more than ever, people are willing to put something on the line to make sure that they defend their rights. So I think that really gives me hope.
Nikole Yanez is a computer scientist by training, and a human rights defender from Honduras. She is passionate about feminism, the impact of the internet and protecting activists. She was first drawn to human rights through her work as a reporter with a local community radio station. After surviving the coup d’état in Honduras in 2009, Nikole broadened her approach to focus her activism on technology. When she applied for the Digital Forensics Fellowship with the Amnesty Tech Security Lab in 2022, she was looking to learn more about cybersecurity and apply what she learnt with the organizations and collectives she works with regularly.
She highlighted her commitment to fostering a network of tech-savvy communities across Latin America in an interview with Elina Castillo, Amnesty Tech’s Advocacy and Policy Advisor:
I grew up in Honduras, where I lived through the coup d’état, which took place in 2009. It was a difficult time where rights were non-existent, and people were constantly afraid. I thought it was something you only read about in history books, but it was happening in front of my eyes. I felt myself just trying to survive, but as time went by it made me stronger and want to fight for justice. Despite the difficulties, people in my community remained hopeful and we created a community radio station, which broadcast stories about everyday people and their lives with the aim of informing people about their human rights. I was a reporter, developing stories about individual people and their fight for their rights. From there, I found a passion for working with technology and it inspired me to train to become a computer scientist.
I am always looking for ways to connect technology with activism, and specifically to support women and Indigenous people in their struggles. As much as technology presents risks for human rights defenders, it also offers opportunities for us to better protect ourselves and strengthen our movements. Technology can bring more visibility to our movements, and it can empower our work by allowing us to connect with other people and learn new strategies.
Is there one moment where you realized how to connect what you’ve been doing with feminism with technology?
In my work, my perspective as a feminist helps me centre the experiences and needs of marginalised people for trainings and outreach. It is important for me to publicly identify as an Afrofeminist in a society where there is impunity for gendered and racist violence that occurs every day. In Honduras we need to put our energy into supporting these communities whose rights are most violated, and whose stories are invisible.
For example, in 2006, I was working with a Union to install the Ubuntu operating system (an open-source operating system) on their computers. We realized that the unionists didn’t know how to use a computer, so we created a space for digital literacy and learning about how to use a computer at the same time. This became not just a teaching exercise, but an exercise for me to figure out how to connect these tools to what people are interested in. Something clicked for me in this moment, and this experience helped solidify my approach to working on technology and human rights.
There are not many women working in technology and human rights. I don’t want to be one of the only women, so my goal is to see more women colleagues working on technical issues. I want to make it possible for women to work in this field. I also want to motivate more women to create change within the intersection of technology and human rights. Using a feminist perspective and approach, we ask big questions about how we are doing the work, what our approach needs to be, and who we need to work with. Nikole Yanez Honduras Human Rights Defender
For me, building a feminist internet means building an internet for everyone. This means creating a space where we do not reproduce sexist violence, where we find a community that responds to the people, to the groups, and to the organizations that fight for human rights. This includes involving women and marginalised people in building the infrastructure, in the configuration of servers, and in the development of protocols for how we use all these tools.
In Honduras, there aren’t many people trained in digital forensics analysis, yet there are organizations that are always seeking me out to help check their phones. The fellowship helped me learn about forensic analysis on phones and computers and tied the learning to what I’m actually doing in my area with different organizations and women’s rights defenders. The fellowship was practical and rooted in the experience of civil society organizations.
How do you explain the importance of digital forensics? Well first, it’s incredibly relevant for women rights defenders. Everyone wants to know if their phone has been hacked. That’s the first thing they ask:, “Can you actually know whether your phone has been hacked?” and “How do I know? Can you do it for me? How?” Those are the things that come up in my trainings and conversations.
I like to help people to think about protection as a process, something ongoing, because we use technology all day long. There are organizations and people that take years to understand that. So, it’s not something that can be achieved in a single conversation. Sometimes a lot of things need to happen, including bad things, before people really take this topic seriously…
I try to use very basic tools when I’m doing digital security support, to say you can do this on whatever device you’re on, this is a prevention tool. It’s not just applying technical knowledge, it’s also a process of explaining, training, showing how this work is not just for hackers or people who know a lot about computers.
One of the challenges is to spread awareness about cybersecurity among Indigenous and grassroots organizations, which aren’t hyper-connected and don’t think that digital forensics work is relevant to them. Sometimes what we do is completely disconnected from their lives, and they ask us: “But what are you doing?” So, our job is to understand their questions and where they are coming from and ground our knowledge-sharing in what people are actually doing.
To someone reading this piece and saying, oh, this kind of resonates with me, where do I start, what would your recommendation be?
If you are a human rights defender, I would recommend that you share your knowledge with your collective. You can teach them the importance of knowing about them, practicing them, as well as encouraging training to prevent digital attacks, because, in the end, forensic analysis is a reaction to something that has happened.
We can take a lot of preventive measures to ensure the smallest possible impact. That’s the best way to start. And it’s crucial to stay informed, to keep reading, to stay up to date with the news and build community.
If there are girls or gender non-conforming people reading this who are interested in technical issues, it doesn’t matter if you don’t have a degree or a formal education, as long as you like it. Most hackers I’ve met become hackers because they dive into a subject, they like it and they’re passionate about it.Nikole Yanez Honduras Human Rights Defender.
Powerful governments cast humanity into an era devoid of effective international rule of law, with civilians in conflicts paying the highest price
Rapidly changing artificial intelligence is left to create fertile ground for racism, discrimination and division in landmark year for public elections
Standing against these abuses, people the world over mobilized in unprecedented numbers, demanding human rights protection and respect for our common humanity
The world is reaping a harvest of terrifying consequences from escalating conflict and the near breakdown of international law, said Amnesty International as it launched its annual The State of the World’s Human Rights report, delivering an assessment of human rights in 155 countries.
Amnesty International also warned that the breakdown of the rule of law is likely to accelerate with rapid advancement in artificial intelligence (AI) which, coupled with the dominance of Big Tech, risks a “supercharging” of human rights violations if regulation continues to lag behind advances.
“Amnesty International’s report paints a dismal picture of alarming human rights repression and prolific international rule-breaking, all in the midst of deepening global inequality, superpowers vying for supremacy and an escalating climate crisis,” said Amnesty International’s Secretary General, Agnès Callamard.
“Israel’s flagrant disregard for international law is compounded by the failures of its allies to stop the indescribable civilian bloodshed meted out in Gaza. Many of those allies were the very architects of that post-World War Two system of law. Alongside Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine, the growing number of armed conflicts, and massive human rights violations witnessed, for example, in Sudan, Ethiopia and Myanmar – the global rule-based order is at risk of decimation.”
Lawlessness, discrimination and impunity in conflicts and elsewhere have been enabled by unchecked use of new and familiar technologies which are now routinely weaponized by military, political and corporate actors. Big Tech’s platforms have stoked conflict. Spyware and mass surveillance tools are used to encroach on fundamental rights and freedoms, while governments are deploying automated tools targeting the most marginalized groups in society.
“In an increasingly precarious world, unregulated proliferation and deployment of technologies such as generative AI, facial recognition and spyware are poised to be a pernicious foe – scaling up and supercharging violations of international law and human rights to exceptional levels,” said Agnès Callamard.
“During a landmark year of elections and in the face of the increasingly powerful anti-regulation lobby driven and financed by Big Tech actors, these rogue and unregulated technological advances pose an enormous threat to us all. They can be weaponized to discriminate, disinform and divide.”
Amnesty International’s report paints a dismal picture of alarming human rights repression and prolific international rule-breaking, all in the midst of deepening global inequality, superpowers vying for supremacy and an escalating climate crisis. Amnesty International’s Secretary General, Agnès Callamard
On 1 December 2023, Daouda Diallo, a human rights defender and secretary general of the Coalition Against Impunity and Community Stigmatization, was abducted by security forces in civilian clothes in Ouagadougou, capital of Burkina Faso, and taken to an unknown location. See: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/12/04/mea-laureate-2022-daouda-diallo-abducted/
On 28 March, 2024 Amnesty International (Index Number: AFR 60/7830/2024) reported that he was freed on 7 March 2024.
Hossam Bahgat is demanding an apology and remedy after a travel ban and freeze on his assets was reversed on 20 March 2024 (AFP/Mada Masr/file photo)
On 22 March 2024 MEE reported on a very interesting development in Egypt, where dozens of rights defenders have been affected by travel bans and asset freezes for over decade in a ‘politically motivated’ case [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/hossam-bahgat/].
Egypt has announced the closure of a 13-year landmark case in which human rights defenders were accused of receiving illicit foreign funding – but those affected by the allegations are demanding justice. An investigative judge on Wednesday declared the closure of case 173/2011, known in the media as the “foreign funding case”, due to what he described as “insufficient evidence”.
The case has been widely denounced as a politically-motivated attack on Egypt’s civil society. Judge Ahmed Abdel Aziz Qatlan’s decision marks the end of a probe against 85 organisations. It also means an end to asset freezes and travel bans imposed on members of these organisations, he added.
Before the decision on Wednesday, accusations against most of the organisations implicated had already been dropped and this week’s decision only affects five organisations.
These were the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR); the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI); the Arab Penal Reform Organisation; the Cairo Institute For Human Rights Studies; and Al-Nadeem Center for Rehabilitation of Victims of Violence.
Rights groups and human rights defenders have called for an apology and compensation for the defendants. Hussein Baoumi, foreign policy advocacy officer at Amnesty International, who had previously monitored the case as Amnesty’s Egypt researcher, said the closure of the case is a welcome step but is “long overdue”.
“The government must issue a public apology and compensate the human rights defenders for years of smearing and punitive measures, merely because they defended the rights of millions of people,” he told Middle East Eye.
Baoumi expressed cautious optimism about the government’s respect for the court decision. “It is too early to say if this marks a serious shift in the government’s crackdown on civil society,” he said. “Closing case 173 must be followed by lifting all travel bans and asset freezes against human rights defenders, all those arbitrarily detained must be released and the NGO law must be amended to bring it in line with Egypt’s obligations.”
Hossam Bahgat, director of the EIPR, has been under a travel ban and barred from accessing his bank account for eight years. Following the closure of the case, he said he felt “vindicated but not relieved”.
He demanded “an official and public apology and restitution for the psychological and material damage resulting from this bogus case”. Gamal Eid, the founder of the ANHRI, welcomed the decision to lift his travel ban but said he still hopes for “the return of all the innocent and oppressed people to their families and loved ones”, referring to the estimated 65,000 political prisoners still languishing in Egyptian jails.
The Cairo Institute for Human Rights (CIHRs) said on Friday: “The decision does not remedy the injustices suffered by the dozens of human rights defenders targeted by the case over the course of the previous decade. Egyptian authorities must issue a formal apology to the victims of this persecution and compensate them for the losses and hardship they have been forced to endure.“
Bahey eldin Hassan, CIHRs director, has been sentenced to 18 years in jail in absentia and his sentence remains in effect, the group said. Hassan and dozens of other human rights defenders are currently living in exile because they fear arrest if they return to Egypt.
CIHR also called on Egypt to put an end to its ongoing crackdown on civil society and human rights defenders, including Ibrahim Metwally, Ezzat Ghoneim, and Hoda Abdelmoniem, who are still behind bars in connection with their work.
CIHR is calling for a review of Egypt’s counter-terrorism legislation and penal code to safeguard the freedom of human rights defenders to carry out their jobs without fear of reprisals.
“Only through a comprehensive review of repressive Egyptian legislation, the releasing of the tens of thousands of peaceful political prisoners, and a genuine opening of public space, can Egyptian authorities demonstrate genuine political will to reform,” it said.
On 21 March 2024, Nikkei Asia carried the story on Kyrgyzstan taking a page from Russia in pushing for a ‘foreign agents’ law
Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov faces a high-stakes decision on whether to sign new legislation that critics warn will significantly impair how human rights defenders and independent media, among others, can work in his mountainous Central Asian state. On March 14, Kyrgyzstan’s parliament voted overwhelmingly in favor of a “foreign agents” bill that mirrors legislation adopted in Russia over a decade ago. The law is designed to control the activities of nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations that receive funding from abroad by compelling them to register as “foreign representatives,” leading to closer scrutiny of their activities by the authorities.
Japarov has a month from that date to sign it into law. Many observers have been vocal in their opposition and are urging the president to veto the bill. Syinat Sultanalieva, Central Asia researcher at Human Rights Watch, told Nikkei Asia that this law “would see the further and sharper shrinking of civil society,” a sector that has been under attack in Kyrgyzstan for more than a decade. BUT see: https://www.aol.com/kyrgyzstan-adopts-law-targeting-foreign-100124498.html
In the meantime the Prague based NGO, People in Need, speaks out against the Slovakian government’s proposed measures to curb critical media and NGOs, which would mirror tactics employed by autocrats and dictators in places ranging from Russia to Latin America, It has raised concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and the stifling of dissent. In a move reminiscent of authoritarian regimes, officials seek to designate these entities as “foreign agents,” a term often utilised to suppress opposition voices. The Fico government has already taken steps to cut NGO funding, raising further alarms about the independence of civil society activities. Additionally, Culture Minister Martina Šimkovičová and Justice Minister Boris Susko have initiated cuts to subsidy programmes, redirecting funds away from NGOs to other areas, citing concerns about transparency and favouritism in grant allocation. The government’s actions have prompted backlash from NGOs, with 90 organisations signing a petition against the minister’s decisions.
As an organisation with roots steeped in the freedom and civic movements of post-Cold-War Czechoslovakia, we are appalled to see the illiberal turn taken by the Slovak government. The Fico government’s proposal to impose a Russian-style foreign agents’ law is anathema to the shared goals of the Czech and Slovak people who fought to end the Russian subjugation of our homelands. This is of great concern and sadness to us at People in Need.
On 21 March 2024, a large group of civil society organisations jointly called on the president of Kyrgyzstan, Sadyr Japarov, to veto the amendments to the Law on Non-commercial Organisations, known as the law on ‘foreign representatives’ which clearly violates the country’s international human rights obligations and would be a devastating blow the civil society. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/foreign-agent-law/]
…We are writing to you on behalf of the undersigned civil society organisations from different countries to express support for Kyrgyzstan’s civil society and urge you to veto the amendments to the Law on Non-commercial Organisations, known as the law on ‘foreign representatives’, which parliament adopted on third reading on 14 March 2024. The proposed amendments fall seriously short of Kyrgyzstan’s international human rights obligations and risk delivering a devastating blow to its vibrant civil society. The amendments will impair civil society’s ability to carry out its important and legitimate work to the benefit of the people of Kyrgyzstan, and to promote public participation, transparency, accountability and good governance, thereby eroding democratic and human rights progress made by Kyrgyzstan with negative implications for its international reputation. Further, the proposed amendments will endanger international development and economic assistance programmes in the country, which will also undermine prospects for the achievement of sustainable development goals contrary to your government’s ambitious agenda in this area. Thus, we urge you to veto the amendments for the benefit of Kyrgyzstan and its people.
Both national and international human rights experts have concluded that the draft law on ‘foreign representatives’ clearly violates Kyrgyzstan’s international human rights obligations. For example, such conclusions were presented in a joint communication addressed to your government by three UN Special Rapporteurs, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, of which Kyrgyzstan currently is a member. The three rapporteurs stated: ‘many provisions in the proposed law would be contrary to the international human rights obligations of the Kyrgyz Republic, including the right to the freedom of association, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the right to non-discrimination and the right to privacy. If passed, this draft law could have a chilling effect on the operation of all associations in the Kyrgyz Republic, limiting their ability to advocate for human rights, provide social services, and contribute to the development of a robust and inclusive society.’
In an earlier legal assessment prepared at the request of Kyrgyzstan’s Ombudsperson, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) found that the proposed provisions lack legitimate justification and do not meet the requirements of international human rights law for acceptable restrictions on the right to freedom of association. ODIHR also stressed that the key concepts of ‘foreign representatives’ and ‘political activities’ used in the draft law are inconsistent with the principle of legal certainty and predictability and ‘would allow unfettered discretion on the part of the implementing authorities’. ODIHR further found that the proposed provisions are contrary to the principle of non-discrimination and risk stigmatising organisations carrying out legitimate work and triggering mistrust, fear and hostility against them.
The draft law on ‘foreign representatives’ does not only violate your country’s international obligations but also contradicts provisions of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic (including articles 36, 32, 24 and 29), which protect the right to freedom of association and other fundamental rights. In this way, the draft law challenges the legitimacy of the current Constitution, which was initiated by you and endorsed by citizens in a national referendum in 2021.
The proponents of the draft law on ‘foreign representatives’ have argued that it is aimed at ensuring the transparency of civil society organisations (CSOs). However, while transparency is an important issue, it is not a legitimate reason under international human rights law for imposing invasive, discriminatory, and stigmatising restrictions on CSOs. On the contrary, transparency can be ensured in ways that do not contradict international law nor hamper the work of CSOs. Moreover, all non-commercial organisations in Kyrgyzstan, including those that receive foreign funding, are already subjected to extensive state control and regularly report about their activities and finances to various state bodies, which ensures transparency of their work. In particular, amendments to the Law on Non-commercial Organisations, adopted in 2021, oblige non-commercial organisations to annually provide detailed information on their sources of funding, use of funds and assets for publication on the Tax Service’s website. This information is thus already publicly accessible.
Rather than increasing the transparency of non-commercial organisations, the draft law risks undermining civil society’s crucial role in assisting public bodies with the provision of support to vulnerable groups of the population, and also in promoting public sector transparency and accountability. Watchdog organisations have already warned of a significant decline in government transparency in Kyrgyzstan, preventing the exposure of wrongdoing and increasing the risk of corruption. This impairs foreign investments as well as economic growth and well-being in the country.
Kyrgyzstan’s international partners have warned that the adoption of the law on ‘foreign representatives’ would negatively affect development assistance programmes in the country. For example, in a joint statement issued on 14 March 2024, the Delegation of the EU to the Kyrgyz Republic and the Embassies of Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States stated that the proposed provisions would ‘jeopardise our ability to provide assistance that improves the lives of the citizens and residents of the Kyrgyz Republic’. They stated that, if signed in its current form, the law ‘has the potential to hurt the most vulnerable who rely on the essential services – such as food, healthcare, and education – that non-profits and NGOs [non-governmental organisations] provide’. The UN Resident Coordinator in the Kyrgyz Republic pointed out that enacting the law would threaten civil society engagement in development initiatives and the achievement of UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Thus, the law contradicts the government’s aim of being among the top 30 countries in the realisation of SDGs by 2030.
The World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development have also stressed the importance that they attach to CSO engagement for the success of their in-country operations, when commenting on NGO concerns about the draft law’s potential impact on the activities of international financial institutions in Kyrgyzstan.
As you know, as a beneficiary of the General Scheme of Preferences Plus (GSP+), the Kyrgyz Republic is required to effectively implement international human rights conventions, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in return for trade benefits afforded by the EU. Thus, the adoption and enforcement of the law on ‘foreign representatives’ is likely to negatively affect these benefits. The European Commission’s recent GSP+ monitoring report on the Kyrgyz Republic highlighted shrinking space for civil society as a key area of concern and called for swift measures to reverse this negative trend in the light of the country’s ICCPR obligations. Moreover, in its resolution adopted in July 2023, the European Parliament called for a reassessment of Kyrgyzstan’s GSP+ benefits in view of recent developments, in particular draft legislation that runs counter to the country’s international human rights obligations.
We are aware that proponents of the draft law on ‘foreign representatives’ have argued that it is similar to the US Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). However, FARA differs from the proposed legislation in Kyrgyzstan in crucial respects. In particular, FARA is not targeted at non-commercial organisations that receive foreign funding. Instead, FARA requires persons who conduct certain activities ‘at the order’ or ‘under the direction or control’ of a foreign government or other foreign entity to register as an ‘agent of a foreign principal’ and periodically file supplementary information about their activities in this capacity. The purpose of FARA is to ensure the public disclosure of such information rather than to subject those registered under it to ongoing, invasive state control.
President Japarov, when you consider whether or not to sign the draft law on ‘foreign representatives’, you are deciding the fate of civil society in Kyrgyzstan. Will you opt for the path taken by authoritarian countries, where similar legislation has been used in campaigns to systematically dismantle independent civil society, with negative implications for the reputation, prosperity and well-being of these countries? Or for a more forward-looking, inclusive, and democratically-oriented approach under which CSOs are treated as important, respected partners who can work together with state bodies in addressing societal problems, and international partners retain their confidence in Kyrgyzstan’s commitment to sustainable development?
For the reasons outlined above, we urge you to refrain from signing the draft law on ‘foreign representatives’ and ensure that any new legislation impacting non-commercial organisations reflects Kyrgyzstan’s international human rights obligations and undergoes thorough and inclusive consultations with civil society, as well as national and international experts. When elaborating this type of legislation, it is crucial to take the opinions of CSOs directly affected by it into account.
Signed by the following organisations (listed in the order of signature):
International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR), Belgium
IDP Women Association Consent, Georgia
Norwegian Helsinki Committee
Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Hungary
Legal Policy Research Centre, Kazakhstan
Public Association “Dignity”, Kazakhstan
Netherlands Helsinki Committee
Civil Rights Defenders, Sweden
Protection of Rights without Borders NGO, Armenia
Swedish OSCE-network
Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly – Vanadzor, Armenia
Center for Civil Liberties, Ukraine
Public Verdict, Russia
Turkmen Helsinki Foundation, Bulgaria
Crude Accountability, USA
Freedom Files, Poland
Human Rights Center “Viasna”, Belarus
Center for Participation and Development, Georgia
Human Rights Defence Center Memorial, Russia
Civic Assistance Committee, Russia
Austrian Helsinki Association
Bulgarian Helsinki Committee
Human Rights Center (HRC), Georgia
Macedonian Helsinki Committee
Sova Research Center, Russia
Promo LEX Association, Moldova
Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Poland
ARTICLE 19 Europe
FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 