On 2 November the ISHR carries an interview with Alberto Solis Castro, a human rights defender concerned with the indigenous communities in Mexico.
Archive for the 'ISHR' Category
Alberto Solis Castro explains the unbalanced power of government and businesses in Mexico
November 24, 2015Environmental Human Rights Defender Muhammad Dairyman Indonesia
November 23, 2015In the series Human Rights Defender Profiles [ISHR] this time: Muhammad Darisman, from West Java, Indonesia:
In the context of breakneck pace of economic development Muhammad Dairyman stands out. He currently partners with U.S.-based Worker Rights Consortium to monitor and improve working conditions in garment factories, but he is also the founder, since 2009, of a local NGO that raises awareness of occupational disease and victim’s rights. He has led campaigns to highlight the ongoing (and legal) use of asbestos in Indonesia and across the Asian region, and to raise awareness about the negative health impacts on workers and communities. Read the rest of this entry »
Business and Human Rights: where to go in the UN
November 19, 2015from Special Issue on Business and Human Rights by the ISHR, October 2015
For human rights defenders interested to find their way in the myriad of procedures and soft law surrounding the issue of business and human rights:
The UN established in June 2011 a Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises.
The key mandate of the Working Group is to promote the effective and comprehensive dissemination and implementation of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, using the usual range of tools available to Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council (country visits, thematic reports, and individual communications).In order to discuss the trends and challenges in the implementation of those Guiding Principles and to promote dialogue and cooperation on issues linked to business and human rights, a Forum on Business and Human Rights has been held every year since 2012 and is open to all relevant stakeholders, including in particular human rights defenders. There is an increasing focus on human rights defenders in the agenda of the Forum, with two specific panels dedicated to human rights defenders in 2015 focusing on women human rights defenders and on the role of business in protecting defenders respectively.
The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association have both expressed concern about human rights defenders working on these issues, with the previous Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders devoting a report to the issue of human rights defenders working on major development projects and the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association devoting a report to the issue of freedom of association and the extractive industries.
In June 2014, the Human Rights Council mandated an Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG), tasked with commencing work towards the drafting of an international legally binding treaty on business and human rights. In July 2015 the IGWG had their first session, more information and reports can be found here.
Finally, the UN Global Compact initiative, is intended as a practical framework for the development, implementation, and disclosure of sustainability policies and practices by businesses that are committed to aligning their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles.
Defender Profile of Will McCallum, Greenpeace UK
November 16, 2015On 28 October 2015, the Monitor of the International Service for Human Rights carried an interview with human rights defender Will McCallum who is a ‘Campaigner’ at Greenpeace in the United Kingdom.
‘I would say that it is the tactics we use are what provoke a backlash from the Government as much as the issues we work on. In the UK if you make full use of the freedom of information system or judicial reviews, then you are probably going to have speak out publicly about the failures of government policies. This is what puts you in the firing line’.
And as Greenpeace and other environmental groups have highlighted the risks to environmental rights implied by UK energy and climate policies, they have found themselves targets of derogatory statements from both authorities and the media, questioning the motives of their work. The previous Environment Secretary labelled them ‘self-serving’, ‘highly paid globe-trotters’ ‘focusing on the wrong issues and doing real harm while profiting handsomely’.
Yet Will says that this is actually emblematic of a broader governmental intolerance of civil society advocacy. ‘There is a general background noise from the government which is anti-NGO; there’s a sense of disrespect and there’s been a marked difference since 2012. It’s as if the government see questioning by civil society as a pain which ought to be kept in check. But dissent has its rightful place in a democracy and, in fact, we can help ensure the government makes policies which respect rights and protect the environment. There is a sense that in the UK the government would like to see the role of NGOs as one of simply service providers’.
This attitude has manifested itself not only in the governmental discourse, but also in legislation limiting NGO activities. Will points to the 2014 Lobbying Act, which put strong financial and administrative limitations on the advocacy work NGOs could do around election periods. A recent letter by 150 NGOs called for the law’s repeal, following a recent independent inquiry into its impact.‘At least as concerning for us, however, is the current review of the Freedom of Information Act. Over 140 organisations spoke out last month in concern at apparent attempts to weaken the Act. The government has mandated a Commission to carry out the review, but almost all of its members are politicians and all have a track record of questioning the Act. Where’s the balance? Where’s the view of those of us who rely upon the Act to hold the government accountable?’
Will is concerned at suggestions that the Commission will recommend the implementation of fees for tribunal appeals against freedom of information decisions, currently free. ‘At Greenpeace we have a certain amount of resources we could invest in such appeals. But what’s the impact for smaller organisations and grass-roots human rights defenders? They rely on this Act to demand better from the State’. A lack of transparency and of proper consultation are two obstacles which make it difficult for organisations and communities to question the environmental impact of business projects, says Will. ‘On the one hand, there is a failure by the government to be transparent regarding who they are being lobbied by and how; there is no effective lobbying register. Yet on the other hand there is a reluctance on the part of the State to listen to those communities and activists who are asking for an environmental perspective to be taken into account. The government wants to expedite business projects at all costs, as shown by a recent change to planning guidance which will allow central government to circumvent local authorities in the approval of fracking projects if the latter has taken more than 16 weeks to evaluate a project proposal’.
In an echo of a disturbing global trend, another fear amongst environmental rights organisations in the UK, is the possible use of counter-terror and surveillance legislation to limit their activism… ‘The government has said that the Extremism Bill is to tackle what falls below the legal threshold for terrorist proscription. There needs to be a clear articulation of what this means to ensure the law cannot be abused. Meanwhile, the Policing and Criminal Justice Bill provides for 90-day pre-trail detention. Any law which gives authorities who are relatively intolerant to dissent the power to lock people up before they’ve been judged must be subject to proper consultation of local civil society and international human rights experts before it is passed’. It will also fall upon this government to make guarantees of no-repetition in the cases of police spying and surveillance of environmental groups which have led to a public inquiry into undercover policing…
Source: Defender Profile: Will McCallum, United Kingdom | ISHR
No more ‘business as usual’ when it comes to business and HRDs
November 11, 2015On 19 October Michel Forst, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, wrote a piece for the Monitor of the ISHR under the title “No more ‘business as usual’ when it comes to business and human rights defenders”. Read the rest of this entry »
Iduvina Hernandez: Human Rights Defender from Guatemala
October 8, 2015The newsletter of the ISHR of 7 October 2015 carries an interview with Iduvina Hernandez, co-founder of Association for the Study and Promotion of Security in Democracy in Guatemala.
Iduvina Hernandez founded the Association for the Study and Promotion of Security in Democracy (SEDEM), together with US citizen Rachel Garst in 2000. As journalists, Iduvina and Rachel had studied the behaviour of armed forces and intelligence services which were linked to numerous human rights abuses. The organisation initially questioned the meaning of ‘oversight’ and ‘accountability’ of security services for the public as Guatemala was having raging debate about security forces and intelligence sources. In order to expand this discussion, the organisation started building citizen networks in the provinces providing them with training so as to enable them to conduct independent oversight of State security forces actions in their region.
Guatemala’s public security is handled by the military and dominated by a national security doctrine. Extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances have been documented in a country still haunted by genocide. Civil society organisations have suggested that the militarisation of public security makes human rights abuses more probable, a fact that Iduvina’s organisation aims to change.
‘In a true democracy the military has nothing to do with citizen security.’
Iduvina believes human rights work is in her DNA since she grew up in a family where solidarity was a critical value. She remembers seeing people hidden in her home when she was a child, her father explaining that these people’s lives were in danger. At that point, Iduvina already felt like part of the framework working to protect them.
‘We can always do something for anyone, in any place, in any way.’
From an early age Iduvina was part of the student movement, working for student rights and then became a student leader for the University Students Association from 1976 to 1981. She lost many friends along the was due to disappearances or killings. She was even forced into exile but returned to the country as soon as she got the opportunity.
Challenges and threats to human rights defenders
One of Iduvina’s major challenges is linked to personal issues. As director of her own organisation she works on a volunteer basis and is therefore forced to have several jobs in order to sustain herself.
As for security conditions in Guatemala they expose human rights defenders to serious risks throughout their work. This usually includes being targeted by various Government actors and former members of the military often linked to the Government.
Iduvina highlights that though the social movement recently overthrew the former president, disappointingly there has not been any significant change in the political sphere.
‘The new person in charge is a fascist and very old. His policies, as well as his security policies, will be the same. We are afraid because we have a Government that does not respect human rights and certainly does not defend human rights.’
Iduvina states that the dangers that human rights defenders face in Guatemala stem from: Government action; Government policies; Government tolerance towards perpetrators; perpetrators’ actions; corruption; the composition of the judicial sector; and impunity.
The legislative framework for NGOs and human rights defenders
A restrictive law against NGOs was introduced in 2003 which imposed new conditions and limitations on NGOs – especially those working for the promotion of human rights. While registering a NGO used to be a simple process (only requiring registration at the city hall office) the 2004 amendment to the Constitution now requires NGOs to register at the Minister of Interio. This has become a real obstacle for human rights defence as NGOs now need approval to work legally and even to change their board membership. This particularly targets ngos working for the promotion of human rights. Iduvina’s organisation once had to wait 6 months to be registered, whilst another organisation not involved with human rights was registered in 10 days.
‘An organisation working against genocide was required to maintain the same board and president as they were not granted approval to change the legal representation. If you are not registered you cannot deal with the banks, you cannot receive donations, you are on standby.’
No specific law in Guatemala protects the work of human rights defender though there are a number of institutionstasked with their protection. Iduvina believes that oversight over the process of registering NGOs must be removed and thinks it necessary to have a law to protect the work of human rights defenders. Yet she believes it would be easier and more achievable to introduce a chapter on human rights defenders into the Special Ombudsman Law. With the composition of the current political system – dominated by right-wing ideas – this is still something she knows will be difficult to strive for. Attempting to implement such changes now would likely restrict human rights defenders further.
National and International Advocacy Goals
At the national level Iduvina is currently working on a draft national policy for the protection of human rights defenders. This includes the creation of focus groups and the use of workshops and interviews to identify the real needs of grassroots defenders.
At the international level, Iduvina says it is essential that the international community bears in mind that Guatemala is not a consolidated democracy and that human rights defenders continue to be at high risk.
‘It is more important today than it has ever been. The movement to overthrow the Government suggested that things were going to change in Guatemala. We need to make clear to the international community that although the demonstrations were a huge success, the root problems have not changed, not yet. We still need the international community’s eye on the country, especially as the new President is in many ways worse than the last – coming from the armed forces and involved in the genocide. He is an enemy of democracy.’
Iduvina would like the Special Rapporteurs on the situation on human rights defenders and on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, to visit Guatemala. She would also welcome visits from other special procedures and treaty bodies, in particular those working to protect the rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of opinion and expression
The Future for Human Rights Defenders in Guatemala
The future for human rights defenders in Guatemala is two sided, says Iduvina. On one hand the social movement has helped to extend their work and in some spaces of society they will now achieve more respect and understanding for their work. On the other hand if the political system does not change, human rights defenders will be confronted with new threats and new levels of risks.
Source: Iduvina Hernandez: Human Rights Defender from Guatemala | ISHR
“In Defense of Life”: observer mission report to Mexico at side event Geneva
September 25, 2015
On Tuesday 29 September (15h30 – 17h30, Palais des Nations, Room XXII, Geneva), the CMDPDH, Asociación Civil and ISHR organise a side event about the situation for human rights defenders in Mexico. [A Mission of International Observers visited Mexico in November 2015 and will present its conclusions – under the title “In Defense of Life” – to the Mexican Government within the framework of the 30th session of the Human Rights Council.]
Panelists in the event are::
- Rosario Figari Layús – Researcher in the Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence (IKG) at the University of Bielefeld, Germany.
- Carola Hausotter – Coordinador of the German Network for Human Rights in Mexico (Deutschen Menschenrechtskoordination Mexiko)
- Ben Leather – Advocacy, Training and Communications Manager of the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
- Olga Guzmán Vergara – Advocary Director of the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights (CMDPDH)
- Ambassador Jorge Lomónaco Tonda – Permanent Representative of Mexico to the UN in Geneva (TBC)
- Christina Kokkinakis – Head of Human Rights section from the Permanent Delegation of the European Union to the UN in Geneva
Download the flyer: HUMAN RIGHTS IN MEXICO
see previous posts: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/tag/mexico/
Human Rights Defenders are too often forced to play ‘whack-a-mole’
September 22, 2015On 18 June 2015, Rachel Ball, Director of Advocacy at the Human Rights Law Centre in Australia, reflects on a cross-regional consultation of human rights defenders facilitated by ISHR:
There’s a game that you sometimes find at amusement arcades called whack-a-mole. Toy moles rise out of their holes at random and the player uses a large mallet to whack the moles on the head and force them back into their holes. A successful player needs vigilance, composure and a quick eye.
For human rights defenders, the protection of civil society space is a lot like a game of whack-a-mole. Threats arise without warning and valuable time, resources and energy are spent opposing them.
Almost one year ago, the Human Rights Council passed a resolution urging States to ‘create and maintain, in law and in practice, a safe and enabling environment in which civil society can operate free from hindrance and insecurity’. In too many cases the Human Rights Council’s resolution has not translated into domestic action and last week in Geneva ISHR convened a group of expert whackers from around the world to share their experiences of threats to civil society space and strategies to counter those threats.
Participants discussed anti-protest laws, restrictions on the establishment and funding of civil society organisations, constraints on the work of journalists, and national security and counter-terrorism laws that unduly restrict freedom of association and assembly. Each of these restrictive practices constitutes a current threat to civil society space in my country, Australia, and it was both troubling to see the regularity with which these laws and policies arise around the world, and encouraging to be exposed to the skill and dedication of human rights defenders working to defeat them.
We discussed and debated strategies for protecting civil society space, including building and maintaining strong coalitions, engaging with UN human rights mechanisms and other international actors, working with Governments and legislatures, strategic litigation, monitoring and reporting and working with the media and social media. We shared stories of success as well as failure.
What was abundantly clear during the ISHR convening was that human rights defenders should not be spending their time whacking moles. Beyond our work protecting civil society space, we are engaged in issues like persecution on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, militarisation, sustainable development, climate change and refugee rights, to name a few.
The contribution of civil society actors to human rights challenges like these is vital. As the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, told the Human Rights Council at the opening of its 30th session last week, ‘When ordinary people can share ideas to overcome common problems, the result is better, more healthy, more secure and more sustainable States. It is not treachery to identify gaps, and spotlight ugly truths that hold a country back from being more just and more inclusive. When States limit public freedoms and the independent voices of civic activity, they deny themselves the benefits of public engagement, and undermine national security, national prosperity and our collective progress. Civil society – enabled by the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly – is a valuable partner, not a threat.’
In addition to enabling civil society through the proper protection of freedom of expression, assembly and association, States should make public commitments to support civil society and protect civil society space. Those commitments should be backed up by legal and institutional protection against intimidation and reprisals, support for the establishment and operation of non-government organisations and mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability.
Human rights defenders will return home from ISHR’s consultation, training and advocacy program with their mallets at the ready, but really it would better if we didn’t have to use them at all.
You can follow Rachel on Twitter at @RachelHRLC.
Source: Civil society space and whacking moles | ISHR
see also: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/tag/civil-society-organisations/
Alejandro González, corporate accountability human rights defender from Mexico
September 21, 2015A bit belatedly, I refer to the interview (19 June 2015) with Alejandro González in the Newsletter of the ISHR. Alejandro is a human rights specialist who works for PODER, an award winning and multi-faceted civil society organisation based in Mexico that helps build the capacities of communities, workers, NGOs, and other civil society groups affected by corporate malfeasance and accompanies their accountability campaigns.
‘We help communities participate in the consultative process. In the end, it is about what communities want. We are not in favour or against the project. We make sure communities know their rights and are aware of the potential positive and negative impacts of the project.’ Free, prior and informed consent of the local communities is needed to pass development projects in indigenous regions of Mexico. Recent reforms, however, have opened the energy sector to both national and international investment. Mexico is currently in a maelstrom of speculation. ‘This is a dangerous situation. Many powerful companies in Mexico have a poor track record in human rights and we are concerned that local communities will lose their power to defend their land rights. Communities affected by gas speculation can either be obliged to sell their land or be forcibly dispossessed. It is vital that we observe, facilitate and publicise these negotiations.’
PODER, together with rural communities, is currently conducting an ex ante human rights impact assessment on extractive projects in Puebla, Mexico. In other states, such as Hidalgo, Oaxaca, and Sonora, PODER conducts participatory research with communities and accompanies their advocacy efforts. In Oaxaca it is part of an international mission to monitor the Free, Prior and Informed Consent process regarding the construction of wind farms by Australian, Dutch, Japanese and Mexican corporations.
‘The government wants to use this case as a model – to set a precedent for all future negotiations. If it goes poorly, the consequences could be devastating … We have met frequently with the Dutch, European Union and other embassies to amplify the voices of local people. We have also conducted extensive research into the companies and provided this information to the community, to help them make informed decisions.’
Standing up to powerful economic actors is dangerous work. In 2013, Héctor Regalado Jiménez, member of the Popular Assembly of the Juchiteco People, was shot and killed after opposing the wind farms. ‘Another activist we were working with died in a suspicious car accident. We still don’t know what happened, but this is a common modus operandi in Mexico. The killers make it look like an accident. Community leaders are frequently subject to death threats and assaults.‘
Since PODER does not directly advocate on land rights issues, Alejandro is not in as much risk as the human rights defenders it supports, though he and his colleagues face increasing surveillance. He believes that a powerful political and corporate élite pose a major challenge to the work of business and human rights defenders across Mexico. ‘There is a small group of families who control most of the market. It is a secretive group who meet with the president and cabinet members behind closed doors. Together they decide the laws and regulations. That’s how they pushed through the reforms that opened up the energy sector.’
To address this lack of transparency in the government and private sector, PODER is involved in online platform such as “Who’s Who Wiki” (rindeucentas.org) and ‘MéxicoLeaks’ – a whistleblowing tool that allows people to send information of public interest through secure technologies that protect the identity of the source. The information received through MéxicoLeaks is then verified, analyzed and published by the partners of the alliance, made up of civil organizations and media outlets. “The investigations that follow allegations communicated via ‘MéxicoLeaks’ are dangerous. In a two-year period, 10 journalists were murdered and 326 attacked. We have seen an increasing use of cyber attacks – as hackers force outlets offline or bombard them with viruses. Any journalist who exposes government corruption can expect to lose his job.”
Despite these adverse conditions, Alejandro is positive that good business practice is in the best interests of businesses. ‘We make corporations aware that human rights violations are a material risk. For example, if a company pollutes a river, there will be mobilisation and litigation against the company as well as a huge attack on their reputation – all of which costs money. Making corporations aware of the cost of violating human rights puts pressure on them to improve their due diligence.‘
‘In Mexico we would like to see a civil society powerful enough to be on equal footing with both the authorities and the private sector. For this you need information, complete transparency in everything the government does and strong accountability mechanisms. The private sector must prioritise human rights with due diligence, and not merely refrain from doing harm, but actively to do good.’
Alejandro González: Mexican corporate accountability human rights defender | ISHR.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 
