There was much optimism about developments in Myanmar/Burma after the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, and the government’s announcement of a process of democratization. But reports from the Asian Human Rights Commission, Front Line Defenders and other NGOs give ground for pessimism. In the words of the AHRC (on 24 September): “If the government of Myanmar is as serious as it says that it is about political reform, about the release of political prisoners, and about other measures to put its authoritarian legacy behind it, then it needs to begin by bringing to a halt the wanton prosecution of human rights defenders l…It needs to repeal [repressive] laws and above all, it needs to do much more to alter systematically the practices and mentalities of administrators, police officers and other officials accustomed to shutting down any public activity not directly under their control or given their approval. Democratic life is about people acting and talking according to ideas that government officials sometimes will not like. If on every occasion they see or hear something they do not like the authorities in Myanmar respond to it with prosecution, then democratic life in the country will remain a figment.” According to the protesters’ lawyer, Mr Robert San Aung, a total of 57 activists have now been imprisoned under the Peaceful Assembly Law. According to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners and 130 activists have been brought to court under this legislation, 18 of whom remain in prison. Read the rest of this entry »
Archive for the 'organisations' Category
Human rights defenders in Russia should be proud to be ‘Foreign Agents’
November 22, 2013
This blog has on several occasions made mention of the dangerous developments in Russia where the ‘foreign agents’ law is being used to delegitimize human rights defenders. Front Line just came with an update showing that the legal aspect of this issue (is the law legally permissible under the Russian Constitution or the European Convention Human Rights?) is coming under scrutiny. On 18 November 2013, the Zamoskvoretsky District Court in Moscow heard the cases of 3 NGOs – Human Rights Centre ‘Memorial’, GOLOS, and the Public Verdict Foundation – which challenge the ‘Foreign Agents’ law. Following the presentation of their arguments, the court accepted their request to postpone the hearings until 4 February 2014. Significant, as it was taken in order to await for the rulings of the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) or the Russian Constitutional Court, whichever comes first:
- On 6 February 2013, eleven Russian NGOs lodged a complaint with the ECtHR alleging that the ‘Foreign Agents’ law violates four articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, namely Article 10 (Freedom of Expression), Article 11 (Freedom of Association and Assembly), Article 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and Article 18 (Limitations on Rights).
- On 13 August 2013, Kostroma Centre for Civic Initiatives Support lodged a complaint with the Russian Constitutional Court arguing that the ‘Foreign Agent’ law violates five articles of the Russian Constitution, namely Article 19 (Equality before the law), Article 29 (Freedom of ideas and speech), Article 30 (Right of Association), Article 32 (Right to participate in managing state affairs), and Article 51 (right not to give incriminating evidence against oneself).
- On 30 August 2013, the Russian Human Rights Ombudsman, Vladimir Lukin, also lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court against certain provisions of the ‘Foreign Agents’ law. In particular, the Ombudsman argued that the definition of terms ‘foreign agent’ and ‘political activities’, as provided by the law, are politically and legally incorrect.
Still, one wonders whether the battle should not be fought also in the public domain as the ‘foreign agent campaign’ by the authorities is clearly not about financial control (there is enough of that already to satisfy any suspicious prosecutor) or political control (in which case registration as simple lobbyist would suffice) but about ‘framing’ the human rights defenders as traitors, unpatriotic people. The requirement to identify oneself as foreign agent on every paper or poster is a clear indication of what the Government wants to achieve. This kind of action by governments (not just Russia) is a deliberate (mis)information effort that should be fought in the same arena of public perception. Admittedly far from easy and costly but there are things that COULD be done, I think:
- bumper stickers and T-shirts with “I am a foreign agent” (in Russian of course, but supporters abroad could have it in English)
- well-known Russian celebrities could make statements such as: “IF …is a foreign agent ,in that case I am also one!”
- production of video clips that poke fun at the idea, etc
As a concrete example: on 21 November 2013, a year after the law came into effect, Amnesty International Norway, LLH (the Norwegian LGBT Organisation) and the Norwegian Helsinki Committee called themselves for one day foreign agents in solidarity with Russian organisations who struggle to keep their work going (see also in Norwegian: http://www.amnesty.no/agent). Of course, people on the ground know best what will work, but I think some form of ‘counter-defamation’ should be tried. It would benefit Russia and could de-motivate the authorities in other countries watching what happens in Russia.
Related articles
- Civil proceedings against ‘Memorial’ under Russia’s Foreign Agents Law continue (thoolen.wordpress.com)
- We are Foreign Agents! (invisibilityproject.wordpress.com)
Memorandum for the African Union-European Union Dialogue on Human Rights
November 20, 2013
New laws are being introduced in Kenya to restrict Human Rights Defenders
November 19, 2013The Information and Communications Amendment Bill of 2013 was passed in Kenya by parliament on October 31, 2013, but has not yet been signed by the president. Another problematic draft law, the Media Council Bill, is due to
be debated in parliament in the coming weeks. Moreover, on October 30 the attorney general also proposed controversial new provisions regulating the work of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), including a proposed cap at 15 percent of foreign funding. “These new laws are an attempt to undermine freedoms of expression and association in Kenya,” said Daniel Bekele, Africa director of Human Rights Watch on 12 November. “Kenya’s leaders should act swiftly to prevent these bills from becoming law and focus on the country’s real challenges, like police reform and accountability.”
The new idea of restricting (foreign) funding follows similar efforts by an increasing number of other countries, signaling a dangerous trend:
On October 30, the office of the attorney published in the official gazette – the mandatory first step before a bill is introduced to parliament – the Miscellaneous Amendment Bill of 2013. This bill includes provisions that would grant broad discretionary powers to a new government body to regulate nonprofit organizations and would limit access to foreign funding for these groups. The amendment would empower a new government body, the Public Benefits Organizations Authority, to “impose terms and conditions for the grant of certificates of registration, permits of operation, and public benefit organization status.” The chairperson would be appointed by the president, increasing executive powers over nongovernmental groups. Critics of the law fear that the wide powers vested in the executive branch could be used to restrict nongovernmental organizations or even penalize organizations that fall out of favor with the Kenyan authorities.
The amendment would also introduce new limits on funding for nongovernmental organizations. It states that “a public benefit organization shall not receive more than 15 percent of its total funding from external donors,” unless otherwise approved by the minister for finance. Funding to nonprofits would be channeled through a new Public Benefits Organizations Federation rather than directly from donors – which could create new operational difficulties for nongovernmental organizations and delays in their projects.
“This new law requiring nongovernmental organizations to raise 85 percent of their funding locally may well have the effect of weakening independent voices,” Bekele said. “As we have seen elsewhere in the region, including in Ethiopia, these laws are an assault on basic freedoms and Kenya’s citizens and leadership should soundly reject them.”
Kenya: New Laws Would Undermine Basic Rights | Human Rights Watch.
Related articles
- India should end funding restraints on Human Rights Defenders, Says HRW (thoolen.wordpress.com)
The fight against impunity for international crimes in Africa: No ‘Free Pass’ for leaders say Human Rights Defenders
November 18, 2013Today, 18 November, a group of 14 Africa-based NGOs came out with a strong statement supporting the ICC which has its annual meeting coming up 20-28 November in the Hague: “African governments should reject special exemptions for sitting officials before the International Criminal Court (ICC)“, African organizations and international organizations with a presence in Africa said in a document released today. The ICC faces important challenges in Africa. In October the African Union said that the trials of Kenya’s president and vice president, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto, should be suspended
Smear campaign by Sri Lankan State radio station against HRD Nimalka Fernando
November 17, 2013
Trial Observation lawyer denied entry into Bahrain for trial of Naji Fateel starting tomorrow
November 17, 2013While the appeal of human right defender Naji Fateel in Bahrain is due to start tomorrow, 18 November, a group of five human rights NGOs regrets the lack of cooperation by Bahraini authorities to allow access to the country for a trial observation mission. The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Front Line Defenders, the Gulf Center for Human Rights, and the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (a joint programme of the International Federation for Human Rights – and the World Organisation Against Torture), had mandated – with support from IFEX – a lawyer to observe the trial, but their request remains unanswered.
[Naji Fateel, co-founder of the Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights and a blogger, was sentenced on September 29, 2013 to 15 years in prison for “the establishment of a group for the purpose of disabling the constitution” under Article 6 of the Terrorism Act.]
Civil proceedings against ‘Memorial’ under Russia’s Foreign Agents Law continue
November 17, 2013On 11 November the Prosecutor’s Office brought a civil lawsuit against Memorial before the Leninsky District Court of St Petersburg after administrative charges against the same organisation ‘ for failing to register as a ‘foreign agent‘ were dismissed by the same court. The Prosecutor’s Office initiated the civil suit on the basis that its failure to register as a ‘foreign agent’ would violate the interests ‘of an undefined group of persons’. Frontline Defenders follows this and other cases in which the ‘foreign agent’ harassment of NGOs in Russia continues. The details of the case are illuminating, including the involvement of a preposterous ‘expert“: Read the rest of this entry »
The double face of technology for Human Rights Defenders
November 13, 2013
Technology is becoming increasingly important in documenting and preventing human rights abuses. But emerging technologies can also pose a threat to human rights defenders. Two pieces on AI’s blog demonstrate that:
On 11 November Tanya O’Carroll, Technology & Human Rights Project Officer, and Danna Ingleton, Individuals & Communities at Risk Research & Policy Advisor, blogged under the title: “An Invisible Threat: How Technology Can Hurt Human Rights Defenders“while Sami Goswami used the headline: “How Technology Is Helping Us Better Protect Human Rights”.
The piece focusing on the negative aspects says inter alia Read the rest of this entry »
Amnesty criticizes Vietnam with regard to HRDs, especially those using the internet
November 11, 2013Authoritarian Vietnam has stepped up an alarming crackdown on domestic dissent even as it seeks a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, Amnesty International says on 7 November. Vietnam is using a raft of draconian legislation to clamp down on a growing number of citizens who seek to question the party’s stranglehold on power. “Vietnam is fast turning into one of Southeast Asias largest prisons for human rights defenders and other activists” said Amnesty researcher Rupert Abbott to AFP.
Read the rest of this entry »
