Posts Tagged ‘Advocacy Organizations’

Indonesia’s Febi Yonesta interviewed by HRF

September 24, 2012

Human Rights First is running a series of profiles on human rights defenders we work with in various countries. These profiles help to explain their work, motivations, and challenges. On 19 September 2012 it was the turn of Febi

Photo of Febi Yonesta

How did you become an activist? When I was still a law student, I was active in various student organizations including the ASEAN Law Student Association, Law Student Assembly, Hasanuddin English Debating Society, and Makassar Judicial Monitoring. I found myself more involved in Human Rights Advocacy when I joined The Jakarta Legal Aid Institute (LBH Jakarta) in 2005 through its Legal Aid Workshop. At that time, my mind opened up to the ugly truth of the human rights situation in Indonesia. The poor and the oppressed suffer from unjust policies imposed by the Indonesian government. They are forcibly evicted from their houses without any adequate compensation or even relocation and the poor are left homeless. Companies that enact downsizing policies do not compensate the labor force that remains jobless. Minority groups also suffer continuous discrimination and violence yet, no clear government policies exist to overcome all of these issues. I learned that The Legal Aid Institute has made significant contributions to the human rights and democracy struggle in Indonesia. It is because of this that I’m thrilled and encouraged to follow the legal aid lawyer path in maintaining the human rights struggle.

Do you even see yourself as a human rights defender?

I see myself simply as a lawyer who is very concerned about human right issues and strives to always give my best as a human rights advocate.

How do you perceive the current situation in Indonesia i.e. blasphemy laws, internet freedoms, religious minority groups?

The current situation in Indonesia regarding religious freedom is extremely bad. Religious based intolerance; discrimination and violence have increased into something that is really horrifying and difficult to resolve without any sincere willingness on the part of the government and key figures to take part in resolving it. The biggest problem is, in most incidents, that the government acquiesces in the act of intolerance and discrimination by using the situation to gain a political advantage which only adds more suffering to the religious minorities who are always the victims.

Religious based intolerance and discrimination in Indonesia is legitimized by the anti-blasphemy law no. 1/pnps/1965 where different religious teachings, interpretation, as well as expression are prone to criminalization or violence under the law. Some cases have shown that this law has been abusively applied to those who deemed as heretic or deviant from the mainstream religious perspective.

Information technology such as the Internet, has actually become the easiest way to disseminate ideas but in the same sense has been utilized to spread religious hatred. The information and electronic transaction law is sometimes used to restrict as well as criminalize ideas and religious expression that contradict the mainstream ideology, and is used as another means to pursue religious hatred incited through the Internet.

What do you want to see happen in Indonesia – outcome based?

As long as the anti-blasphemy law and the problematic provision in the Information and Electronic Transaction law still exist, they can be abused and exploited by the intolerant groups to pressure the government to enact laws against religious minorities in a discriminatory manner. We have once filed a petition against the anti-blasphemy law where the Constitutional court saw the law as problematic therefore recommended that the law be revised to avoid exploitation and abuse. However, up until now there has been no sign from the government to revise the law anytime in the near future. Therefore, I am keeping a close eye on the continued struggle for a legal framework that guarantees religious freedom and will continue to advocate for any legislation, including amendments to said laws which lay ground for religious intolerance and discrimination.

What risks do you see are posed on your everyday life, if any?

Working in the human right field is not easy especially in terms of fulfilling the economic needs of my family. With my education and professional background I should ordinarily be able to earn more than enough to fulfill my family needs. Along with working with the religious freedom issue, the risks are quite apparent, especially when I have to stand face to face with the intolerant groups and receive constant assault, harassment, and threats for defending religious freedom. The temptation to leave my human rights work sometimes crosses my mind but my commitment to keep on working in human right area does not waiver because as long as the poor and the oppressed still exist and suffer from human rights violation and religious minorities are still facing severe acts of intolerance and discrimination then I will continue doing what I am doing in hope of a better future for Indonesia.

What is a normal day in the life of…Febionesta?

Although I am based in Jakarta, I reside in Bogor (a suburban city), which is my hometown. I was born and raised there. Thus during the week, I need to get up early in the morning around 6am to leave for work around 7am. It usually takes one and half hours by train to get my office.

I always spend my train ride reading the news, tweeting and checking my emails. However, with my new post as director of LBH Jakarta it has certainly impacted my daily life. I really need to use as much of my spare time to think about management, coordination, and responding to all my emails. Most of the time, I return home around 9pm or even 11pm and I don’t have enough time to play with my kids. I do try to spend any spare time I have left to have quality time with my family. Most of my time now is spent organizing meetings, talking to communities, discussing cases, maintaining advocacy networks, talking to the media, and so on. I also try to relax by playing musical instruments and writing songs (where some of them are written about people’s suffering and human rights issues).

Announcement of nominees MEA 2012 streamed on internet: 24 April

April 21, 2012

The announcement of the three nominees of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders 2012 will take place on Tuesday 24 April 2012, from 11h00 to 11h30 in Geneva (that is 09h00 – 09h30 GMT). For the first time this short event is being ‘broadcast’ live on the internet (www.martinennalsaward.org). There will be brief film images shown of the 3 nominees. The event also includes the announcement of the new Chairperson of  the Martin Ennals Foundation.

Launch of the Women Human Rights Defenders Global Report on 29 February

February 21, 2012

The Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition (WHRD IC) is a resource and advocacy network for the protection and support of women human rights defenders.

The Global Report gives a contextual analysis of the environment in which WHRDs work and the violations they face because of their gender. The Global Report wants to rectify the neglect of gender-specific  documentation by drawing on individual and collective analysis of WHRD IC members during the life of the Coalition, which began in 2005. The analysis is informed by five key phenomena – fundamentalisms; militarization and situations of conflict; globalization; crises of democracy or governance; and heteronormativity. The Global Report uses 43 cases studies that illuminate specific trends and experiences of WHRDs. The case studies also surface connections between context, identities of WHRDs and violations experienced. The use of the cases examples provide a vivid glimpse of the landscape in which WHRDs live and work.

The Global Report is primarily an advocacy and capacity building tool, both important measures for WHRDs’ protection and the prevention of further abuses. The Global Report is a contribution to the ongoing documentation of the situation of WHRDs that will enable informed advocacy from the local to regional and international level.

The report – and a short abstract of the report in English, French and Spanish – will soon be available to download from the website: http://www.defendingwomen-defendingrights.org/, hard copies are available by email request to whrd@apwld.org.

Technology firms and Human Rights Defenders, not the same thing

December 14, 2011

In a recent blog (10 December 2011) published by the Huffington Post, the executive director of Witness, Yvette Alberdingk-Thijm, labels technology companies as the “New Human Rights Players” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yvette-alberdingk-thijm/human-rights-social-media_b_1140717.html). That seems a bit too much honor for companies that produce devices and services that are at best ‘neutral’ in the same way that telephones – or for that matter knives –  could be used for any purpose, good or bad. It would be more appropriate to say that human rights activists and their organisations happen to be mostly working in the area of communication and information and therefore they profit disproportionately from a wider  and cheaper access to information technologies. The film industry has been around for more than a century but served mostly governments and big business as the technology was expensive and difficult to transport; it is only recently that film images can be recorded and distributed easily and cheaply. And indeed organisations such as the 20-year Witness have played a remarkable role in strengthening the capacity of HRDs to make use of these new possibilities.

In fairness, in her article the Witness director does also refer to the darker side of the technology industry but limits herself to say that “there are many examples of governments misusing technology and social media to track down activists and repress freedom of expression“. When she states that “technology providers can also play a critical role in creating products and services that can better serve citizen activists and human rights defenders” and that “whether they realize it or not, technology companies are important new players in protecting human rights — they hold the key to determining the fate of the tens of millions of people turning to video, technology and social media for change“, this has to taken with a strong dose of salt. Not only are there hundreds of technology firms in the world (not just the western world, but  including countries such as China, Russia, Iran, India, Singapore) that dot not care about human rights and that are developing information technology  for war, repression, or simply commercial purposes.  If there are some technology firms that have a warm heart for human rights, wouldn’t it be better to simply mention them by name? Clearer for the reader and a deserved reward for the companies concerned.

Another aspect of the revolutionary development in information technology  that deserves attention is that of worldwide overload. In the same way that there is nowadays so much written information on human rights available that most people can hardly find their way and that much (good) material remains unused, there is a big risk that the hundreds of thousands of videos on You Tube will remain unseen or at least undervalued. Increasing the audience is perhaps more important than  increasing the data on offer.

Still, the article offers lots of interesting insights and says what Witness is planning to do about some of the drawbacks and you should certainly read it in full.

All said, it remains true that with access to modern information technology, Human Rights Defenders – not the necessarily the companies –  have the advantage of playing a home match.