Posts Tagged ‘Civil society’

« Older posts
Newer posts »

MEA laureate Kasha urges UK Home Office not to deport Ugandan lesbian

December 12, 2014

Under the title “FAMED UGANDAN ACTIVIST URGES UK HOME OFFICE NOT TO DEPORT LESBIAN” Melanie Nathan reports in her post of 11 December 2014 on O-blog-dee-o-blog-da that Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera, the MEA laureate of 2011 has intervened strongly with the UK not to force Judith Twikiriz back to Uganda. “The UK has been very supportive of the Uganda Gay rights movement and it will be an embarrassment that your office doesn’t live up to its expectations in protecting those that need the protection most from persecution” Kasha writes in her letter. She would be sent back to the country where she already experienced torture and where she now faces likely persecution. The letter contains detailed arguments against deportation.

2011 Laureate Kasha

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COPY OF THE LETTER to be found in the original post:

 

 

 

via Famed Ugandan Activist Urges UK Home Office Not to Deport Lesbian | O-blog-dee-o-blog-da.

Posted in awards, human rights, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Human rights and Business Forum in Geneva – a report

December 5, 2014

The 3rd UN Forum on Business and Human Rights took place in Geneva from 1-3 December. Here is the personal and very readable report from one participant, Sudeep Chakravarti, who regularly publishes on business and human rights in India.

“A decade ago a global forum such as the United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights was inconceivable. Now it is already in its third edition. It is apt that the third United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights took place over 1-3 December in Geneva, marking the 30th anniversary of the gas leak disaster in Bhopal. On the face of it such a gathering may appear to be a grand eyewash: little more than a self-important global talkfest for bureaucrats, businesses—and their sharp handmaidens in law and public relations. Perhaps a budget-justifying annual ball for the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which flowed from a toothless exercise, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, that was formally adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011. After all, the UN’s Protect, Respect and Remedy framework that backed such guiding principles is little more than finger-wagging. The principles mention the “States’ existing obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights and fundamental freedoms”; the role of business enterprises “as specialized organs of society performing specialized functions, required to comply with all applicable laws and to respect human rights”; and the need for rights and obligations “to be matched to appropriate and effective remedies when breached”. It’s a re-stating of the dazzlingly obvious in the mellow tones of UN bureaucratese: there cannot be human rights in business unless businesses behave, and governments ensure they behave.

That is certainly true in the Indian context. Here complicity of business and government to ignore or dilute the rights of project-affected communities, among other malpractices, is a continuing scandal that foments unrest and has implications for internal security. Even so, the UN forum makes eminent sense. The absence of power to prosecute cannot always be equated with irrelevance. A decade ago a global forum such as this was inconceivable. Now it is already in its third edition. It’s recognition, as with the adoption of UN’s guiding principles by that global body that such issues matter, will increasingly matter. Moreover, each such gathering brings together a clutch of important people, important statements, and release of research data and trends, a reaffirmation of the religion of business and human rights; one in which ethics increasingly signal hassle-free earnings, as opposed to the time-honoured and piratical, but increasingly litiginous, endeavour of earnings over ethics. The UN forum is today a sort of Davos to discuss and disseminate matters of human rights and business, a place to be seen, yes, but more importantly, also to be heard. A virtual wagonload of useful documents in the areas of human rights, community rights, child rights, labour laws and liability, among others, were made available at the forum (accessible at ohchr.org/hrc and business-humanrights.org )—several of which I shall discuss in future. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the Danish Institute for Human Rights released a useful tool to track use of child labour, Children’s Rights in Impact Assessments. UNICEF separately shared guidelines on engaging stakeholders in the area of children’s rights. The UN Environment Programme’s Finance Initiative launched the Human Rights Guidance Tool for the Financial Sector, a useful companion to the initiative of the Thun Group of banks, a multinational endeavour of some of the biggest names in investment banking to reduce liability on account of customers’ iffy human rights practices.

Activist-documentation was also unveiled, such as one by the UK-based Peace Brigades International on behalf of what it termed “human rights defenders working on land and environmental issues”. It is titled Recommendations for States and Multilateral Bodies—a response to alleged lending and oversight malpractices by multilateral agencies. For my money, the highlight was the keynote statement at the forum on 2 December by Nestlé SA’s chief executive Paul Bulcke. For the past year beset by accusations of labour wrongdoing directly or by associates in some of Nestlé’s globalized farming and procurement operations, Bulcke’s reiteration of human rights was surely as introspective as it is welcome. “It is in the actions, on the ground, where respect for human rights is visible,” he stated. “In the countries where companies operate, where they have their people working for them, where they source their raw materials and link up with societies; where they produce, where they sell their products and services. That’s where human rights are visible and lived.” If ideas of responsibility, accountability, legal and financial liability, and the danger of diminishing of corporate image remain explicitly and implicitly on the agenda of such a gathering; which aids dissemination of human rights in the spheres of business, governance, activism and judicial redress; and tunes law, it is surely work in progress. And if it is work in progress, it works.”

Read more at: http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/hHo4qgjWnNPS8qHNxvFgtO/Rootcause.html?utm_source=copy

 

Human rights: a forum in Geneva – Livemint.

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, UN | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

TASS reports without blushing on Putin’s support for human rights defenders

December 5, 2014

Vladimir Putin

(Vladimir Putin (c) Mikhail Metsel)

Russia‘s TASS agency reports on 5 December that today President Vladimir Putin will meet in the Kremlin members of the Russian Presidential Council for Civil Society Development and Human Rights (HRC) and federal and regional ombudsmen. “The meeting participants are planned to tell the head of state about their work in the current year, as well as touch upon most important issues of human rights observance and development of the civil society institutions in regions,” the press service said.

Putin regularly meets with human rights defenders, the piece continues and refers to one held on 14 October with members of the Human Rights Council. The main issues on the agenda were assistance to Ukrainian refugees, support of non-profit organizations, transparency of elections, problems of the law enforcement system and others.

The article continues (without blushing): “Speaking of supporting the civil society institutions, including human rights defenders, Putin promised that the state spending on this in 2015 would be increased to 4.7 billion rubles ($86.47 million), while in 2013 this figure stood at 2.7 billion rubles ($49.67 million).” The president thanked the Russian human rights activists for the attention they pay to numerous facts of violation of human rights in the neighbouring country — Ukraine. “Many international human rights organizations hypocritically turn a blind eye to the developments,” he said.

Many of the proposals voiced by the human rights activists turn into presidential instructions. Thus, on the October meeting results the president has already given a number of instructions on organizing assistance to children affected by the armed conflict in the south-east of Ukraine, on perpetuation of the memory of the victims of political repression, on migration problems, on improving law enforcement activity and a number of others.

TASS: Russia – Putin to discuss with ombudsmen human rights observance issues.

some items that were apparently not discussed: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/tag/foreign-agent/

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

NGOs concerned about alarming proliferation of surveillance technologies to repressive countries – the Wassenaar Arrangement

December 2, 2014

On 1 December 2014 a group of 7 NGOs (Amnesty International, Digitale Gesellschaft, International Federation for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, Open Technology Institute (at New America), Privacy International, Reporters sans frontieres) sent an Open Letter to the “Wassenaar Arrangement” (for what this is see link at the end). The key issue is that the alarming proliferation of surveillance technologies available to repressive countries adversely affects political activists, human rights defenders, refugees, dissidents and journalists.

Here is the text of the letter:

“We, the undersigned organisations, call upon the 41 Governments that compose the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies, to take action and address the alarming proliferation of surveillance technologies available to repressive countries involved in committing systematic human rights violations. This trade results in unlawful surveillance, which often leads to further human rights violations including invasions of privacy, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the silencing of free expression, preventing political participation, and crushing offline and online dissent.

Surveillance technologies are not simply harmless tools. In the wrong hands they are often used as a tool of repression. Evidence is continuing to reveal the extent of this secretive trade that puts countless individuals at direct risk from human rights abusing governments. More and more stories emerge showing these damaging and often unlawful technologies affecting political activists, human rights defenders, refugees, dissidents and journalists, with some technologies placing entire populations under surveillance. Governments with internationally condemned human rights records such as Bahrain, Ethiopia, Egypt, Turkmenistan, Libya, Syria and Iran have all purchased surveillance technologies from private companies, and have used them to facilitate a variety of human rights violations. Some revelations in France, Germany, the UK, and the US have led to police and judicial investigations following calls from NGOs and members of the Coalition Against Unlawful Surveillance Exports. Remarkably and despite mounting evidence of associated abuses, surveillance technology companies still openly market their products at ‘trade fairs’ across the UK, France, US, Brazil and the UAE among other countries.

Although steps were taken in 2013 to address this largely unregulated global market, governments cannot let the momentum halt. Governments have now included additional technologies associated with intrusion software and IP monitoring to the Lists of Dual Use Goods and Technologies and Munitions, and are aware of the impact surveillance technologies can have on human rights. There is now a pressing need to modernise out of date export controls. In addition, technologies such as undersea fibre-optic cable taps, monitoring centres, and mass voice / speaker recognition technologies urgently need to be examined for their impact on human rights and internal repression, particularly when the end user is a government known for committing human rights violations. Technologies evolve at a rapid pace and governments that abuse human rights take advantage of weak regulation, the product of poor understanding of the technologies and their capabilities.

In the current system, human rights and digital rights groups, as well as external independent experts, are excluded from contributing their expertise and knowledge to the Wassenaar Arrangement forum. The additional expertise and knowledge that civil society can bring to the debate is invaluable to this end. Discussions should not continue in a closed-forum manner and we urge governments to engage with civil society organisations to help ensure that accurate and effective controls are developed which reflect modern technological developments and do not impede legitimate scientific and security research.

Any export policy relating to surveillance technologies should place human rights at its heart. Governments must exercise a strict policy of restraint and should refuse to grant export licenses for surveillance technology destined for end-users in countries where they are likely to be used in an unlawful manner i.e. not compliant with human rights legal standards. Governments should consider the weakness or absence of an appropriate legal framework in the recipient country to ensure the transfer would not pose a substantial risk of the items being used to violate or abuse human rights. Governments should also be transparent in what they export, and to whom and support the development of an international legal framework to address the sale and trade of surveillance technologies.”

An Open Letter to the Members of the Wassenaar Arrangement | Human Rights Watch.

The Wassenaar Arrangement (41 participating States) has been established in order to contribute to regional and international security and stability, by promoting transparency and greater responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies, thus preventing destabilising accumulations. Participating States seek, through their national policies, to ensure that transfers of these items do not contribute to the development or enhancement of military capabilities which undermine these goals, and are not diverted to support such capabilities.

from: http://www.wassenaar.org/introduction/index.html

Posted in AI, FIDH, HRW, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, RSF | 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Special Rapporteur in Burundi: respect the work of Human Rights Defenders like Mbonimpa!

November 25, 2014

(Independent Expert on Human Rights Michel Forst. Photo: Jean-Marc Ferré)

On 25 November 2014 the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Michel Forst, expressed regret today that defenders in Burundi are deemed to be political opponents, saying that in reality they are activists working to promote and protect human rights and civil liberties. In a press release issued by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michel Forst, emphasized that threats and defamation campaigns by certain media outlets weigh on human rights defenders, who also report a high number of cases of physical threats, anonymous phone calls, assaults, arbitrary arrest and judicial harassment.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, MEA, UN | 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Malaysia and the EU: NGOs ask for more forthright action

November 25, 2014

An “Advocacy Note” published in November 2014 by FIDH and SUARAM addresses the whole specter of human rights in Malaysia and how the EU should respond. Here are the parts that specifically concern human rights defenders:

FIDH and SUARAM draw the EU’s attention towards the following human rights challenges and call on Brussels to work with Malaysian civil society on the proposed solutions.

1. Publicly challenging Malaysia’s records on human rights

2. Addressing the impacts business activities on human rights

3. Using Treaties’ negotiations to obtain genuine human rights commitments

4. Supporting civil society activities

FIDH and SUARAM believe that the EU has overall been supportive of the work of human rights NGOs in Malaysia. The EU Delegation and Member States’ missions regularly meet with civil society and human rights activists, bilaterally or through the EU’s Human Rights Working Group, to discuss issues such as women’s rights, the elimination of racial discrimination, and freedom of expression. The EU Delegation maintains regular exchanges with NGOs, sends observers to trials against human rights defenders, and promotes the content of the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders.

In recent years, the EU has provided financial support to NGOs working in the field of women’s and children’s rights, non-discrimination, freedom of the media, and indigenous people. With the current reduction of staff in the EU Delegation [7], civil society will now have to turn to Global Calls for Proposals to find support for its activities rather than seeking financial support directly at Delegation level through Country Based Support Schemes (CBSS). FIDH and SUARAM fear that such a change may have consequences on the effectiveness and sustainability of civil society activities. Many NGOs may not have the capacity to respond to the Calls for Proposals or to absorb the important amount of finance offered in calls designed for large- rather than middle-sized projects. It is therefore important for the EU to find alternative ways to support civil society beyond small emergency grants, for example in the form of funds at the regional level or sub-grants to local NGOs.

The EU must also step up its political support to civil society. The EU must push for the amendment of the 1966 Societies Act, which offers no judicial remedy to an association whose registration has been suspended or refused by the authorities. The EU must ensure that FTA provides for a genuine enabling environment for civil society.

Failure to do so would create a democratic gap in terms of monitoring of the agreement. The negotiation process should be an opportunity to hold tripartite discussions between the EU, Malaysian authorities, and civil society. The EU should offer technical advice to Malaysian authorities to reform the Societies Act and ensure the new version complies with international standards.

The fact that Malaysian authorities continue to criminalise peaceful assembly after the Court of Appeals declared a section of the Peaceful Assembly Act as unconstitutional is proof of the political will to repress peaceful assembly. This issue should be addressed by the EU at the highest levels of the political dialogue. The EU should also address the issue of recent calls made by Malaysian government officials to adopt legislation similar to the Indian Foreign Agents Registration Act, which would provide a legal basis for monitoring of foreign funds to civil society organisations.

Recommendations

FIDH and SUARAM call on the EU and its Members States to (inter alia):

• Demand the immediate release of individuals convicted for political reasons, notably under the Sedition Act.

• Establish a human rights roadmap in cooperation with Malaysian authorities and civil society, in order to achieve tangible results before the FTA are agreed.

• Ensure that human rights are included in the negotiations and the structure of the future Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Malaysia. 

• Place the support for civil society, human rights defenders, local communities, and indigenous peoples at the centre of their interactions with Malaysia. EU and its Members States must:
— Urge the Malaysian authorities to ensure that all citizens’ human rights, including the rights to freedom of expression and assembly are respected;
— Press Malaysian authorities to amend the Societies Act to bring it in line with international standards, and provide technical support to that effect;
— Press for effective and immediate investigation into serious cases of human rights violations, and the formation of an Independent Police Complaint and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) to investigate allegations of torture and deaths in police custody;
— Demand that Malaysian authorities set a date for the country visit of the UN Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on Freedom of Assembly and Association and extend an invitation to the UNSR on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the UNSR on Freedom of Religion;
— Organize a civil society seminar before the EU-Malaysia human rights and political dialogues;
— Include civil society in sectoral discussions and in the negotiation process of the FTA;
— Propose alternatives to make up for the end of Country Based Support Schemes in order to ensure financial support to the work of human rights NGO.

• Encourage Malaysian authorities and companies to adopt binding regulations and a business investment framework to prevent human rights violations by economic operators and ensure accountability in the case abuses take place. Regulations must be in line with international human rights standards, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

• Prepare a strategy on business and human rights that ensures that current and future investments by EU-based companies do not negatively affect human rights in Malaysia. This strategy, to be designed with Malaysian authorities, companies, and civil society, should aim at setting up binding regulatory measures corresponding in line with international standards.

• Work with Malaysian authorities to ensure that their development plans do not negatively affect human rights.

Advocacy Note: A committed but too shy EU support to human ….

Posted in FIDH, human rights, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Amnesty’s Moscow office decries “foreign agents law” together with 148 other NGOs

November 24, 2014

Sergei Nikitin, Amnesty International’s Moscow Office Director, posted a clear and inspiring blog on 21 November about the “foreign agent” label with which the Russian Government is trying to discredit legitimate work by human rights defenders.  [see also: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/tag/foreign-agents/]. In spite of the harassment the writer keeps up hope that justice will ultimately prevail:

“……Two years ago, the law adopted by the State Duma entered into force. It is universally known as the “Foreign Agents” law, despite the fact that it is actually an amendment to an old law “on non-commercial organisations”. The updated law with all its novelties wasn’t put into use at first, but in February 2013 the Russian Prosecutor’s Office began mass inspections of NGOs across the country. These inspections were followed by court hearings. The wide-scale campaign to smear NGOs began.

However, despite the authorities’ demands, human rights activists refused to call themselves foreign agents voluntarily. When all the Russian NGOs united in solidarity and declared, once for all, that they are not “agents”, it prompted widespread admiration.

Russian authorities had to rush to modify the fateful law. Following these amendments, “foreign agents” are now being unilaterally registered, without any judicial review. The leading human rights organizations are on this list too. Registration now consists of a penstroke by the Ministry of Justice. Just this week, two more organizations were put on the register and stigmatized by the “foreign agent” label.

Russian NGOs still reject the insulting stigma – none of the forcibly registered organizations is going to lie to themselves and to society. They are not “agents”. These people, representing various NGOs in different cities around our country are working for the good of our fellow citizens by helping those whose rights have been violated by the Russian authorities.

The past two years of pressure and denigration of civil society activists, the wave of state propaganda and streams of lies and insults have made the lives of human rights defenders, environmentalists and activists very difficult. Their struggle is widely known amongst their NGO colleagues in other countries, evident through numerous solidarity actions that have been conducted abroad in support of Russian civil society over the past two years.

Up to the present day, on the second anniversary of the shameful “Foreign Agents” law, almost 150 NGOs – national and international – have signed a letter to President Putin calling for him to overturn the disgraceful legislation.

Along with my colleagues from Amnesty International, and in the presence of journalists, this week I delivered this letter to the Presidential Administration. Our colleagues from 32 countries that have signed the letter are now waiting for Russian authorities to react.

We brought the letter with six pages of signatures and a 90cm x 150cm poster reprinting the words of the letter. To our great surprise, both were accepted, although the large poster caused some fuss among Presidential Administration employees.

One might say: “Oh, everything is meaningless.” It is nothing like that. More than 50 years of Amnesty International activism in every region of the world suggests the opposite.

There were darker days in the history of our country. We experienced numerous campaigns of lies and slander against individual citizens, groups of citizens and nations. Mudslingers have been always singing from the same song sheet as the authorities.

However, the inexorable course of history teaches us that truth is always restored and justice prevails. It may take years, and sometimes requires a lot of strength.

But we all know that those defamed and stigmatized with the “foreign agent” label are very brave and courageous people. And ultimately, this dark page of history will be remembered with disgust.

A version of this blog originally appeared (in Russian) on Ekho Moskvy’s website.

Open letter to Putin – 148 NGOs slam ‘foreign agents’ law | Amnestys global human rights blog.

Posted in AI, Amnesty international, human rights, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NGO recommendations on torture for the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy

November 24, 2014

Five international NGOs with strong credentials in the area of the fight against torture have written to the EU with sensible recommendations to be incorporated into the next Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy. The main recommendations submitted on 19 November 2014 are:   Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in AI, Amnesty international, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, OMCT | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Azerbaijan replies to critical NGO comments

November 21, 2014

Last week I published a post https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/time-for-azerbaijan-to-quit-the-council-of-europe/. Now a strong reply has come from the government’s side (through lkhan Suleymanov, Chairman of Azerbaijani Delegation to the Euronest PA) which tries to counter the criticism by focusing mostly on the position taken by the European Stability Initiative, strangely ignoring all the other sources which said similar things. On 21 November, /PRNewswire/ summarized the statement as follows (the last two paragraphs invoking the occupation of Azerbaijani territories would seem to weaken the case): Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in human rights | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Group of Governments and Agencies formulate policies on LGBTI issues and human rights defenders

November 21, 2014

On the Occasion of the Annual Conference to Advance the Human Rights of and Promote Inclusive Development for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Persons held in Washington from 12-14 November 2014, the governments of Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uruguay, as well as the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, the European Union, UNAIDS – the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS, and the United Nations Development Programme, adopted a communiqué, which is relevant to human rights defenders in particular through the following paragraphs:

Introduction

…..

We further recognize the work of civil society organizations and human rights defenders from whom we have heard over the last three days. We commend their tremendous dedication and resolve to bring about a world free from violence and discrimination. We are gravely concerned by the serious challenges, difficult circumstances, and in some instances violent attacks that human rights defenders and organizations face as they work to achieve this important goal. We are inspired by their commitment, and recognize their rich diversity and unique views from different regions and across different cultures and traditions.

Together we affirm the following:

….

6. We dedicate ourselves to exploring ways to strengthen our international assistance and diplomacy efforts to promote and protect the human rights of LGBTI persons, through cooperating with additional governments and identifying new sources of funding and engagement, including from the private sector;

7. We will strive to ensure flexible and timely support, especially to meet the needs of the most vulnerable persons worldwide, including LGBTI persons;

8. We intend to guide our assistance and diplomacy efforts on the basis of need and when possible on the basis of needs assessments. We also recall the importance of co-ownership of assistance and diplomatic efforts with host governments as we work to advance the human rights of LGBTI persons;

9. We underline that governments, funders, civil society organizations and other implementing organizations should ensure involvement of local LGBTI communities and their allies in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of human rights and development cooperation efforts as appropriate;

…….

12. To further strengthen cooperation, coordination and communication of assistance and diplomatic efforts, we plan to continue to meet annually to discuss implementation of this communiqué and other relevant issues. The next meeting is expected to be organized by the Netherlands in early 2016.

For further information, please contact Chanan Weissman at WeissmanC[at]state.gov.

for full text: Joint Government and Multilateral Agency Communique From Conference to Advance the Human Rights of and Promote Inclusive Development for LGBTI Persons.

Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Older posts
Newer posts »