Posts Tagged ‘Freedom of speech’

Russian “homosexual propaganda” law risks to target human rights defenders

February 7, 2013

A draft law to criminalise “homosexual propaganda”, currently being considered by the Russian parliament, flagrantly violates international human rights laws and standards, says the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR). The ISHR is particularly concerned that the law will be used to target, intimidate or harass human rights defenders and those who speak out on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people. “States have an obligation not only to respect and protect human rights, but also to respect and protect those who stand up and speak out for human rights. Russia’s draft law is manifestly incompatible with this obligation,” said Ms Collister of the ISHR.ISHR-logo-colour-high

ISHR’s statement comes as three United Nations Independent human rights experts have also called on Russian parliament to scrap the draft Bill. In a joint statement issued by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur on the right to health, the experts state, “The draft legislation could further contribute to the already difficult environment in which these defenders operate, stigmatizing their work and making them the target of acts of intimidation and violence, as has recently happened in Moscow.”

For further comment, contact Heather Collister, International Service for Human Rights, on + 41 79 920 3805 or h.collister@ishr.ch.

 

Human rights defender in Thailand severely punished for using freedom of expression

January 24, 2013

This press release by the Asian Human Rights Commission gives ample detail on the (ab)use of ‘lesé’ majesté‘ articles in the Thai system. It explains that even being associated with someone who offends the King is enough to trigger prosecution and incur extremely heavy penalties.

THAILAND: Verdict in case of human rights defender is a serious threat to freedom of expression — Asian Human Rights Commission.

 

Exemplary piece on how complex human rights mechanisms relate to a country situation: in this case Malaysia

May 10, 2012

Under the somewhat narrow title: “Allow UN Special Rapporteur to probe Bersih 3.0” Ms Khoo Ying Hooi, a staff member at University Malaya, published on 10 May 2012 an excellent piece bringing together the variety of existing UN human rights mechanisms and Malaysia’ s reluctance to really embrace them. She compares the political commitments made by her country when seeking a seat on the Human Rights Council with the willingness of the Government to receive UN Rapporteurs and to implement the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). It is a rather long and detailed piece but worth reading in full. It was published in http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/197526.

Some of the most relevant parts to whet your appetite:

The Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank William La Rue, wanted to investigate the Bersih 3.0 rally that took place on April 28. The Malaysian Foreign Affairs Minister, Anifah Aman, is quoted as saying: “We are a sovereign nation.…….. I do not see the necessity for any outside organisation to determine whether we are free or fair.”

Ms Khoo Ying Hooi then recalls that in declaring its intention for its candidature for the HRC, the Malaysian government circulated a memorandum dated March 9, 2010, outlining its human rights record and its pledges and voluntary commitments, including “deepening and widening our cooperation with and support for the work of various UN actors and mechanisms involved in the promotion and protection of human rights such as the … Special Procedures of the HRC”. However, she continues, the way Anifah Aman described the Special Rapporteur and the HRC, as the “outsider” and the “outside organisation” is detrimental to the country.

It doesn’t reflect the commitment that the government has promised to the HRC and it is obviously just another diplomatic exercise.

The author then gives a clear explanation of the general system of the Special Procedures and summarizes with relevant detail the disappointing results of the 1998 visit to Malaysia by the (former) Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Abid Hussain.

She also describes the Malaysian Government’s commitment at the international level through the UPR mechanism and contrasts them with the reluctance to receive Special Rapporteurs. She ends with the strong but polite conclusion that:
”Despite the obligation on government to protect and promote the human rights, Malaysia continues to brush these concerns aside. It is indeed contradictory for Anifah Aman to come up with such a response on the offer made by La Rue.

The Foreign Affairs Minister should have been more sensitive and aware of the promises made by the government in the international level particularly in view of the next UPR review in 2013.”

Let us see whether next year the UN and NGOs can make good use of the ammunition here provided.