Posts Tagged ‘politics’

8 March 2025 International Women’s Day

March 10, 2025

One in four countries report backlash on women’s rights in 2024

Women’s and girls’ rights are facing unprecedented growing threats worldwide, from higher levels of discrimination to weaker legal protections, and less funding for programmes and institutions that support and protect women.

UN Women’s latest report “Women’s Rights in Review 30 Years After Beijing”, published ahead of the UN 50th International Women’s Day on 8 March, shows that in 2024 nearly a quarter of governments worldwide reported a backlash on women’s rights. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/international-womens-day/]

Despite important progress, only 87 countries have ever been led by a woman, and a woman or girl is killed every 10 minutes by a partner or member of her own family.  Digital technology and artificial intelligence spread harmful stereotypes, while the digital gender gap limits women’s opportunities.

In the past decade, the world registered a disturbing 50 percent increase in the number of women and girls living in conflict, and women’s rights defenders confront daily harassment, personal attacks and even death. Recent global crises—like COVID-19, the climate emergency, soaring food and fuel prices—are only increasing the urgency to respond.  

“UN Women is committed to ensuring that ALL Women and Girls, everywhere, can fully enjoy their rights and freedoms,” affirmed UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous. “Complex challenges stand in the way of gender equality and women’s empowerment, but we remain steadfast, pushing forward with ambition and resolve. Women and girls are demanding change—and they deserve nothing less.”…

Today’s report also features the new Beijing+30 Action Agenda, a courageous roadmap to complete our unfinished business by focusing on:

  1. A digital revolution for all women and girls: We must ensure equal access to technology, equip women and girls to lead in AI and digital innovation, and guarantee their online safety and privacy.
  2. Freedom from poverty: Investments in comprehensive social protection, universal health coverage, education, and robust care services are needed for women and girls to thrive and can create millions of green and decent jobs.
  3. Zero violence: Countries must adopt and implement legislation to end violence against women and girls, in all its forms, with well-resourced plans that include support for community-based organizations on the front lines of response and prevention.
  4. Full and equal decision-making power: Temporary special measures like gender quotas have proven their effectiveness in rapidly increasing women’s participation.
  5. Peace and security: Fully finance national plans on women, peace and security and gender-responsive humanitarian aid are essential. Frontline women’s organizations, so often the first responders to crisis, must receive dedicated, sustained funding to build lasting peace.
  6. Climate justice: We must prioritize women’s and girls’ rights in climate adaptation, center their leadership and knowledge, and ensure they benefit from new green jobs.

Across these six Actions, putting young women and girls at the heart of our efforts is the best way to guarantee success, both today and tomorrow. These six plus one actions have the potential to unleash progress on women’s rights and put us back on track for 2030.

The Beijing+30 commemoration and the forthcoming UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69) are clear opportunities to enshrine this Action Agenda into national policies, regional strategies, and global agreements.

In a pivotal year for women and girls, that is also a year of pushback and crises like no other, let us push women’s rights forward to create a world where all women and girls enjoy equal rights and equal opportunities. We can be the first generation that can live in an equal world.

Ahead of International Women’s Day, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, Agnès Callamard, said:

“The significance of International Women’s Day 2025 cannot be overstated. It is no longer a case of addressing unfinished business on the gender justice front, but one of bracing ourselves to resist active regression and a mounting assault on our rights.

“Thirty years ago, 189 governments came together at the Fourth World Conference on Women to adopt the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, a groundbreaking blueprint for strengthening women’s rights endorsed by thousands of activists. Despite significant progress since then, the world has failed to fully deliver on all the promises. From rape and femicide to coercion, control and assaults on our reproductive rights, violence against women and girls still threatens their safety, happiness and very existence in a multitude of ways.

“And crucially, we are now going backwards. The aggressive patriarchal crusade led by President Trump and other powerful leaders against the rights and bodily autonomy of women and gender-diverse people has already had devasting consequences not just in the United States but all over the world. By dismantling domestic efforts to tackle gender-based, racial and other forms of discrimination, erasing recognition of transgender identity, and ending international funding for abortion counselling or referrals, the US administration is shamefully erasing years of hard-fought gains.

“Let us be clear, this trend has deeper roots than President Trump’s recent election. For several years now, brazen anti-rights movements have conspired to turn back the clock to an age when patriarchal oppression was the norm. We cannot afford to be complacent in the face of this gathering storm, for women, girls and LGBTQI+ people are under attack the world over.

“Amnesty International calls on states and non-state actors who believe in universal values and a rule-based international order to resist this accelerated and well-resourced attack against women’s rights. We call on them to strengthen protections of women, girls, LGBTQI+ people and other marginalized groups against gender-based violence. We urge them to recognize and support the vital work of all women human rights defenders and all those on the frontlines of the fight for sexual and reproductive rights, and to implement concrete measures to protect and empower them.

“We appeal to all to respect sexual and reproductive rights and prevent rollbacks, including by revoking any laws that criminalize or punish people for exercising these rights, as well as fully decriminalizing, providing and funding universal access to abortion.

“Finally, this International Women’s Day, Amnesty International reiterates its call on states to recognize gender apartheid under international law as a crime against humanity. Doing so would fill a major gap in the global legal framework and help to combat institutionalized and systematic domination and oppression on the basis of gender, no matter where it occurs.

“Despite suffering setbacks and facing countless attempts to block, divide and undermine us throughout history, feminist, LGBTI+ and grassroots movements keep marching forward. We may be walking a rocky path, but we will never stop fighting for a world where women, girls and gender-diverse people are free to enjoy the full range of human rights without discrimination or fear of reprisal.”

On 7 March 2025 SaferWorld carried a post “Still standing: The resilience of women peacebuilders in a time of crisis”Still standing: The resilience of women peacebuilders in a time of crisis

As we mark International Women’s Day 2025, women’s rights organisations (WROs) and frontline activists in crisis and conflict settings are standing strong despite immense challenges. ..Yet, while their work is more critical than ever, the harsh reality is that many are being forced to operate with dwindling resources, due to global funding cuts and shifting donor priorities towards militarisation, over a genuine investment in long-term peace, security and gender justice. 

At a time when conflict, displacement and violence against women are escalating, and misogyny is a core pillar of the far-right agenda, these cuts will only deepen existing inequalities and undermine efforts to build sustainable peace and security globally. The reduction in funding for gender equality and Women, Peace and Security (WPS) initiatives threatens to reverse decades of progress and compounds the global rollback on women’s equality, safety and security. For example, cuts to the UK official development assistance (ODA) budget in 2021 led to a 30 per cent reduction in funding to programming with a focus on gender equality and to a 66% reduction in funding to WROs compared to 2017. WROs and women-led organisations – many of which are small community groups – often struggle to access direct, flexible and long-term funding, despite being the first responders in humanitarian crises and leading conflict prevention and peace efforts. When funding disappears, so do vital services, safe spaces for survivors of gender-based violence and conflict-related sexual violence, safe spaces for women peacebuilders to re-mobilise, legal aid for women and girls who have been displaced, and advocacy that ensures women’s voices are central in peace processes.  But despite these constraints, WROs and women peacebuilders are still standing. Their resilience is evident in their ability to adapt, mobilise local resources and continue working in the most difficult circumstances. But resilience alone is not enough – they need meaningful and sustained support. 

As the world commemorates International Women’s Day and gathers at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) to discuss gender equality and sustainable development, we reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that women and girls play a central role in peacebuilding and conflict prevention efforts around the world.  

The international community, donors, funders and philanthropists will need to act urgently to ensure that WROs are not just surviving but thriving. This means:  

  1. Increasing direct, flexible and long-term funding and shifting power to local women-led organisations, women activists and women’s groups – we have seen the value in our work of providing sustained core funding to WROs, moving beyond short-term, project-based grants to ensure continuity of their critical efforts in conflict prevention, peacebuilding and humanitarian response. To make this shift meaningful, international organisations and donors should prioritise direct and flexible funding to frontline WROs rather than channelling resources through large intermediaries. This will ensure that funding reaches those who are best placed to drive lasting change within their communities. 
  2. Ensuring women’s leadership in conflict prevention, peace and humanitarian processes – women from all backgrounds and marginalised communities must have a seat at decision-making tables, not just as implementers but as equal partners in shaping policies and solutions that affect their lives. 
  3. Standing up for gender equality and women’s rights – urgently pushing back against reversals in women’s rights and gender equality, especially in fragile and conflict-affected contexts, where regressive policies and shrinking civic space are eroding hard-won gains. Women peacebuilders, human rights defenders and frontline activists are already standing up to these challenges, demanding that women’s voices remain central. Their leadership must be protected, amplified and meaningfully supported to sustain progress and counteract the global rollback on gender equality. 
  4. Protecting and supporting women human rights defenders and peacebuilding organisations – governments and international actors must recognise and safeguard the work of women human rights defenders and peacebuilding organisations in conflict zones, ensuring they can operate without fear of reprisals. 
  5. Strengthening accountability mechanisms – governments and multilateral bodies must hold themselves accountable to their commitments to the WPS agenda and support localisation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on WPS. 

Women’s rights organisations are the backbone of peace and resilience in crisis and conflict settings. This International Women’s Day, we celebrate their unwavering commitment – but celebration is not enough. The global community must act with urgency to fund, support and protect these organisations so they can continue to drive meaningful change. 

https://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/press-release/2025/03/one-in-four-countries-report-backlash-on-womens-rights-in-2024

Read UN Women’s full report

https://www.saferworld-global.org/resources/news-and-analysis/post/1071-still-standing-the-resilience-of-women-peacebuilders-in-a-time-of-crisis

https://www.odisharay.com/pages/single_page.php?id=47565

https://www.omct.org/en/resources/blog/mujer-defensora-derechos-humanos-regimen-de-excepcion-el-salvador

https://www.ohchr.org/en/get-involved/stories/women-activists-fighting-safe-digital-space

First assessment of Human Rights under the Trump Administration by HRW

March 5, 2025

Amy Braunschweiger speaks with Human Rights Watch’s US Program Director Tanya Greene, who leads research within the United States, as well as Washington Director Sarah Yager, who advocates with the US government on global issues, about the slew of executive orders President Trump has issued, the damage to human rights his administration’s policies have already done, and where we go from here.The text – reproduced in full below, was published on 3 March 2025.

See also: https://youtu.be/N_hCOCVuJsA?si=t2lUEb3Fw8XWH7Vo where UN human rights chief Volker Türk has voiced deep concerns for hostilities happening across the globe, including a “fundamental shift in direction” of the US. He expressed concern over a peace deal in the Russia-Ukraine war that did not involve Kyiv.

President Trump has been governing by executive orders. Could you give us some quick background on executive orders and what they do?

TG: An executive order is a presidential directive regarding federal government operations and policies. Their reach and power can be extraordinary, including because they often impact federally funded non-governmental entities, like universities and housing providers. Executive orders should be based on existing law, and are often operationalized through agency action, such as the departments of labor, homeland security, or education.

Many of Trump’s executive orders are facing court challenges arguing that they are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. For example, his executive order denying citizenship to children of undocumented people born in the United States has been stayed by the courts pending a legal challenge. It is widely seen as a clear violation of the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

Although the implementation of executive orders is not always automatic, widespread responses have been preemptive, anticipatory, and fearful, which is likely what Trump intended in this blitz of actions.

SY: These executive orders show how split the United States is. In 2016, Trump’s executive orders reversed former President Barack Obama’s. Then Joe Biden reversed Trump’s orders. And today, Trump reverses Biden’s. But this isn’t typical. It shows the divisive nature of US politics.

It’s also not typical that so many of these current orders are harmful to human rights.

Many of Trump’s executive orders harm human rights, both in the United States and around the world. Meanwhile, billionaire Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency,” or DOGE, is laying off masses of federal employees at various agencies. What are we most concerned about inside the US?

TG:  Whatever its supposed intentions, DOGE is slashing and burning to the point that a growing number of federal agencies are crippled by lack of resources, staff, and competent leadership. DOGE is also taking down websites and data that we rely on, both as human rights defenders and as the general public seeks information. For instance, hospitals across the country can no longer obtain important public health data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Human Rights Watch is investigating the treatment of immigrant children, racial justice impacts, environmental concerns, healthcare access, rights of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender people, and reproductive freedoms. You have a president that says diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) is “dangerous, demeaning and immoral” but offers no ways to fight racial injustice, and yet one of his executive orders allows for resettling certain supposedly-persecuted white South Africans in the US, just after an earlier order closed the refugee admissions door on all other refugees worldwide.

Immigration enforcement raids and other enforcement activities in the last month have targeted all immigrant communities, disproportionately those of color. Enforcement has targeted immigrants regardless of how long they have been in the United States and without considering their contributions to their communities, as well as people in the process of an immigration proceeding, where a judge decides if they can stay in the US.  As a result, there are communities in which many people are terrified and some avoid going to church or the hospital, and many children don’t go to school.

There is also an order now in place defunding reproductive justice and abortion access both in the US and around the world.

The stock value of GEO Group, a company the US government has long contracted with to run private immigration detention facilities, went up immediately after Trump’s election, presumably in anticipation of ramped-up immigration detention in private facilities. Human Rights Watch has long called for investment in community-based public safety solutions rather than more prisons.

What are we worried about in terms of US foreign policy?

SY: The foreign aid freeze and termination of thousands of State Department grants is a key focus for us right now, though of course there are new concerns that rise up every day. The aid being stopped has had awful consequences around the world. People will die needlessly because of this one policy decision.

There is also an impact on civil and political rights abroad. Russian independent media outlets, which have been doing an amazing job exposing the Kremlin’s repression and debunking the official propaganda, received significant US-funding. Terminating aid will severely undercut that work. The same thing with Belarusian independent media.

Many human rights defenders targeted by their governments lived in US-funded safe houses, which are now closed.

Small human rights groups, some the only ones in their country, are on the verge of closing. We’re going to see the ripple effects and deaths in populations unable to stand up for their freedoms without this funding and the political support the United States gave.

Aside from the aid freeze, Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth fired the military’s top lawyers. Military lawyers are supposed to ensure US military operations abide by international law, the laws of war.  This could mean far more harm to civilians, who are supposed to be protected, when the US military is in an armed conflict. In fact, Trump also just lifted limits on US commanders authorizing airstrikes and special operations raids outside of war zones, which rolls back 20 years of work to ensure only combatants are targeted and only in recognized armed conflicts.

These kinds of actions will have long-term ramifications on how people around the world view the United States.

When there’s so much happening in a short period of time, how does Human Rights Watch approach its work?

TG: We remember our priorities and how we can make a difference. There’s a lot of noise and distraction so we have to be thoughtful about putting limited resources into efforts that have impact. Our research on immigration raids or deportation flights might be used in partner litigation; our interviews with witnesses to abuses help support policymakers advocating in support of human rights.

As an organization with colleagues who deal with repressive states and authoritarian regimes globally, those of us working in the US are informed of effective strategies and lessons learned as we encounter them here. And we can share this information with partners on the ground and policymakers, too.

SY: We were not caught off guard by this. We were able to plan. I do think the speed, the apparent vindictiveness, and the level of chaos of Trump’s first month in office shocked many people. But we planned for this. We had a strategy that we are now implementing. We are going to engage with every policymaker that we can. We know for a fact many on both sides of the aisle don’t agree with what is happening. We are going to document the Trump administration’s impact on human rights around the world, and we’re going to try and block or end those policies. We are working together with our partners, some of whom focus on strategic litigation – litigation designed to advance respect for and protection of rights.

How is Human Rights Watch responding to this? What is our work inside the US focusing on?

TG: All the areas of work I mentioned are under attack by the new administration.

The immigration space is fraught with misinformation that stokes fears and prejudices, but we counter that with fact-finding and with the stories of the real people who are harmed by dehumanizing rhetoric and policies.  We will build on our track record of careful research on problematic immigration policies from previous administrations, including the first Trump administration, exposing harmful policies such as inhuman and degrading immigration detention and the separation of migrant children from their parents. We are continuing this work, documenting what’s happening to people and using it to advocate for change.

We’ve seen US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deporting Iranian families with children to Panama with an agreement that the US will pay for Panama to deport them to Iran. A country cannot lawfully send Iranian asylum seekers to Panama without hearing their claims and just be done with it – sending them back to a country to face persecution violates international refugee law. The administration is also preparing to deport unaccompanied immigrant children – not just cruel and terrifyingly dangerous, but a human rights violation.

In the democracy space, some US voters seem ready to trade freedoms away for supposed gains that are ultimately long-term losses, like increased surveillance, that will embolden and enable bad actors in government.

In the racial equality space, we’ve been working on education, and that is a battle zone. We are doing research to expose state-level policies that censor and distort school curricula in ways that are inconsistent with human rights norms—measures that target the histories and experiences of Black, Indigenous and LGBT people in particular. If those efforts succeed they will be exported to other states.

How is our work responding to changes in the foreign policy space?

SY: The Trump executive order putting in place a sanctions program targeting the International Criminal Court has already done damage. We are working to convince the Senate not to legislate more sanctions, and to make sure other governments step up to defend the court from US pressure.

We continue to focus on some of the conflicts where we think the Trump administration could play a valuable role. When it comes to Sudan, where the US government itself said a genocide took place, the US could pressure allies like the United Arab Emirates to stop supplying weapons to the Rapid Support Forces, one of the abusive warring parties there.

President Trump says he wants to be a peacemaker. There are ways he could do that, but so far we are seeing very worrying foreign policy proposals. For example, Ukraine’s future is being discussed by the United States and Russia without Ukraine, and in Gaza, Trump has proposed permanently and forcibly displacing the Palestinian population, which would amount to crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

Some people would say there is no way to engage with this administration on human rights.

SY: Engaging is certainly more challenging. But we don’t want to just walk away from our advocacy with US officials. Then you give up the power of the human rights movement, and any opportunity to change the minds of policymakers. There are still people in this administration who care about human rights. They may talk about it differently, they may be focused on particular places or issues. We’ll start there and make our case for the US role in lessening suffering and protecting rights around the world, not only because it’s good but because it’s smart and it’s in the US interest.

And there’s Congress, which needs to step up as a check on the power of the White House. We will continue to work with House representatives and Senators on both sides of the aisle.

TG:  The fear that the administration is cultivating among the public is dangerous, and information is so critical in response. That’s why we respond with research, arming people with facts. We know there are members of congress and state leadership like governors that support human rights. They are also empowered by our work.

What can people in the US do in this situation?

SY: If we want to see rights on the agenda, we need to see people in the United States reaching out to their representatives in Congress. They were elected to bring to Washington the needs and desires of their people.

Also, if you see a person acting with courage in these difficult times, thank them. We’re going so fast, and we push and yell and scream, and then when a policymaker, a celebrity, or the head of a local food bank steps out and does the right thing, we move on. Stop for a minute and recognize the people doing the right thing. Make the space for them to keep doing that important work of holding the line.

TG: Also, you too can be that person. Share the information. Have the conversations with your friends and family, provide what you know, encourage exchange of real information. It’s about building community. One of the strongest weapons we have is our unity, and we can each do something to build that.

Religious communities and school groups and community centers, there are many places we can plug in to make a difference. Support your local homeless shelter or food pantry. Sponsor or reach out to refugees and immigrants living in your localities. I think the big risk is feeling powerless and unplugging. I know the temptation is great. We each don’t have to do everything. But if we all do something, that’s more than nothing. And don’t be afraid to hear “no” or lose on your first try. No is the first step to yes.

And remember that there have been people in this country who have been targeted for abuse and destruction by the government their entire time in this country. Us as Black people, Indigenous people. And we’ve not only survived but thrived, and there are lessons to be learned from those struggles. And for the rest of the US population, we are a nation of mostly immigrants who came here to escape ills like human rights abuses or poverty. So gain strength from that.

We’re doing this work for the next generation as well as the present. Not only are we trying to protect rights for them, we are also modeling what to do when you have problems and face difficulties.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/03/03/interview-snapshot-rights-under-trump-administration

Spread of ‘foreign agent’ laws in Eastern Europe

February 27, 2025

Natika Kantaria is a human rights advocate with nearly a decade of experience planning and implementing advocacy campaigns in human rights. She has worked with international organizations and watchdog NGOs and collaborated with the public and private sectors. For the ISHR she wrote a piece on 26 February 2025 about a worrying trend: ‘Foreign agent’ laws have been introduced in various countries, violating international human rights law and threatening to silence human rights defenders. This pattern is particularly evident in Eastern Europe, where NGOs courageously resist and need the support of the international community. See e.g. my earlier posts:

Societies thrive when everyone can work, speak out, and organise freely and safely to ensure justice and equality for all. Legislation requiring NGOs to register as ‘foreign agents’ is a barrier to this virtuous cycle. Despite the European Court of Human Rights’ 2022 ruling that Russia’s 2012 foreign agent law violated freedom of expression and association, the governments of HungaryGeorgiaSlovakiaSerbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina have proceeded undeterred to introduce similar laws. 

These laws specifically target NGOs and not-for-profits that receive foreign funds and require them to register as foreign agents, organisations serving the interests of a foreign power, or agents of foreign influence. By doing so, they restrict the capacity of  human rights defenders to organise, participate and exercise their right to defend rights by:

  • imposing disproportionately high fines and heavy sanctions to NGOs refusing to comply, which may ultimately lead to the termination of their operations 
  • using vague wording, that ultimately gives too much room and power for government interpretation. For instance, the requirement for NGOs to register in official records or identify themselves as ‘agents of foreign influence’ lacks clarity and specificity.  
  • increasing the burden of NGOs by introducing heavy reporting and auditing requirements. The State’s alleged need for transparency as their primary purpose can, therefore, be effectively addressed through existing legislation regulating NGOs.
  • employing a negative narrative that stigmatises and delegitimises the work of the civil society organisations and human rights defenders. This rhetoric promotes hostility and distrust toward civil society and encourages attacks against defenders.

Furthermore, such laws contradict the commitments of these countries under international human rights law. Article 13 of the 1998 UN Declaration on human rights defenders recognises the right of defenders to solicit, receive and utilise resources.

Article 10 of the Declaration +25, a supplement to the UN Declaration put forward in 2024 by civil society, human rights defenders and legal experts, addresses States’ attempts to prohibit foreign contributions or impose unjustified national security limitations. It stipulates that States should not hinder financial resources for human rights defenders and outlines measures to prevent retaliation based on the source of their funding. These laws violate rights related to freedom of expression, association, and privacy, as outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Foreign agent laws also run counter to commitments made by countries at the regional level as members of the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), including recommendation CM/Rec(2018)11, which emphasizes the protection and promotion of civil society space and OSCE guidelines for protecting human rights defenders. 

NGOs are increasingly becoming a primary target for repressive governments. According to the CIVICUS Monitor 2024 report, the countries mentioned above that have introduced ‘foreign agent’ laws have either ‘closed’ or ‘obstructed’ civil society space. In addition, the Trump administration’s rhetoric and its decision to freeze foreign aid have contributed to strengthening hostile narratives already present in ‘foreign agent laws’ in Eastern Europe and have emboldened governments in their efforts to publicly undermine these organisations.  

While the silencing of NGOs has become part of the agenda for many governments, and the rise of ‘foreign agent’ laws serves as a step towards establishing authoritarian regimes, civil society actors continue to mobilise in response. Strengthening engagement with international human rights mechanisms, fostering joint global advocacy, and providing support to targeted organisations and groups are essential steps that international NGOs and the international community should take to build resistance, reinforce coalition efforts, and protect the work of human rights defenders.

International and regional human rights mechanisms have called for governments to either repeal these laws, or not to adopt them in their current forms. On 7 February 2025, three UN independent experts issued a statement in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the government reintroduced the ‘Law on the Special Registry and Publicity of the Work of Non-Profit Organisations’ after its initial withdrawal in May 2024. The statement stressed that creating a register of non-profit organisations receiving foreign funding in one of the entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina will impose severe restrictions on NGOs and would grant government control over their operation, including the introduction of an annual inspection, with further reviews of legality of CSOs receiving foreign funding possible upon requests from citizens or relevant authorities.

In this unsupportive environment, donors have a fundamental role to play. ‘As civil society actors devise strategies to push back against these repressive tactics, private philanthropy and bilateral and multilateral donors have vital support roles to play,’ writes James Savage, who leads the Fund for Global Human Rights’ (FGHR) programme on the Enabling Environment for Human Rights Defenders. ‘They can help civil society prepare for future challenges, so that it is organised not only to respond to evolving forms of repression but also to get ahead of them by tackling their root causes,’ Savage concludes.

https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/spread-of-foreign-agent-laws-in-eastern-europe-pose-increasing-threats-to-civil-society

Taner Kılıç, last of human rights defenders in notorious ‘Büyükada Trials, acquitted in Turkey

February 26, 2025

Taner Kılıç, a human rights activist and the final defendant in the so-called “Büyükada Trials,” was acquitted on Tuesday, marking the end of a case widely seen as a stain on Turkey’s human rights record, Turkish media reported. 

On July 5, 2017, 10 human rights advocates were detained during a workshop that was taking place in a hotel on Istanbul’s Büyükada, one of the Princes’ Islands. Among those detained were İdil Eser, then-director of Amnesty International Turkey; İlknur Üstün of the Women’s Coalition; Özlem Dalkıran, a member of the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly; and several others. Two weeks after their detention eight were jailed after a court appearance, while the other two were released pending trial. 

While the group was still in detention, pro-government news outlets published reports accusing them of being foreign agents and that the workshop in Büyükada was a “spying activity.”  However, an indictment prepared by the prosecutor three months later accused the group of “membership in a terrorist organization” and “aiding and abetting a terrorist organization.” They were linked to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Gülen movement. 

Taner Kılıç, Amnesty Turkey’s honorary chair, who wasn’t among those who were initially detained but had been imprisoned on June 6, 2017 for alleged involvement in the 2016 coup attempt, was added to the indictment and his case was merged with the Büyükada trials.

In 2020 he was sentenced to more than six years in prison for links to the Gülen movement. 

That same year, Günal Kurşun from the Human Rights Agenda Association, along with İdil Eser and Özlem Dalkıran, were sentenced to two years in prison. Nalan Erkem from the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly, İlknur Üstün, Iranian-Swedish writer Ali Gharavi, German human rights activist Peter Steudtner, Veli Acu from the Human Rights Agenda Association, Nejat Taştan from the Association for Monitoring Equal Rights and Şeyhmus Özbekli from the Rights Initiative were acquitted.

On October 17, 2022 the Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the sentences, and in the retrial, Eser, Kurşun, Dalkıran and Kılıç were acquitted. However, the prosecutor objected to Kılıç’s acquittal and requested a review of the decision. As a result, the case was sent back to the appeals court. Ultimately, the final ruling favored Kılıç, with his acquittal upheld. [https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2020/07/03/will-long-running-saga-of-trial-against-the-istanbul-10-end-on-friday-3-july/]

The Büyükada trials were harshly criticized by international human rights organizations such as Freedom House and Amnesty International. 

Following the initial convictions, Freedom House said it was “an assault on human rights.” 

“The conviction of Taner Kılıç, Günal Kurşun, İdil Eser, and Özlem Dalkıran in this politically motivated case lays bare the Turkish authorities’ ongoing assault on human rights and the justice system’s abdication of its responsibility to protect them,” said Marc Behrendt, director for Europe and Eurasia programs at Freedom House. “We call on the Turkish courts to reaffirm the rule of law and to fulfill their obligation to uphold fundamental rights and freedoms in Turkey.”

Amnesty International called the trials “an ordeal” and said it was a “baseless trial” that “represents a shocking example of the authorities’ attempt to criminalize the defense of human rights with implications for everyone in Turkey.” 
This injustice has become a stark symbol of the massive crackdown on human rights and on those who defend them,” said Amnesty International.

However Amnesty warns: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/02/turkiye-acquittal-of-taner-kilic-after-eight-year-ordeal-comes-amid-new-wave-of-repression-of-rights-defenders/

Global Civic Space Fellowships by Amnesty

February 26, 2025

Amnesty International invites applications for an 18-month part-time fellowship to explore the global phenomenon of shrinking civic space and document grassroots resistance strategies from marginalized and overlooked voices. Fellows will analyze current trends in civic space restrictions, investigate emerging resistance and human rights movements, and convene activists to co-create a practical toolkit for defending civic space worldwide. The fellowship aims to ensure that Amnesty’s work remains innovative, grounded in lived experience, and contributes to new knowledge on resistance strategies.

Deadline for all applications: 06/03/2024

Rate: Fixed Rate of USD 25,000 for the duration of the fellowship

Location: This fellowship does not include relocation. The consultant must work from their preferred location and possess the necessary work authorization.

OBJECTIVES AND DELIVERABLES

The Fellowship project aims to:

  • Support human rights defenders, academics, and practitioners with lived experience to document and analyze grassroots resistance strategies against authoritarianism and civic space restrictions in their regions.
  • Use this research to develop concrete recommendations and practical tools that can inform Amnesty’s global civic space advocacy.
  • Produce regular short written outputs, including blog posts and opinion pieces, to be independently published.
  • Convene activists and thought leaders in the region through virtual, in-person, or hybrid meetings to share ideas, incubate new strategies, and foster collective learning.
  • Deliver a final in-depth think-piece for Amnesty International’s internal strategy and advocacy, with external publication at Amnesty’s discretion.

ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS

  • Fluency in written and spoken English; fluency in a relevant regional language is desirable.
  • Demonstrated experience working on civic space resistance—either formally (academia, NGOs, journalism, law, policy) or through grassroots activism.
  • Strong writing and research skills, with experience producing publications related to civic space and human rights activism.
  • No formal academic qualifications or certifications are required to apply.

To apply, please submit:

  1. A short bio (maximum one page) outlining your recent experience.
  2. Relevant case studies or descriptions of past work on civic space issues.
  3. Your proposed approach to this fellowship opportunity, including how you would structure your research and engagement.
  4. Applications must be in PDF, Word, PowerPoint or Excel format.

https://careers.amnesty.org/jobs/vacancy/global-civic-space-fellow–4033/4061/description/

Side event 7 March 2025 on Protection of defenders against technology-facilitated rights violations

February 25, 2025
  • Location: Physical
  • Date: 07 March 2025
  • Time: 1:00PM – 2:00PM CET
  • Address: Room XXV, Palais des Nations
  • Event language(s) English
  • RSVP Needed: no

New and emerging technologies have become a fundamental tool for human rights defenders to conduct their activities, boost solidarity among movements and reach different audiences. Unfortunately, these positive aspects have been overshadowed by negative impacts on the enjoyment of human rights, including increased threats and risks for human rights defenders. While we see the increased negative impacts of new technologies, we do not see that governments are addressing these impacts comprehensively.

Furthermore, States and their law enforcement agencies (often through the help of non-State actors, including business enterprises) often take down or censor the information shared by defenders on social media and other platforms. In other cases, we have seen that businesses are also complicit in attacks and violations against human right defenders.

Conversely, lack of access to the internet and the digital gaps in many countries and regions, or affecting specific groups, limits the potential of digital technologies for activism and movement building, as well as access to information. 

The Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted in 1998, does not consider these challenges, which have largely arisen with the rapid evolution of technology. In this context, and, as part of activities to mark the 25th anniversary of the UN Declaration on human rights defenders, a coalition of NGOs launched a consultative initiative to identify the key issues faced by human rights defenders that are insufficiently addressed by the UN Declaration, including on the area of digital and new technologies. These issues are also reflected in the open letter to States on the draft resolution on human rights defenders that will be considered during HRC58. 

This side event will be an opportunity to continue discussing the reality and the challenges that human rights defenders face in the context of new and emerging technologies. It will also be an opportunity to hear directly from those who, on a daily basis, work with defenders in the field of digital rights while highlighting their specific protection needs. Finally, the event will also help remind States about the range of obligations in this field that can contribute to inform the consultations on the HRC58 resolution on human rights defenders. 

Panelists:

  • Opening remarks: Permanent Mission of Norway
  • Speakers:
    • Carla Vitoria – Association for Progressive Communications 
    • Human rights defender from Kenya regarding the Safaricom case (via video message)
    • Woman human rights defender from Colombia regarding use of new technologies during peaceful protests
    • Human rights defender from Myanmar regarding online incitement to violence against Rohingya people
  • Video montage of civil society priorities for the human rights defender resolution at HRC58
  • Moderator: Ulises Quero, Programme Manager, Land, Environment and Business & Human Rights (ISHR)

This event is co-sponsored by Access Now, Asian Forum for Human Rights & Development (FORUM-ASIA), Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa HRD Project), Huridocs, Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR), International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA World), International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), Peace Brigades International, Privacy International, Protection International,  Regional Coalition of WHRDs in Southwest Asia and North Africa (WHRD MENA Coalition). 

for the report, see: https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/human-rights-defenders-and-new-emerging-forms-of-technology-a-blessing-or-a-curse/

https://ishr.ch/events/protection-of-defenders-against-new-and-emerging-forms-of-technology-facilitated-rights-violations

Launch of the Free Expression Legal Network to support free expression and free media

February 25, 2025

The Free Expression Legal Network, a new initiative dedicated to strengthening legal protections for free expression and media freedom, was launched at Webber Wentzel’s Sandton office on 18 February 2025, with more than 50 People in attendance. Developed by the SA National Editors’ Forum (Sanef), the Press Council, the Campaign for Free Expression (CFE), and other organisations and legal experts, the network aims to ensure that individuals and organisations facing legal threats can access the support they need.

Among those that this new initiative aims to support are journalists, smaller media outlets, community-based organisations and businesses that lack access to corporate or external legal representation. It aims to ensure co-ordination with several other international efforts of this kind to provide a stronger framework for defending free expression,

The network will focus on several key areas to strengthen legal protections for free expression and media freedom. Media freedom is critical – ensuring that individuals and media organisations can report and impart information freely and hold power to account without fear of legal repercussions. Additionally, the network will support media viability by providing legal guidance to help media outlets navigate financial and operational challenges, ensuring their long-term sustainability. Another critical area is policy advocacy, where the network will assist with legal challenges related to media regulation and press freedom policies, helping to create a more supportive legal environment for journalism. Lastly, the initiative will prioritise small and community media, offering essential legal resources to newsrooms and organisations that often lack adequate legal support, ensuring they have the protection needed to operate effectively.

But this initiative comes at a time of new and sinister threats to freedom of expression more generally. Unchecked and unprecedented powers to platform and platform certain voices and sources of information present pronounces threats to freedom of expression globally. It is intended that this network, enabling resources and expertise, is able to respond innovatively, nimbly and effectively in meeting these dangers.

The keynote address was delivered by Navi Pillay, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Judge of the International Criminal Court, and President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Drawing from her extensive experience in international human rights law, she provided invaluable insight into the legal challenges surrounding free expression and the role of judicial systems in upholding these rights. Emphasising the power of collective action, she stated, “If you clap with a single hand, nobody yells for you. But if a lot of people form a network clap, they will be heard. So, I can only see success for an initiative like this, I encourage them to go for it here. 

Anton Harber, Campaign for Free Expression Director, emphasised the importance of the new body in defending free speech, stating, “This new body will be a vital tool in preventing attacks on free speech and free media, bringing together a range of resources to respond quickly and strongly. It will help ensure that anyone whose free speech is threatened will be properly defended. It will also be proactive – pushing for change to laws that don’t defend free speech or the right to information. In the face of growing threats to free speech, we are building a strong defence“.

Echoing this urgency, Nicole Fritz, Executive Director of Campaign for Free Expression, highlighted the global nature of these challenges, adding, “I think that the threats to free expression are especially intense at this time, not only in our country but in the world generally. It is especially important that those who have their rights to expression violated and threatened are offered expert support and legal assistance in order to counter those threats”.

Dario Milo, a partner at Webber Wentzel and a leading expert in media law, emphasised the importance of this initiative, stating: “The Free Expression Legal Network is a significant step forward in ensuring that journalists, media organisations and other human rights defenders, particularly those with limited resources, have access to the legal guidance they need. At a time when media freedom is under increasing pressure, this initiative will play a crucial role in safeguarding free expression and upholding the public’s right to know.”

For more information on the Free Expression Legal Network and how to get involved, please contact Anton Harber, Director, CFE, anton@harber.co.za 

Canada’s Hogue report – missed opportunity to tackle transnational repression

February 19, 2025

Emile Dirks, Noura Aljizawi, Siena Anstis and Ron Deibert wrote in the The Globe and Mail of 10 February 2025 about the problem of transnational repression.

The final report of the public inquiry into foreign interference (the Hogue Commission) offers a measure of reassurance to Canadians; there is no evidence that Canadian MPs worked with foreign states to undermine the 2019 or 2021 federal elections. Justice Marie-Josée Hogue’s findings, however, are cold comfort to people at risk. While the commission’s work has ended, distant autocrats continue to target Canadians and Canadian residents with transnational repression, the most coercive form of foreign interference.

Commissioner Justice Marie-Josee Hogue Patrick Doyle/Reuters

Through digital harassment, assault and even assassination, authoritarians reach across borders to silence their foes abroad. Victims include activists, human-rights defenders, exiled critics and asylum seekers tied by citizenship or ancestry to repressive states like China, Russia, India or Saudi Arabia. For authoritarians, these people are not citizens, but disloyal subjects to silence.

The danger that transnational repression poses is not new. A 2020 report by the Canadian Coalition on Human Rights in China demanded the Canadian government address threats against pro-democracy activists, while a 2022 report by the Citizen Lab highlighted the lack of support to victims of digital transnational repression. Prior to the 2024 election, the Biden-Harris administration adopted a whole-of-government approach to ensure government agencies like the State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and the FBI worked together to provide recommendations to victims on how to better protect themselves.

Researchers and civil society have long worried that Canadian authorities are overlooking transnational repression as a unique challenge that requires tailored responses. Considering the seriousness of the threat and the stark absence of action by the government, many researchers anticipated the commission’s final report would explore transnational repression as a distinct form of foreign interference. Yet, while Justice Hogue wrote that “it would be challenging to overstate the seriousness of transnational repression,” she ultimately reasoned the issue lay outside her mandate.

This was a mistake. The final report was a missed opportunity to fully explore the corrosive impact of transnational repression on Canadian democracy. A recent report by the Citizen Lab highlights the profound toll transnational repression takes on vulnerable people, especially women, in Canada and beyond. Intimidation, surveillance and physical attacks prevent victims from participating fully in civic life and create a climate of persistent fear.

Transnational repression harms victims in more subtle ways, too. Our research shows that the mere threat of an online or offline attack is enough to frighten many diaspora members into silence. Victims become wary of participating in social media or even using digital devices. They report being afraid to engage with members of their communities, leaving them increasingly isolated. It has an insidious, chilling effect on targeted communities.

Unfortunately, the future looks bleak. Democratic backsliding in the United States threatens to deprive Canada of an ally in the fight and reverse whatever measures U.S. agencies might have taken on the issue. Our research shows that suspicion of law enforcement discourages victims from contacting authorities. Proposed moves by the Trump administration – including halting asylum hearings, ending resettlement programs, and sending “criminal” migrants to Guantanamo Bay – will further erode victims’ confidence in the U.S.’s willingness to protect them.

Big Tech is also worsening the problem. Across social-media platforms, state-backed harassment of vulnerable diaspora members is rife. Elon Musk’s X tolerates and even promotes hate-mongering accounts, while Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement that Meta will stop using “politically biased” fact-checkers signals a worrying disinterest in robust content moderation. We should expect a tsunami of digital transnational repression targeting vulnerable Canadians now that tech CEOs are loosening the restraints.

Canada cannot rely on outside leadership or corporate actors to tackle this problem. What is needed is a commission on transnational repression. On Jan. 24, the British parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights launched such an inquiry. Once our House of Commons sits again we can follow our British counterparts and resume the Subcommittee on International Human Rights’s work on transnational repression. The new Parliament should launch a multiparty inquiry into the crisis, with a mandate to examine repression outside of federal elections. Crucially, it must earn the trust of victims, something the Hogue Commission lacked. The Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project and the Canadian Friends of Hong Kong both pulled out of the inquiry, citing the participation of three legislators with alleged links to the Chinese government.

This is not a partisan issue. Whoever wins the next federal election will have a duty to contend with the continuing threat transnational repression poses to Canada. With global authoritarianism on the rise, the problem is only likely to worsen in the years to come.

see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2024/03/19/transnational-repression-human-rights-watch-and-other-reports/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-final-hogue-report-was-a-missed-opportunity-to-tackle/

Training for human rights defenders on freedom of religion or belief

February 11, 2025
Free training for human rights defenders on freedom of religion or belief

The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) is offering a free online training course for human rights defenders working on cases relating to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB). 

Taking place from 17–27 February, the programme is divided into 16 sessions covering all the theoretical and practical knowledge required to promote and protect the fundamental right to FoRB.

The programme will be delivered by leading experts in the field of human rights and/or FoRB, including Dr Nazila Ghanea, United Nations Special Rapporteur on FoRB; Professor Fernand de Varennes, former UN Special Rapporteur on minority issues; the Honourable Hina Jilani, IBAHRI co-chair, member of The Elders and advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan; and Rangita de Silva de Alwis, IBAHRI vice chair and a member of the treaty body to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

The IBAHRI is delivering the training in collaboration with the Rule of Law Expertise UK (ROLE UK). ROLE UK is a programme of the Advocates for International Development (A4ID), funded by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. A4ID is a global charity working to strengthen the rule of law in developing countries by supporting partnerships to provide high-quality pro bono legal and judicial expertise.

Register here

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/free-training-for-human-rights-defenders-on-freedom-of-religion-or-belief

Joint civil society statement on the fifth anniversary of the “Xiamen gathering” crackdown

February 11, 2025

On the fifth anniversary of the “Xiamen Gathering” crackdown, 34 civil society organisations (on 10 February 2025) across the world reaffirm their solidarity with Chinese human rights defenders and lawyers persecuted for advocating for human rights:

26 December 2024 marked the fifth anniversary of the crackdown on the “Xiamen gathering”, a private gathering that about 20 Chinese human rights defenders and lawyers convened in Xiamen, China in December 2019 to discuss the situation of human rights and civil society in China. In the weeks after, Chinese authorities interrogated, harassed, detained and imprisoned every participant who was not able to leave China then and subjected almost all of them, including some families and friends, to travel bans, up to the present day, under the pretext of national security.

Among those detained were legal scholar Xu Zhiyong and human rights lawyer Ding Jiaxi. Both are leading human rights defenders who spearheaded the “New Citizens’ Movement”, empowering citizens as rights-bearers to advocate for a more equal, rights-respecting and free society, and to combat corruption, wealth inequality and discrimination in access to education. In 2014, Xu and Ding were both sentenced to four years and three and a half years in prison, respectively, for participating in the New Citizens’ Movement and charged with “gathering a crowd to disturb public order”.

From 26 December 2019, and over the weeks that followed, the Chinese authorities forcibly disappeared both under Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location (RSDL), a criminal procedure allowing secret detention for up to six months without access to legal counsel or family. RSDL is considered by UN Special Procedures experts to constitute secret detention and a form of enforced disappearance, and may amount to torture or other ill-treatment. While held under RSDL, both men were subjected to torture and other ill-treatment, before being charged with the national security crime of “subversion of State power”. They were subsequently convicted in a secret trial and handed severe prison sentences of 14 and 12 years, respectively, in April 2023. Despite multiple calls from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk and from UN Special Procedures’ experts as recently as November 2024, China has failed to address these grave violations.

These cases are emblematic of a broader and alarming trend of persecution  of human rights defenders and lawyers in China. Authorities systematically employ RSDL, harsh national security charges, torture and other ill-treatment, prolonged detention, travel bans and harassment to silence dissent and dismantle independent civil society. The use of vague charges such as “subversion of State power” or “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” has become a routine tactic to criminalise human rights work, despite UN human rights experts’ repeated call for them to be repealed. Victims often face prolonged pre-trial detention, lack of due process, restricted access to lawyer and adequate healthcare, and torture or other ill-treatment aimed at extracting forced ‘confessions’.

This systematic repression is further reflected in the cases of human rights lawyers Xie Yang and Lu Siwei, feminist activist Huang Xueqin, labour activist Wang Jianbing, and citizen journalist Zhang Zhan, all of whom are currently subjected to arbitrary detention or imprisonment  . UN Special Procedures’ experts have recently described these cases as part of “recurring patterns of repression, including incommunicado detention and enforced disappearance aimed at […] silencing human rights defenders and dissenting or opposing views critical of the Government”.

As we commemorate the fifth anniversary of the crackdown, we, organisations and activists from all over the world, continue to stand in solidarity with all human rights defenders and lawyers in China who courageously advocate for justice despite knowing the risks of doing so.

We urge the Chinese government to:

  1. Immediately and unconditionally release all human rights defenders and lawyers arbitrarily detained or imprisoned for their human rights work, including Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi;
  2. End the systematic crackdown on civil society, including harassment, unjustified detention, enforced disappearance, and imprisonment of human rights defenders and lawyers;
  3. Amend laws and regulations, including national security legislation, the Criminal Law and the Criminal Procedure Law, to bring them fully in line with international human rights standards;
  4. Rescind the travel bans imposed on the gathering participants as well as their friends and families immediately.

Signatories:

  1. Alliance for Citizens Rights
  2. Amnesty International 
  3. Asian Lawyers Network (ALN) (Japan)
  4. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
  5. Free Tibet (United Kingdom)
  6. Human Rights in China
  7. India Tibet Friendship Society Nagpur Maharashtra (India)
  8. International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI)
  9. International Campaign for Tibet
  10. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
  11. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) 
  12. International Tibet Network
  13. Judicial Reform Foundation (Taiwan) 
  14. Lawyers for Lawyers (Netherlands)
  15. LUNGTA – Active for Tibet (Belgium)
  16. PEN America (United States)
  17. Safeguard Defenders (Spain) 
  18. Swiss Tibetan Friendship Association (Switzerland)
  19. Taiwan Association for Human Rights (Taiwan)
  20. The 29 Principles (United Kingdom)
  21. The Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders 
  22. The Rights Practice (United Kingdom)
  23. Tibet Justice Center (United States)
  24. Tibet Solidarity (United Kingdom)
  25. Voluntary Tibet Advocacy Group (V-TAG) (Netherlands)
  26. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
  27. Acción Solidaria (Venezuela)
  28. Amnistía Internacional Chile (Chile)
  29. CADAL (Argentina)
  30. Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Francisco de Vitoria OP, A.C. (Mexico)
  31. CONTIOCAP – Coordinadora Nacional de Defensa de Territorios Indígenas Originarios Campesinos y Áreas Protegidas en Bolivia (Bolivia)
  32. Movimiento Autónomo de Mujeres (Nicaragua)
  33. Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos Todos los Derechos para todas, todos y todes (Mexico)
  34. Voces de Tíbet (Mexico)

https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/joint-civil-society-statement-on-the-fifth-anniversary-of-the-xiamen-gathering-crackdown

https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/blog/fifth-anniversary-xiamen-gathering-crackdown