On 26 July 2023 Front Line Defenders stated that it stands in solidarity with Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajji, and calls on the de facto authorities in Idlib to put an end to the targeting of the Syrian woman human rights defender.
Despite the efforts of human rights organisations, women human rights defenders in Syria continue to face many forms of restrictions and threats. In this context, Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajji, a woman human rights defender and CEO of the feminist organisation Equity and Empowerment, has recently been targeted by a malicious online defamation campaign because of her work on women’s rights and democracy in Syria. On 4 July 2023, Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajji received death threats from unknown individuals who disagreed with her advocacy efforts for “equality and democracy,” asserting that such work went against the teachings of Islam. Subsequently, the Facebook page of her organisation Equity and Empowerment was overwhelmed with hateful comments and threats, further escalating the distressing situation.
Those behind the defamation campaign are believed to be Jihadists operating in Idlib, northwestern Syria, where the woman human rights defender conducts her human rights work. The woman human rights defender has previously reported that these radical groups were responsible for similar threats, indicating a pattern of persecution and harassment against her and other human rights defenders in the area.
The attacks have also manifested in offline harm. On 18 July 2023, a family member of the woman human rights defender was insulted by a stranger who threatened them saying that if Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajji does not stop her work, one of her family members will be killed. The defamatory narrative against Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajji aims at inciting further hatred and violence against her, all in an effort to undermine her human rights work.
On 21 July 2023, an imam in the countryside outside of Idlib gave a sermon which mentioned the woman human rights defender Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajji and the organisation Equity and Empowerment. The sermon called for the organisation to be closed, incorrectly mentioning its links to western states as a means of discrediting its work.
On 2 March 2020, Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief declared that they “firmly reject any claim that religious beliefs can be invoked as a legitimate ‘justification’ for violence or discrimination against women or girls.”
The campaign has taken place over various online platforms, including WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter and Telegram, using fake and verified accounts to post derogatory fake images of the human rights defender along with hateful captions. In addition to this, she has been subjected to death threats, harassment, and incitements against her and her family, along with doxing, deep fakes, threats of rape and sexual slurs.
Front Line Defenders believes that the defamation campaign is directly related to Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajji’s work in defence of human rights, in particular her work towards the promotion of women’s rights in Syria. Front Line Defenders strongly condemns the defamation campaign against the woman human rights defender Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajji. It calls on the de facto authorities in Idlib to put an end to the targeting of the woman human rights defender, including the defamation campaign, and demands that Hiba Ezzideen Al-Hajji’s safety and well-being be protected as well as that of all women human rights defenders facing similar threats and attacks in the country.
On 18 July 2023 Front Line Defenders reported that on 4 July, a court of appeal in Algiers confirmed the three-year prison sentence of human rights defenders Slimane Bouhafs and Kamira Nait Sid, in addition to confirming the fine of DZD 100,000 (approx. EUR 660). The charges against both human rights defenders include “belonging to a terrorist organisation”; “receiving funds from abroad for the purpose of political propaganda”; “hate speech and discrimination”; “use of technology to spread false information”; and “conspiracy”, among others.
Slimane Bouhafs is a human rights defender advocating for freedom of expression and democracy in Algeria through social media. He is the Chairman of the St. Augustine Coordination of Christians in Algeria which defends minority rights and freedom of religion in the country. Kamira Nait Sid is a woman human rights defender and co-president of the World Amazigh Congress (WAC), an international NGO defending the rights of the Amazigh people. The mission of the WAC is to ensure the defence and promotion of political, economic, social, cultural, historical and civil rights of the Amazigh people.
The human rights defender Slimane Bouhafs, who was granted refugee status in Tunisia before being illegally transferred back to Algeria, received the same three-year prison sentence as the one previously handed down at the first instance. Meanwhile, the woman human rights defender Kamira Nait Sid received a three-year prison sentence, which was a two-year reduction of the original sentence handed down by the court of first instance.
Both Slimane Bouhafs and Kamira Nait Sid reject and deny all the charges against them and maintain that they have been targeted because of their peaceful human rights work and advocacy for freedom of expression and belief. The defence counsel, which represented both human rights defenders, reportedly emphasised the lack of due process and fair trial guarantees during the trial and the appeal processes, including a lack of evidence supporting the charges.
In December 2022, Slimane Bouhafs and Kamira Nait Sid were sentenced to three and five years respectively by the court of first instance mainly on the basis of an alleged association with the Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylie (MAK), classified as a terrorist group by the Algerian authorities. The human rights defenders continue to deny any involvement with the MAK group.
The two human rights defenders have been arbitrarily detained since the summer of 2021. On 25 August 2021, the human rights defender Slimane Bouhafs was abducted, subjected to ill-treatment and forcibly returned to Algeria from Tunisia, where he had been granted refugee status, in a gross violation of international law. On 24 August 2021, the woman human rights defender Kamira Nait Sid was also abducted by Algerian security forces from her home in Draa-Ben-Kheddaas in northern Algeria and detained at an unknown location. On 1 September 2021, the two human rights defenders appeared before an investigating judge in an Algerian court to be charged with several terrorism-related accusations based on an alleged connection with the MAK.
Front Line Defenders condemns the confirmation of the sentence of human rights defenders Slimane Bouhafs and Kamira Nait Sid and calls on the authorities of Algeria to immediately release them and quash their conviction as it believes that it is solely motivated by their legitimate and peaceful work in the defence of human rights. It urges the authorities to guarantee the physical and psychological security and integrity of the human rights defenders while in detention.
Front Line Defenders also calls on the authorities to cease targeting all human rights defenders in Algeria and guarantee in all circumstances that they are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisals and free of all restrictions including judicial harassment.
We welcome the resolution put forward by the OIC to ensure the full implementation of the United Nations database of businesses facilitating Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as well as the recent publication of the partial update to the database issued by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on 30 June 2023. The effectiveness and credibility of the HRC and OHCHR has suffered considerably from the chronic under-implementation of the database by this Council. The resolution put forward at the 53rd session represents an important step forward, and it is crucial that future updates are conducted annually, regularly, including both the addition and removal of businesses from the database, as appropriate, to ensure accurate and comprehensive information for all stakeholders involved. We regret that some States failed to vote in favor of the resolution to ensure the full implementation of the database. We believe this failure constitutes a dangerous example of double standards and urge States who abstained or voted against the resolution to begin to approach this issue in line with international human rights standards and their duties as UN member States.
We welcome the fact that the resolution on civil society space addressed the limitations to civil society access and participation in decision-making processes, including at the UN, and called on States to “enable and institutionalize meaningful online participation in hybrid meetings” and to establish “a transparent, fair and gender-responsive accreditation processes”. We welcome that the resolution acknowledges the significant role played by civil society in the promotion and protection of human rights, including with regard to monitoring, documenting and raising awareness about human rights violations and abuses, but we regret that the role of civil society in the prevention of human rights violations, as well as the Council’s prevention mandate, was not highlighted. We also welcome that the resolution emphasizes undue restrictions of civic space, including on funding of civil society actors, nonetheless we express concern that it does not address the misuse of restrictive laws in a more comprehensive manner. We appreciate the call upon States to establish or enhance information-gathering and monitoring mechanisms, including by benefiting from data collected by civil society, for the collection, analysis and reporting of data on threats, attacks or violence against civil society, and the request to the High Commissioner to prepare a report identifying challenges and best practices in regularly assessing civic space trends drawing on the views of civil society, amongst others. This may lead, in the longer term, to the development of a collective methodology including indicators and benchmarks that will permit the effective and systematic monitoring of civic space developments on the international level. We also call on States to prevent the deterioration and closure of civic space and provide support to build civil society resilience.
We welcome the focus of the resolution on human rights of migrants on human rights violations in transit. However, the resolution fails to answer the call from over 220 CSOs for the Council to establish an investigative mechanism on deaths, torture and other grave human rights violations at and around international borders. The focus on monitoring in the intersessional panel requested must be used as a stepping stone towards a response from the Council that matches the severity of the situation. The 53rd session opened as yet another horrific incident unfolded with hundreds presumed dead at sea. The normalisation of deaths caused by border management policies and practices, as well as criminal networks, must end. It is unclear what scale of atrocity will prompt this body to act.
We welcome the adoption of resolutions on child and early forcedmarriage and on violence against women and girls, despite hostile amendments contravening international human rights law, UN technical guidance and WHO Guidelines. The resolution on child and early forcedmarriage on the theme of forced marriage, identifies root causes of forced marriage and calls for practical guidelines to be developed by the OHCHR which can help States work to prevent and eliminate forced marriage, centering the autonomy of women and girls. The resolution on violence against women and girls looks at systemic violence against women and girls in criminal detention systems. The resolution centers the respect, protection and fulfillment of human rights for women and girls in criminal detention, in addition to the Bangkok and Mandela Rules.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on ‘the impact of arms transfer on human rights‘. Ensuring arms related risks to human rights continues to be part of the Council’s work is critical – both those acquired by civilians and those transferred. We look forward to the stocktaking intersessional workshop on the role of States and the private sector in preventing, addressing and mitigating negative human rights impacts of arms transfers.
We welcome the resolution on new and emerging digital technologies, which reinforces the need to respect, protect and promote human rights throughout the lifecycle of artificial intelligence systems. The resolution mandates an enhanced role of the OHCHR in providing its expertise on the human rights implications of these technologies, including artificial intelligence, to other UN bodies, mechanisms, and processes. We believe that bolstering this existing expertise is vital in ensuring a consistent human rights-first approach to the growing number of UN initiatives relevant to this topic. We also particularly welcome that the resolution stresses that certain applications of artificial intelligence “present an unacceptable risk to human rights”. We now call on States to put this language into practice and ban those technologies that cannot be operated in compliance with international human rights law.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution extending the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on Independence of Judges and Lawyers for three years.
We regret the adoption of a new resolution on countering religious hatred constituting incitement to discrimination hostility or violence. While we are dismayed over the rise of hate against persons on the basis of their religion or belief worldwide, this resolution ultimately aims to protect not individuals but rather religious books and symbols that do not enjoy protection under international human rights law. We note that prohibitions on the defamation of religions fuel division and religious intolerance by shutting down interfaith dialogue, and can facilitate human rights violations against religious minorities. While the burning of holy books is considered disrespectful and offensive by many, this is not an act of incitement in and of itself, and such acts should only be challenged through open space for dialogue, debate, and dissent. By evoking language on the defamation of religions, this resolution puts over a decade of progress in jeopardy and risks undermining the consensual, positive action plan to combat religious intolerance achieved in landmark Resolution 16/18 in 2011.
We regret that the resolution on the contribution of development to the enjoyment of human rights weakens the interdependence of human rights and sustainable development. We reiterate deep concerns at the long-term goal of this initiative, in light of the penholder’s remarks during negotiations that the ‘contribution of development to human rights’ is a methodology ‘conflicting with’ human rights-based approaches to development (HRBA) widely-endorsed by the Secretary-General, UN agencies and States. We regret the inclusion of undefined domestic concepts such as ‘better life’, ‘high-quality development’ and ‘people-centred approach to development’, and the failure to consider middle-ground proposals to reallocate resources to meet the OHCHR’s needs for additional capacity on HRBA to development. We lament that the penholder disregarded strong concerns shared across all regions, including from developing countries as reflected in the abstentions of Costa Rica, Chile, Georgia, India and Paraguay, despite commitments to seek consensus and engage constructively.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on Belarus, which re-mandates the Special Rapporteur for a further year. The Special Rapporteur on Belarus remains critical to civil society, whose options for seeking redress for human rights violations at an international level were further reduced recently when Belarus withdrew from the First Optional Protocol of the ICCPR.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution presented by Colombia seeking to enhance technical cooperation to implement the recommendations made by the Commission for the Clarification of Truth, Coexistence and Non-Repetition in the country – a resolution looking towards a future of peace.. The text highlights the OHCHR report’s findings that violence disproportionately affects, inter alia, human rights defenders, Indigenous Peoples, people of African descent, peasant leaders, women and girls, as well as persons on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. We regret however that Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC except Albania, tabled an amendment to remove the reference to ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’, and in doing so did not respect Colombia’s decision to acknowledge the vulnerability of populations inside its own territory, and meant that a vote was called on the resolution.
This year’s strengthened resolution on Eritrea is in line with civil society’s ask to substantively address violations Eritrean authorities commit at home and abroad and to move beyond merely procedural resolutions that extend the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. We encourage States to go even further next year and to reinstate fully substantive resolutions on Eritrea’s human rights situation, as was the rule before 2019.
We welcome the adoption of the Item 10 resolution on Ukraine, maintaining the Council’s regular dialogues with the High Commissioner on the human rights situation in Ukraine. The work of the OHCHR in Ukraine is critical, complementary to the work of the International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine, and it is important that HRC is kept abreast of this work.
While we believe the resolution on Rohingya and other minorities in Myanmar is an important step to maintain the situation of Rohingya and other minorities in Myanmar high on the agenda of the Council, we regret that the resolution failed to reflect the reality of the situation on the ground in Myanmar especially following the 1 February 2021 military coup. It calls for immediate commencement of repatriation of Rohingya refugees in direct contrast to conclusions and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur, the High Commissioner as well as Rohingya themselves that conditions for safe, voluntary, dignified and sustainable return for Rohingya do not exist in Myanmar, and that their return under the current circumstances could lead to the recurrence of violence that led to their displacement.
The holding of a Special Session on Sudan on 11 May 2023, does not preclude, but rather should be seen as the start of a process toward, stronger resolutions. Civil society will continue to push for the establishment of an investigative mechanism, which is the least the Council can do for the victims and survivors of the conflict and violations and abuses committed in the country in the last three decades. We highlight the need for a holistic, comprehensive response by the international community. In this regard, the Final Communiqué of the First Meeting of the IGAD Quartet Group of Countries for the Resolution of the Situation in the Republic of Sudan resolved to request that “the East Africa Standby Force (EASF) summit … convene in order to consider the possible deployment of the EASF for the protection of civilians and guarantee humanitarian access” and committed “to work closely with the international community to put in place a robust monitoring and accountability mechanism that will be instrumental in bringing perpetrators to justice.”
We deplore the sustained failure of this Council to respond meaningfully to the human rights situation in China, gradually undermining its credibility and ability to scrutinise countries on the basis of objective, impartial UN documentation, including the OHCHR Xinjiang report. We further regret the failure of the joint UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect to act in line with its mandate on the CERD’s historic referral of the situation in Xinjiang, weakening the UN’s genocide-prevention architecture. The CESCR, the CEDAW, the CERD, the OHCHR, the ILO, as well as Special Procedures through three joint statements, nearly 30 press releases and 100 letters to the government since 2018, have provided more than sufficient evidence pointing to systematic and widespread human rights violations. So long as the Council is not able to take principled action on the basis of objective criteria, other powerful perpetrators will feel empowered to continue committing atrocity crimes, relying on the Council’s silence. We reiterate our pressing call for all Council Members to support the adoption of a resolution establishing a UN mandate to monitor and report on the human rights situation in China.
We regret that the Council failed to adequately respond to the situation in Egypt. Since the joint statement delivered by States in March 2021 at the Council , there has been no significant improvement in the human rights situation in Egypt despite the launching of the national human rights strategy and the national dialogue. The Egyptian government has failed to address, adequately or at all, the repeated serious concerns expressed by several UN Special Procedures over the broad and expansive definition of “terrorism”, which enables the conflation of civil disobedience and peaceful criticism with “terrorism”. The Human Rights Committee raised its concerns “that these laws are used, in combination with restrictive legislation on fundamental freedoms, to silence actual or perceived critics of the Government, including peaceful protesters, lawyers, journalists, political opponents and human rights defenders”. Egyptian and international civil society organisations have been calling on the Council to establish a monitoring and reporting mechanism on the human rights situation in Egypt, applying objective criteria and in light of the Egyptian government’s absolute lack of genuine will to acknowledge, let alone address, the country’s deep-rooted human rights crisis.
We regret the Council’s repeated failure to address the situation in India including to exercise its prevention mandate in relation to the potential escalation of violence against religious minorities and Dalits and Adivasis into mass atrocity crimes with unchecked hate speech and incitement to violence by Hindu nationalist leaders, the most recent illustration of which is the ongoing communal violence in the Northeastern state of Manipur. We remind the Council that this is happening in the context of systematic rollback of fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and independent institutions as well as the ongoing criminalisation, harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders, activists, journalists, and dissidents, and targeting of civil society organisations using national security and counter-terrorism infrastructure. Silence of the Council further enables impunity and makes the international community complicit.
We regret that the Council failed to adequately respond to the situation in Saudi Arabia. In light of the ongoing diplomatic rehabilitation of crown prince and de facto ruler Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi authorities’ brazen repression continues to intensify, as ALQST has documented. Some notable recent trends include, but are not limited to: the further harsh sentencing of activists for peaceful social media use, such as women activists Salma al-Shehab (27 years), Fatima al-Shawarbi (30 years and six months) and Sukaynah al-Aithan (40 years); the ongoing detention of prisoners of conscience beyond the expiry of their sentences, some of whom continue to be held incommunicado such as human rights defenders Mohammed al-Qahtani and Essa al-Nukheifi, and; regressive developments in relation to the death penalty, including a wave of new death sentences passed and a surge in executions (47 individuals were executed from March-May 2023), raising concerns for those currently on death row, including several young men at risk for crimes they allegedly committed as minors. We call on the Council to respond to the calls of NGOs from around the world to create a monitoring and reporting mechanism on the ever-deteriorating human rights situation in Saudi Arabia.
We regret that the Council failed to exercise its prevention mandate and address the deteriorating human rights situation in Tunisia. Civil society organizations, the High Commissioner and UN Special Procedures all have raised alarm at the escalating pattern of human rights violations and the rapidly worsening situation in Tunisia following President Kais Saied’s power grab on 25 July 2021 leading to the erosion of the rule of law, attacks on the independence of the judiciary, reprisals against independent judges and lawyers and judges associations, a crackdown on peaceful political opposition and abusive use of “counter-terrorism” law in politicized prosecutions, as well as attacks on freedom of expression and threats to freedom of association. A wave of arrests that started in February 2022 continued to include at least 40 members of peaceful political opposition. On 21 February 2023, President Saied made inflammatory comments that triggered a wave of anti-Black violence and persecution – including assaults and summary evictions – against Black African foreign nationals, including migrants, asylum seekers and refugees. Between February and early March 2023, police indiscriminately arrested at least 850 Black African foreign nationals, apparently based on racial profiling. Since July 2, 2023 Tunisian security forces collectively expelled several hundreds of Black African migrants and asylum-seekers to the Tunisian-Libyan borders without any due process, along with reports of beatings and sexual assaults. The High Commissioner has addressed the deteriorating situation in the three latest global updates to the HRC. Special Procedures issued at least 8 communications in less than one year addressing attacks against the independence of the judiciary, as well as attacks against freedom of expression and assembly. Despite the fact that in 2011 Tunisia extended a standing invitation to all UN Special Procedures, and received 16 visits by UN Special Procedures since, Tunisia’s recent postponement of the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, is another sign of Tunisia disengaging from international human rights mechanisms and declining levels of cooperation.
Signatories: International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Center for Reproductive Rights, DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project), Gulf Centre for Human Rights.
International Human Rights Day 2020 is coming up and here is an early save the date for the Humanists International.
Since 2012 Humanists International has published the Freedom of Thought Report to monitor the rights and treatment of humanists, atheists and non-religious people in every country in the world. This year, the thematic focus of the Report is COVID-19, and its impact on the non-religious people globally. In particular we have seen the establishment of restrictions on:
– Women’s rights – Media freedom, protest and access to information – Individuals at risk
Here is the list of the event speakers:- Andrew Copson President of Humanists International
– Dr Ahmed Shaheed UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief
– Emma Wadsworth-Jones Humanists International’s Casework & Campaigns Manager
– Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkhaitir Mauritanian blogger and anti-slavery activist
– Debbie Goddard, Vice-President of American Atheists
– Rev. Fred Davie, Commissioner of The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
Unfounded charges of “offending religious beliefs” are being brought against three women human rights defenders in Poland for simply exercising their right to freedom of expression, a coalition of six nongovernmental groups said. The first hearing in their case is scheduled for November 4, 2020, in the town of Plock.
The Prosecutor General should drop the charges – and ensure that the three women can carry out their human rights work without harassment and reprisals by the authorities. The Polish authorities should amend their legislation in line with international and regional human rights standards and abstain from using it against activists to unduly curtail their right to freedom of expression.
The three human rights defenders, Elżbieta, Anna and Joanna – whose surnames are not being used to protect their privacy – are facing trial for “offending religious beliefs” under Article 196 of the Criminal Code (C.C.) in relation to the use of posters depicting the Virgin Mary with a rainbow halo symbolic of the LGBTI flag around her head and shoulders. The authorities are alleging that the three activists pasted the posters on 29 April 2019 in public places such as on portable toilets, dustbins, transformers, road signs, building walls in public areas in the city of Plock and have “publicly insulted an object of religious worship in the form of this image which offended the religious feelings of others”. They now face up to two years in prison if found guilty for their peaceful activism.
The authorities arrested and detained Elżbieta in 2019 after she took a trip abroad with Amnesty International. The authorities opened an initial investigation against her in May 2019 and in July 2020, they officially charged the three activists.
Having, creating or distributing posters such as the ones depicting the Virgin Mary with a rainbow halo should not be a criminal offence and is protected under the right to freedom of expression.
In its current formulation, Article 196 of the Criminal Code imposes undue restrictions on the right to freedom of expression by providing overly broad discretion to the authorities to prosecute and criminalise individuals for expression that must be protected. This is incompatible with Poland’s international and regional human rights obligations.
Poland is bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU to respect, protect and fulfil the right to freedom of expression.
Furthermore, in 2013, the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights noted that “Restrictions on artistic freedoms based on insulting religious feelings… are incompatible with [ICCPR]”. In 2019, this was again highlighted by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression who stressed that criminalising expression that insults religious feeling limits “debate over religious ideas and… such laws [enable] governments to show preference for the ideas of one religion over those of other religions, beliefs or non-belief systems”. Freemuse is particularly concerned about the policing of artistic and creative content by the authorities in Poland and regard it as an unlawful attack on freedom of artistic expression.
Amnesty International has previously called on the Polish authorities to repeal or amend legal provisions, such as Article 196 of the Criminal Code, that criminalises statements protected by the right to freedom of expression, for example in the report ‘Targeted by hate, Forgotten by Law: Lack of a coherent response to hate crimes in Poland’. Many other national and international human rights organisations have criticised provisions of the Polish Criminal Code, including Article 196, as problematic because they constitute restrictions on the right to freedom of expression not permissible under international human rights law.
International human rights law permits states to impose certain restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression only if such restrictions are provided by law and are demonstrably necessary and proportionate for the protection of certain specified public interests (national security, public order, protection of health or morals) or for the protection of the rights of others (including the right to protection against discrimination). When restricting the right to freedom of expression to protect public order or morals, the Human Rights Committee, which interprets the ICCPR, observed that states must not base their restrictions on principles deriving “exclusively from a single tradition” e.g. Christianity. States may impose certain restrictions on certain forms of expression if they can demonstrate that such restrictions are necessary and proportionate to the specified purpose (that is, the measure is designed to be effective in achieving its goal, lesser measures do not suffice and without putting in jeopardy the right itself). The current formulation of Article 196 of the C.C. does not appear to pass the test of proportionality and necessity. ..
The organisations recall that everyone has a right to express themselves safely and without fear of reprisals, and that the right to freedom of expression is protected, even if some people might find the expression to be deeply offensive (Human Rights Committee, General Comment 34 on Freedom of Expression, para. 11). In the words of the European Court of Human Rights the right to freedom of expression “is applicable not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population”.
Elżbieta, Anna and Joanna now face up to two years in prison if found guilty under the unfounded charges brought against them. The case against them is not unique but an example of the repeated harassment activists and human rights defenders face simply for carrying out peaceful activism in Poland, which Polish and international human rights organisations have documented and denounced at length in the last several years.
Elżbieta, Anna and Joanna stood against hate and discrimination and for years they have been fighting for a just and equal Poland. They deserve to be praised and not taken to court for their activism.
At the time of her arrest in May 2019, she had just returned from a trip to Belgium and the Netherlands with Amnesty International, where she participated in several events and advocacy meetings with activists and supporters to raise awareness about the situations of peaceful protesters and the crackdown they are facing in Poland.
Rabbi Moshe David Hacohen and Imam Salahuddin Barakat from Amanah are awarded Malmo’s City Prize on December 19, 2019. (photo credit: MUBARIK ABDIRAHMAN)
The Swedish city of Malmö has bestowed its Human Rights Award on a rabbi and an imam who have been working together to bridge the gap between the city’s large Muslim population, the Jewish community and the general society. Rosella Tercatin reports on 25 December in the Jerusalem Post that Rabbi Moshe David Hacohen and Imam Salahuddin Barakat established Amanah (“The Jewish-Muslim Faith and Trust Project”) in 2017. Since then, they have been working together relentlessly organizing joint projects as well as touring Malmö’s schools and addressing the students.
Malmö, where about a third of the 300,000 residents is Muslim, is considered one of the most problematic cities in Europe for lack of integration. About 1,200 Jews live in the city. Working against discrimination and racism, specifically antisemitism and Islamophobia, is one of the organization goals. The rabbi and the imam were awarded the prize, that entails funding $5,300 by the mayor of Malmö Katrin Jammeh Stjernfeldt in a ceremony that took place on Thursday 19 December.
On the occasion of first International Day Commemorating the Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief – 22 August – a large group of UN independent experts (see names below) issued a statement saying that States have an important role to play in promoting religious tolerance and cultural diversity by promoting and protecting human rights, including freedom of religion or belief. The experts urged States to step up their efforts to combat intolerance, discrimination and violence against people based on religion or belief, including against members of religious minorities and people who are not religious.
Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief which has the effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis would amount to religious intolerance and discrimination. This was made clear in the 1981 General Assembly Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
We have observed violence in the name of religion around the world perpetrated by States and non-state groups leading to discrimination, persecution, arbitrary arrests or detention, enforced disappearances, sexual violence and killings of many people based on their religion or belief. Victims have included religious minorities, individuals who are not religious, LGBTI persons, children and women who face many forms of discrimination and gender-based violence. Such violence threatens the hard-fought progress in securing women’s equality and the rights of LGBTI persons.
“We stress that religion or belief should never be used to justify discrimination. When faced with religious persecution or discrimination, victims are often also deprived of their right to participate fully in political, economic and cultural life, as well as their rights to education and to health. This can include the desecration and destruction of numerous cultural heritage sites of rich historic and religious value, such as places of worship and cemeteries.
As populism has become a trend in the political and social arena, it has fostered many forms of hatred against those who are viewed as foreign or simply different. Often, States and religious institutions resort to the instrumentalisation of religions or beliefs in order to retain their influence or control and achieve other political agendas. Fundamentalism is on the rise across the world’s major religious traditions, posing a threat to many human rights. Moreover, critical views of religions or beliefs are sometimes mischaracterised as ‘hate speech’ or labelled an offence to the religious feelings of others both by governments and non-state groups. Too often this is used as a pretext to silence those with critical voices and punish others for not believing.
The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief is misunderstood as protecting religions and beliefs instead of the people with the beliefs and those without. It is incumbent on States to ensure that religions or beliefs are not used to violate human rights, and to combat religious extremism – which are a threat to many human rights, while adhering to international norms.
States have resorted to the securitisation of religion or belief, or viewing them through a lens of national security, in their fight against violent extremism. But an overly securitised approach has proven to be counterproductive and has led to xenophobia, increasing ‘religious profiling’ and discrimination, particularly towards religious minorities….
We urge States and all individuals and groups to work together to enhance the implementation of international human rights standards that protect individuals against discrimination and hate crimes, and to increase interreligious, interfaith and intercultural initiatives, and expand human rights education in an inclusive manner as a key catalyst for change.”
German-born Jesuit Father Franz Magnis Suseno has become an Indonesian citizen and an outspoken champion of democracy and interfaith dialogue in Indonesia. (Photo by Siktus Harson/ucanews.com)
Ryan Dagur painted on 15 April 2019 (in UCA News) a portrait of a remarkable man, the Jesuit priest Franz Magnis Suseno,doesn’t mince his words when promoting democracy and dialogue in Indonesia. “An adopted son’s passion for Indonesian pluralism”
Not so long ago, Jesuit priest Father Franz Magnis Suseno ..ruffled a few feathers by.. calling people who are threatening to boycott the polls fools, parasites, and psycho freaks.His scathing comments came in an article about the upcoming Indonesian presidential and legislative elections published by Kompas, the country’s bestselling newspaper.Many criticized him for the remarks, some even sent him letters of protest, but many also supported him. The German-born priest, a professor at the Driyarkara School of Philosophy, has apologized for his choice of words but argued the article was a call for all citizens to care for democracy and prevent the worst individuals from being elected to office.
…..The 82-year-old, born into a noble family and who was once called Count von Magnis, is now widely known as a philosopher, human rights defender, and culturalist, with his main area of expertise being Javanese culture. He has written 41 books on philosophy, political ethics, and Christianity, as well as made countless television appearances.During his time in the country, Father Magnis has witnessed a major shift in Indonesia’s political climate from a 32-year dictatorship under Suharto to the reform era that began in 1998 when the tap of democracy was opened.“It’s my moral obligation to speak up when democracy is threatened,” he said.He says he is optimistic that Indonesia will remain a leading democracy in Southeast Asia, but admitted various threats do concern him, especially what he calls the politicization of religion by hard-line Muslims. “Indonesia will only fall to another authoritarian regime if people continue to use religion in politics,” he said. He said it is dangerous because, for many people, religion is more important than democracy.
…. Father Magnis has built close friendships with several respected Muslim leaders, including the late Abdurahman Wahid, a highly respected figure, and Indonesia’s fourth president, as well as Nurcholish Majid, an avid defender of pluralism in Indonesia. Holding dialogue with extreme elements is also important, he said, especially when conflict occurs.He has met the now exiled Islamic Defenders Front chief, Muhammad Rizieq Shihab, several times when his organization sought to impose its own ban on worshiping activities in a number of churches in Jakarta. In 2011, Father Magnis met Shihab, to discuss the issue of an American pastor burning a Quran in Florida, which angered Muslims all over the world. Following the discussions, Shihab told his angry followers not to take out their anger on Indonesian Christians. In building a relationship with believers of other faiths, it is important for Christians to be humble and sensible and to avoid belittling acts or gestures. “It’s better to be low profile, rather than something fancy,” he said, adding that this philosophy should be especially applied in poor areas. This was why he called the erection of a 46-meter-high Marian statue in Ambarawa, Central Java in 2015, “inappropriate.” ..
Father Magnis is also critical of Christians who measure the success of their work by the number of people they attract to Christianity because it leads to aggressive Christianization. “Our mission is to bring the goodness of Christ into our society and let people decide whether to join us,” he said.He said Indonesia will remain an Islamic country, and what Christians can do is to help them build a better democratic system, where freedom of religion is upheld and interfaith relations are well established. Father Antonius Benny Sustyo, an outspoken activist priest, said Father Magnis’ openness and willingness to communicate with others are among his finest characteristics. “..Achmad Nurcholish, a Muslim activist said Father Magnis had contributed a lot to the progress of humanity in Indonesia, especially through his writings that have an enriched perspective.
Father Magnis’ endeavors have been duly recognized and have earned him a number of awards.In 2015, he received an award from Indonesian President Joko Widodo for his dedication to education and culture. A year later, in 2016, he won the Matteo Ricci International Prize for his commitment to promoting interreligious dialogue from the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan. However, the one that gives him the most pleasure is a so-called “Mud Award”, bestowed on him by communities in East Java whose land and homes were buried by mud caused by the activities of a company belonging to Aburizal Bakrie, a businessman cum politician. It was given in 2007 after the priest refused to accept a Bakrie Award — handed out by Aburizal Bakrie’s family — to show solidarity with people affected by the mud disaster. “I was very happy with that award. I’ll always treasure it,” he said.
Nothing new but it being a Sunday here in Crete, where lots of people go to church, one is struck by the continuing religious intolerance in certain parts of the world. Here two short items relating to Pakistan, both from March 2019:
reports that on 6 March 2019 human rights defender Afzal Kohistaniwas shot dead by unidentified gunmen in Gami Ada, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province. Afzal Kohistani was a human rights defender who had been campaigning against “honour killings”, or choar, in the Kohistan region of Pakistan. He had been the central figure seeking justice for the killing of five young women and three young men in 2012 and 2013.
The 2012 and 2013 “honour killings” were linked to a video, which went viral after it appeared online in 2012. It showed five young women singing and clapping, while two young men performed a traditional dance during a local wedding in Palas, a remote area in Kohistan. The mixing of genders is considered a serious violation of tribal norms in Kohistan and the young people were killed as a result of the “dishonour” they had brought on their families and community…..Prior to his death, Afzal Kohistani had received numerous death threats for seeking to bring the perpetrators of the Kohistan killings to justice. The human rights defender and his family were forced to leave their home in 2012 and had been in hiding for the past seven years. A few days prior to being killed, the human rights defender had written to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG) in Hazara seeking police protection but his request never received a response. The Supreme Court’s orders for the provincial government to provide the human rights defender with protection were also not heeded. (for more detail see the link below).[ One of my first posts in 2013 concerned https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2013/09/28/pakistan-and-rights-of-women-unbearable/]
———
A story in the Business Standard of 17 March refers to the a protest rally in Geneva by Pakistani Christians living in parts of Europe objecting to “Islamists misusing blasphemy law to harass Christians in Pakistan”. The protesters walked from Palais Wilson, to ‘Broken Chair’ in front of the UN, during the 40th session of the UN Human Rights Council.
They demanded that the Pakistan government must abolish the ‘dangerous’ law misused by the state and non-state actors to target the minorities. Frank John, Chairman of Drumchapel Asian Forum in Glasgow, said: “We are unhappy with the functioning of the government in Pakistan because the mindset of ‘maulvis’ (Islamic hardliners) towards Christians is immoral. Every day, atrocities are being committed against our children, especially girls, which is not acceptable. Our girls are being kidnapped by misusing PPC 295C and they are converted into Islam.” He added: “.. If we have an altercation with any person, they put us under PPC 295C. This is a dangerous law and needs to be abolished.”
Dr Mario Silva, Executive Chairman of International Forum for Rights and Security said: “Pakistan systematically discriminates against minorities. Christians are particularly targetted by the blasphemy law. Christian persecution is a real threat to democracy and it’s a real threat to human rights. It’s something the world community needs to take a look at. He added, “The state has a responsibility to protect its minorities rather destroying them. They have to go against the perpetrators of crimes against Christians. There are attacks on Christians, suicide bombings are taking place and the government is doing nothing to investigate the persecution of Christians in the country.” Criticising the blasphemy law, he said: “Blasphemy law should in fact never be a part of any democratic system of government because blasphemy law is meant to target minorities…..” [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2013/12/24/pussy-riot-freed-in-russia-but-the-bigger-issue-is-blasphemy-laws-everywhere/]
Christians make up less than two per cent of the population in Pakistan. Their numbers are decreasing as many of them are migrating to other countries for their safety.
In a blog post in Foreign Policy of 28 February JACOB MCHANGAMA (Executive director of Justitia, a Copenhagen based think tank) tackles the thorny issue of hate speech versus freedom of speech: “The U.N. Hates Hate Speech More Than It Loves Free Speech – The U.N. Secretary General is going soft on one of the most fundamental human rights“. It is an excellent read! Read the rest of this entry »
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 