Posts Tagged ‘Russia’
January 21, 2014
The ‘eastern’ pull of Ukraine is now also reflected in its repressive legislation on human rights defenders. On January 16, 2014, Ukrainian Parliament unexpectedly and hurriedly adopted a comprehensive restrictive bill, which punishes protests, criminalises libel, restricts civic organisations receiving foreign funding and labels them as “foreign agents”. The bill, entitled “On Amendments to the Law on Judicial System and Status of Judges and Procedural Laws on Additional Measures for Protecting Citizens’ safety”, was introduced on January 14, 2014 and voted only two days after, with no legal assessment, no parliamentary hearings, and no consultation. The text was swiftly adopted by show of hands, backed by 235 out of 450 parliamentarians, before it was immediately signed it into law by the President. According to the bill, all civic organisations receiving funds from foreign sources must include in their title the term “foreign agents”, register as such, submit monthly reports regarding the organisations, publish quarterly reports on their activities in the official media and may not benefit from a tax-exempt status. The bill specifies that all organisations taking part in political actions, defined as actions aimed at influencing decision-making by state bodies, a change in the state policy which those bodies have defined as well as forming public opinion for those purposes, are deemed civic organisations. Organisations failing to register may be closed by court decision.
There were quite a few other restrictions passed in the same bill as can be seen from the Open Letter of 20 January 2014 sent to Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich and Parliamentary Speaker Volodym, signed by Karim Lahidji, FIDH President, and Gerald Staberock, OMCT Secretary General:
Ukraine: Call to repeal highly restrictive law on so-called “foreign agents”, libel and extremism, which blatantly violates Ukraines international obligations / January 20, 2014 / Urgent Interventions / Human rights defenders / OMCT.
Posted in FIDH, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, OMCT | 1 Comment »
Tags: anti-terrorist laws, civic organisations, controversial restrictions, criminalization, FIDH, Foreign agent, foreign agent law, foreign agents, foreign funding, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of expression, funding, Gerald Staberock, Human Rights Defenders, Karim Lahidji, legal restrictions, Observatory for the Protection of HRDs, OMCT, open letter, Russia, Ukraine
January 19, 2014
The most recent report by the UN Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Margaret Sekaggya, has been made public and will be officially presented to the Human Rights Council in March 2014. It is the last report by this Rapporteur whose mandate will terminate. The report finds that human rights defenders – especially journalists, lawyers, trade unionists and those who work to promote women’s rights and the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons – face ‘extraordinary risks’. It highlights cases of defamation, attacks, detention, torture and even killings. The report also documents an increased incidence of violations against people and communities opposed to mining, construction and development projects, with protesters attacked both by State and private security forces. ‘Human rights defenders play a crucial role in exposing and seeking accountability for violations by both governments and corporations. Their work is crucial to transparency, good governance and justice for victims,’ commented Phil Lynch of the International Service for Human Rights in Geneva.
The report also documents the worsening ‘use of legislation in a number of countries to refrain the activities of human rights defenders and to criminalise them’, with cited examples including laws to ‘curb the promotion of homosexuality’ and to restrict NGO access to foreign funds. ‘In the last four weeks alone, Nigeria, Russia, Uganda, Malaysia and the Ukraine have enacted or applied laws to criminalise human rights defenders and to silence their critical voice,’ Mr Lynch added.
In addition to documenting violations, the report makes a wide range of recommendations to ensure that human rights defenders are protected and can operate in a ‘safe and enabling environment’.
For those too busy to read the whole new UN report [PDF] here are the
V. Conclusions and recommendations: Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in books, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, ISHR, UN | Leave a Comment »
Tags: Civil society, corporate accountability, criminalization, development projects, enabling environment, environmental issues, foreign funding, freedom of association, freedom of expression, funding restrictions, Human Rights Council, Human Rights Defenders, International Service for Human Rights, ISHR, journalists, land rights, lawyers, LGBTI, local communities, Malaysia, Margaret Sekaggya, Nigeria, Phil Lynch, Russia, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, trade unionists, Uganda, Ukraine, UN Special Rapporteur, women human rights defenders
January 17, 2014
On 14 January 2014 the
Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs published its report “
On the situation with human rights in the European Union” (posted on the ministry’s website ) in which it claimed that the
EU was struck by
“serious human rights illnesses.” A large part of he report relies on information from international human rights organizations, such as AI. In the document the Russian Foreign Ministry
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in AI, Amnesty international, EU, human rights, Human Rights Defenders | 1 Comment »
Tags: AI, BBC, Catherine Ashton, diplomacy, Edward Snowden, electronic surveillance, EU, Foreign agent, human rights, human rights dialogue, human rights information, human rights organizations, human rights policy, human rights violations, international human rights instruments, right to privacy, Russia, Russian Minister of foreign affairs, Voice of Russia
December 24, 2013
(Pussy Riot’s members with their distinctive coloured balaclavas)
The two remaining members of Russian punk band Pussy Riot, whose incarceration sparked a global outcry, have been released under an amnesty law, but Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina dismissed the amnesty as a publicity stunt before the Sochi Winter Olympics in February.They both promised to continue their vocal opposition to the government. The women were jailed in August 2012 after performing a protest song in Moscow’s main cathedral. Alyokhina’s first words and actions after being freed serve as a sign that this fight is likely to go on. The case divided Russia with many feeling the women were being too harshly treated and made examples of as part of attempts to clamp down on opposition to the government. But others felt their actions were a gross offence to the Orthodox faith. The act was seen as blasphemous by many others e.g. in Greece here and was condemned by several Orthodox Churches. However, their conviction for “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” was criticised by rights groups [AI declared them prisoners of conscience], celebrities [such as Sting, the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Madonna and Yoko Ono ], anti-Putin activists and foreign governments.
This should make us look again a the issue of blasphemy in general. The crime of criticizing a religion is not always called blasphemy; sometimes it is categorized as hate speech (even when it falls well below any sensible standard of actually inciting hatred or violence) because it supposedly insults the followers of a religion. These crimes—of expressing ‘blasphemy’ or offending religious feelings—are still a crime in 55 countries, can mean prison in 39 of those countries, and are punishable by death in six countries.
Recently, Ireland and the Netherlands started the process of removing some or part of their blasphemy laws. The arguments in these debates have universal validity.
Human Rights First and other NGOs have reported on human rights abuses caused by the use of blasphemy laws around the world. These laws are often vague and can be subject to abuse, either by the authorities or citizens who can accuse a fellow citizen of blasphemy with a personal complaint to the prosecutor. The concept is inconsistent with universal human rights standards, which protect the rights of individuals rather than abstract ideas or religions. Those accused of blasphemy are frequently threatened or attacked even before any investigation. People take to the streets and violence stoked by religious extremists ensues. Blasphemy laws have been used to justify violence and oppression against minorities. Blasphemy laws enable governments to restrict freedom of expression, thought, and religion. Application of the laws can result in devastating consequences for religious minorities. This has been the case for Christians in Pakistan and Egypt, Ahmadi followers in Indonesia, and non-believers in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. In many instances, officials fail to condemn abuses or to hold the perpetrators of violence accountable. And the police often fail to stop violence against religious minorities or to protect those endangered on account of such laws.
In the past few years, several bodies of the United Nations have examined the relationship between freedom of expression and hate speech, especially in relation to religious issues. After extensive consultation with governments and civil society, the Rabat Plan of Action was published by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in October 2012. This document outlines how blasphemy laws are problematic. Since 2011, a new process dubbed the Istanbul Process was launched as a result of resolutions adopted at the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. The idea is to combat religious intolerance without restricting freedom of speech but whether that is possible is a big question.
Lessons of the Debate Over Ireland’s Blasphemy Law | Human Rights First
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/Blasphemy_Cases.pdf.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/12/netherlands-scraps-blasphemy-law–but-seeks-a-way-to-replace-it
BBC News – Pussy Riot: Russia frees jailed punk band members.
Posted in AI, HRF, human rights, Human Rights Defenders | 1 Comment »
Tags: AI, Amnesty, blasphemy, blasphemy laws, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, Freedom of speech, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, Human Rights First, Ireland, Madonna, Maria Alyokhina, minority rights, Moscow, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Netherlands, Pakistan, prisoner of conscience, Pussy Riot, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sting, Vladimir Putin, women human rights defenders, Yoko Ono
December 16, 2013
On December 12, 2013, the Anti-Discrimination Centre (ADC) “Memorial” was officially declared a “foreign agent” by the Leninsky District Court of St Petersburg, and was ordered to register as such with the Ministry of Justice, according to information received by the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders. Today, the court unexpectedly established that all the activities of ADC “Memorial” fall under the definition of “performing the functions of a foreign agent”. Accordingly, for the first time, a court has directly labelled a human rights NGO a “foreign agent”, and did not just order it to register as such. This decision could pave the way to increased harassment of all human rights organisations in the Russian Federation. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in FIDH, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, OMCT | 1 Comment »
Tags: ADC Memorial, CAT, Center for Social Policy and Gender Studies, Coming Out, controversial restrictions, European Union, FIDH, Foreign agent, foreign agent law, foreign funding, funding restrictions, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, judicial harassment, Non-governmental organization, Observatory for the Protection of HRDs, OMCT, Russia, Tolekan Ismailova, trial observation, United Nations Convention Against Torture, Women of the Don
December 5, 2013
Following a major human rights speech delivered by National Security Advisor Susan Rice, at the Human Rights First Summit, CEO Elisa Massimino issued the following statement: “Today’s speech was a welcome affirmation of the Obama 
Administration’s commitment to protecting human rights at home and abroad. Ambassador Rice made a compelling case for why this effort is squarely in the national interest, arguing that short term trade-offs cannot alter our foundational values, and that respect for human rights is essential to our security. Detailing not just the ‘easy cases’ but also those where the United States has competing interests, Rice spelled out the ways the administration balances these interests, while seeking to uphold American ideals. She underscored the administration’s commitment to following through on promises to shutter Guantanamo and take the nation off of its current war-footing. We encourage the administration to double down on efforts to more actively and creatively support human rights defenders in places like Egypt, Bahrain, and Russia, priorities that Ambassador Rice touched on today. We look forward to working with the administration to keep human rights at the heart of U.S. foreign policy today, and in the long term.” After her speech Susan Rice met with human rights defenders from Bahrain, Egypt, Zimbabwe, and the international LGBT community.
via Rice Delivers Major Human Rights Speech at Human Rights First Summit | Human Rights First.
Posted in HRF, human rights, Human Rights Defenders | Leave a Comment »
Tags: Ambassador Rice, Bahrain, Egypt, Foreign Policy of the USA, HRF, Human right, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, Human Rights First, National Security Advisor (United States), National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Rice, Russia, Susan Rice, United States
December 4, 2013
The Monitor of the ISHR reports that in the Third Committee there was a serious setback in establishing an high-level ‘anti-reprisals focal point’ in the UN. In an unprecedented move, a group of States, led by Gabon and joined by others such as China and Russia, was successful in securing the passage of a resolution in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly to defer the appointment of such a senior UN official despite Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders, UN | 1 Comment »
Tags: anti-reprisals focal point, China, European Union, Gabon, Human right, Human Rights Council, Human rights defender, Human Rights Defenders, International Service for Human Rights, ISHR, Norway, OHCHR, reprisals, retaliation, Russia, Third Committee, Third Committee of the GA, UN, UN General Assembly, United Nations, United Nations Human Rights Council
December 2, 2013
“Write for Rights” is one of Amnesty International’s major global campaigns. AI is capable of getting its own outreach and does not need my blog but I want to refer to it anyway as it is such a quintessential human rights action model. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in AI, Amnesty international, human rights, Human Rights Defenders | 1 Comment »
Tags: 10 December, Advocacy Organizations, AI, Amnesty, Amnesty International, Bahrain, Belarus, Burma, Cambodia, Eskinder Nega, Ethiopia, Honduras, human rights, Human Rights and Liberties, Human Rights Defenders, international human rights day, Mexico, Myanmar, Nabi Saleh village, Nigeria, Palestine, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Tunisia, Turkey, urgent action, Yorm Bopha
November 28, 2013
A UN General Assembly committee has agreed a landmark first resolution on women human rights defenders, but compromise forced some weakening of the text. A Norwegian-led coalition, which prepared the resolution, had to delete language that condemned “all forms of violence against women” to get the text passed by consensus late Wednesday 27 November. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in human rights, Human Rights Defenders | 1 Comment »
Tags: Africa, AP, China, cultural relativism, GA, Geir Sjoberg, Holy See, Human rights defender, Human Rights Defenders, International Service for Human Rights, Ireland, Norway, Russia, sexual rights, UN Resolution, United Nations General Assembly, Vatican, Violence against women, women human rights defenders, Women's rights
November 22, 2013
This blog has on several occasions made mention of the dangerous developments in Russia where the ‘foreign agents’ law is being used to delegitimize human rights defenders. Front Line just came with an update showing that the legal aspect of this issue (is the law legally permissible under the Russian Constitution or the European Convention Human Rights?) is coming under scrutiny. On 18 November 2013, the Zamoskvoretsky District Court in Moscow heard the cases of 3 NGOs – Human Rights Centre ‘Memorial’, GOLOS, and the Public Verdict Foundation – which challenge the ‘Foreign Agents’ law. Following the presentation of their arguments, the court accepted their request to postpone the hearings until 4 February 2014. Significant, as it was taken in order to await for the rulings of the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) or the Russian Constitutional Court, whichever comes first:
- On 6 February 2013, eleven Russian NGOs lodged a complaint with the ECtHR alleging that the ‘Foreign Agents’ law violates four articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, namely Article 10 (Freedom of Expression), Article 11 (Freedom of Association and Assembly), Article 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and Article 18 (Limitations on Rights).
- On 13 August 2013, Kostroma Centre for Civic Initiatives Support lodged a complaint with the Russian Constitutional Court arguing that the ‘Foreign Agent’ law violates five articles of the Russian Constitution, namely Article 19 (Equality before the law), Article 29 (Freedom of ideas and speech), Article 30 (Right of Association), Article 32 (Right to participate in managing state affairs), and Article 51 (right not to give incriminating evidence against oneself).
- On 30 August 2013, the Russian Human Rights Ombudsman, Vladimir Lukin, also lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court against certain provisions of the ‘Foreign Agents’ law. In particular, the Ombudsman argued that the definition of terms ‘foreign agent’ and ‘political activities’, as provided by the law, are politically and legally incorrect.
Still, one wonders whether the battle should not be fought also in the public domain as the ‘foreign agent campaign’ by the authorities is clearly not about financial control (there is enough of that already to satisfy any suspicious prosecutor) or political control (in which case registration as simple lobbyist would suffice) but about ‘framing’ the human rights defenders as traitors, unpatriotic people. The requirement to identify oneself as foreign agent on every paper or poster is a clear indication of what the Government wants to achieve. This kind of action by governments (not just Russia) is a deliberate (mis)information effort that should be fought in the same arena of public perception. Admittedly far from easy and costly but there are things that COULD be done, I think:
- bumper stickers and T-shirts with “I am a foreign agent” (in Russian of course, but supporters abroad could have it in English)
- well-known Russian celebrities could make statements such as: “IF …is a foreign agent ,in that case I am also one!”
- production of video clips that poke fun at the idea, etc
As a concrete example: on 21 November 2013, a year after the law came into effect, Amnesty International Norway, LLH (the Norwegian LGBT Organisation) and the Norwegian Helsinki Committee called themselves for one day foreign agents in solidarity with Russian organisations who struggle to keep their work going (see also in Norwegian: http://www.amnesty.no/agent). Of course, people on the ground know best what will work, but I think some form of ‘counter-defamation’ should be tried. It would benefit Russia and could de-motivate the authorities in other countries watching what happens in Russia.
Posted in Front Line, Human Rights Defenders | 1 Comment »
Tags: ADC Memorial, AI Norway, Constitution of Russia, European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights, Foreign agent, foreign agent law, foreign funding, freedom of association, Front Line (NGO), GOLOS, human rights, Human Rights Defenders, judicial harassment, LLH, media framing, Memorial, Moscow, Non-governmental organization, Norwegian Helsinki Committee, public perception, public relations campaign, Public Verdict Foundation, restrictive laws, Russia, solidarity action, stigma, Vladimir Lukin
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 