share information on human rights defenders, with special focus on human rights awards and laureates
The New-York based Human Rights Foundation announced on 5 May 2016 that the laureates of the 2016 Václav Havel International Prize for Creative Dissent are:
The killing of Honduran human rights defender Berta Cáceres [http://wp.me/pQKto-20p] has resonated widely in the media and may (finally) lead to some real action in the world where the dam is being financed. Peter Bosshard, Interim Executive Director, International Rivers, wrote under the heading “Agua Zarca: A Stain on the Dutch and Finnish Human Rights Record” (15 March 2016) that the Dutch government announced that it will send an ambassador to Honduras “to express concern over the killing of human rights activist Berta Cáceres” and presumably assess the state of the Agua Zarca Project. In response to International Rivers’ online action, FMO (the financial arm of development aid) said that it would decide about continued involvement in the dam project on the basis of this visit. Finn fund says that speculation about an exit from Agua Zarca is “at the moment premature,” but the financier would probably follow if FMO pulled out of the project.
Yesterday, 14 March 2016 was the second anniversary of the death of Cao Shunli, a Chinese human rights defender who was detained and denied adequate medical treatment in police custody for five months, before dying in a military hospital in Beijing in 2014. This happened shortly after she was shortlisted for the Martin Ennals Award in that year. [see also https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/cao-shunli-a-profile-and-new-award-in-her-name/]. Has the situation improved…? Read the rest of this entry »
A group of over 50 international organizations has written to the President of Honduras to express their shock over the recent killing of Berta Cáceres [https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/berta-caceres-human-rights-defender-assassinated-today-in-honduras/], to demand an international investigation and the immediate protection of Gustavo Castro Soto, a Mexican activist, who witnessed her assassination. Here is the letter and signatories in full: Read the rest of this entry »
A sad day for Honduras and all human rights defenders: today, 3 March 2016, Berta Cáceres was murdered by as yet unknown assailants who broke into her home in the city of La Esperanza in the early hours of the morning. One week prior to her assassination, the defender had denounced the killing of 4 leaders of her community as well as threats against her and other human rights defenders, at a press conference.
Berta Cáceres was one of the most prominent human rights defenders in Honduras and a Lenca indigenous woman who, for the past 20 years, had been defending the territory and rights of the Lenca people. In 1993, she co-founded the Consejo Civico de Organizaciones Populares e Indígenas de Honduras – COPINH (http://www.copinh.org/) (Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organisations of Honduras), which led fierce campaigns against illegal logging and mega-projects for their detrimental effects on the rights of indigenous peoples in the country. She faced off – and often won – against illegal loggers, plantation owners, multinational corporations, and dam projects that would cut off food and water supplies to indigenous communities. (e.g. https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/berta-caceres-in-honduras-continues-to-be-harassed-in-spite-of-court-order).
The human rights defender was a finalist for the 2014 Front Line Defenders Award [https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/es/programme/fld-award] and in 2015 she received the Goldman Environmental Prize. She had been a beneficiary of precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) since 2009. Her harassment was followed closely by Front Line and others.
Other human rights defenders (including members of COPINH) have been targeted in the past. The killing of human rights defenders and impunity for the perpetrators have been documented by many organizations. In this blog alone:
“the most dangerous place to be an environmental activist was actually Honduras, according to Global Witness” [https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/killings-of-environmental-human-rights-defenders-up-again-compared-to-last-year/]
The article starts by mentioning the attack on Soni Sori (see more below on her). Reports suggest that oil paint mixed with chemicals was thrown on her face by unknown assailants. This attack, … and other reports of intimidation of persons such as lawyers and journalists working in the Jagdalpur area raises the question of the safety of human rights defenders and shows that there isn’t enough being done by the State machinery to defend the defenders….
Srishti Agnihotri then makes the interesting point that “it is not necessary to be correct to qualify as a human rights defender”. E.g. the criticism of Human Rights Defenders on a particular development project may not be legally correct. However, this does not and should not disentitle them to the protection of the State against violence and reprisals. The reason for this will become clear when we examine the role human rights defenders play in a society.
These Defenders face problems, in many parts of the world, and India is not an exception. Often the work being done by human rights defenders brings them in conflict with vested interests such as the land mafia, the mining lobby, or other corporations. A case in point is the story of Satyendra Dubey, an officer in the Indian Engineering Service, who lost his life due to exposing corruption in a highway construction project. At other times, the advocacy done by them requires them to be critical of the State action including in areas where there is considerable unrest….
This gives room for propaganda that human rights defenders or NGOs are ‘anti-development’ or even ‘anti-national’. It leads to them facing the wrath of more draconian security legislations, or attacks on them by vested interests. It is very easy to make the mistake of thinking ‘Why should we use state resources to protect those who are critical of the State? The obvious answer, is that the State may not always be correct. Given the great power state and corporate entities enjoy, their ability to make mistakes if unchecked is also correspondingly large. A hard reckoning of the work done by human rights defenders shows that they act as an essential check and balance on the State, and throw light on existing state-industry nexus, to protect the rights of people. The State derives its legitimacy from an implicit contract with its citizens, which necessitates a mechanism to check that the State adheres to this contract, and this is a function carried out by the human rights defenders. In this sense, human rights defenders are necessary for a healthy functioning democracy.
………
While there are general laws that can be (and are) used to protect these defenders, but those working for the enactment of a special law argue that the role of the law is also to play a certain ‘normative, expressive and educative’ function. By this, they mean that a special law to protect human rights defenders will also confer legitimacy on the work that they are doing, and create an enabling environment where they may do so peacefully.
Of course, the enactment of a special law is not adequate to ensure the protection of human rights defenders. It has to go hand in hand with better law and order, better legal services in areas where these defenders work, transparency in governance, toleration of dissent by the State machinery, and continued proactive action by the Focal Point for the protection of Human Rights Defenders, at the National Human Rights Commission.
This focal point is involved in providing assistance to such Rights defenders, and following alleged violations of their rights. Although there has been greater collaboration between the NHRC and Human Rights defenders, much needs to be done to ensure that defenders can work in a safe and enabling environment.
The Times of India of 10 February 2016 takes to task the State of Chhattisgarh – echoing Amnesty India – that it should do more to protect a woman journalist, Malini Subramaniam, in Bastar. “This attack is another indicator of the increasingly hostile atmosphere in which journalists and human rights defenders operate in Chhattisgarh,” said Makepeace Sitlhou, Campaigner at Amnesty International India. Malini herself said: “This is not an attack on me as a person but as a journalist reporting incidents on the ground, something that they don’t want“. [The statement said, a group of over 20 people gathered outside the home of journalist Malini Subramaniam on February 7. They urged her neighbours to stone her house and chanted slogans suggesting that she was an agent for Maoist armed groups. Later that day, an anti-Maoist group released a public statement accusing her of presenting a distorted picture of Bastar and promoting Maoist ideology.]
On 21 February 2016 Saurav Datta in Catchnews poses the question “Why is Chhattisgarh govt scared of human rights defenders?“. Isha Khandelwal, Shalini Gera and Nikita Agarwal, all in their late 20s, keep looking furtively behind their backs while packing her bags from Jagdalpur in western India’s Chhattisgarh district. They are afraid that a posse of policemen may descend upon them and subject them to custodial torture. They also fear that that they would be implicated under various provisions of the Chhattisgarh Special Security Act, a law roundly criticised by civil liberties activists as being dangerously oversweeping in its scope and ambit. The moot question here is – why should be a ragtag coalition of lawyers, operating on a shoestring budget, be subjected to state repression? The piece then goes into the background of the Indian system of legal aid and how the state administration undercuts all this in practice.
has covered a lot cases in India including in the State of Chhattisgarh such as those of Malini Subramaniam and the members of the Jagdalpur Legal Aid Group mentioned above (https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/29909 and https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/306160).
Front Line – on 22 February 2016 – also reported the attack on human rights defender Soni Sori who was assaulted on 20 February by three unidentified men as she travelled from Jagdalpur to her home. The perpetrators halted the vehicle and threw a black substance on her face, resulting in intense burning and her hospitalization. She is a human rights defender who advocates for the rights of indigenous peoples in India, with a focus on women’s rights. She works in Chhattisgarh, where the long-term conflict between Maoists and government security forces has greatly affected the indigenous people in the area. During the attack, the perpetrators threatened to carry out a similar assault on the daughter of Soni Sori, lest the human rights defender halt the efforts she had undertaken to bring justice against a high-ranking police official from the Bastar district of Chhattisgarh. Soni Sori had recently been attempting to file a complaint against the police official in relation to their involvement in an alleged extra-judicial killing in the Mardum area of Bashar. In July 2015, the police official in question allegedly called for the “social exclusion” of the human rights defender and members of her family. [Soni Sori has previously been targeted by the authorities on several occasions https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/taxonomy/term/18892 and https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/29351]
On 8 January 2016, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (a joint programme of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), called on the Indian government to release on bail and stop the ongoing judicial harassment of Mr. Ajimuddin Sarkar. Mr. Sarkar is a renowned human rights defender who has investigated cases of human rights violations perpetrated by the police and Border Security Forces (BSF), and who has been instrumental in denouncing several other human rights violations in Murshidabad district. He was arbitrarily arrested on 22 September 22 and only on 8 December, 2015 released on bail, since the de facto complainant filed an affidavit stating that she did not bring any allegation of rape against Mr. Sarkar and she had no knowledge of the related criminal case against him. Mr. Sarkar is currently receiving medical treatment, both physical and psychological, as his mental and physical health conditions deteriorated significantly during the past months in detention.[The Observatory recalls that it is not the first time Mr. Sarkar has been intimidated, judicially harassed and ill-treated by the police – see background information].
See also my earlier: https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/india-human-rights-defenders-being-silenced-by-the-court/
Sources:
http://www.newsgram.com/who-is-defending-the-defenders-in-india-human-rights/ (first published at Kafila.org.)
Why is Chhattisgarh govt scared of human rights defenders?
http://www.omct.org/human-rights-defenders/urgent-interventions/india/2016/01/d23556/
‘If you threaten human rights defenders, you break the eyes, mouths, legs, and arms of the people’, said the Wai Wai Nu, Director of Women Peace Network Arakan in Myanmar/Burma.
Ms Wai Wai Nu is a Burmese human rights defender committed to working for peace and justice in her country. She is the Director the Women Peace Network Arakan, which she founded in 2012 upon her and her family’s release from prison after seven years of detention. ‘When I was released, I saw some positive changes in cities but not in rural areas: not in areas where ethnic minorities lived. It was then I took responsibility to work for my people’.
The Women Peace Network Arakan carries out civic education and works for the empowerment of women and young people. The Network also encourages interfaith dialogue to build much-needed trust between religious communities. Ms Nu – herself a member of the Rohinga Muslim community – is vocal about the rights of minorities in Burma. She stresses that the notion of democracy needs to be understood beyond a strict notion of parliamentary democracy where the majority rules. Upholding the rights of the many minority communities in the country requires commitment to democratic processes that respect and protect rights, including land rights.
‘There are so many human rights violations occurring in Burma – from land grabbing, and sexual violence in conflict areas, to media restrictions, and attacks against human rights defenders. We work with young people, who tend to be open-minded, encouraging them to engage with the spirit of democracy, to work for the promotion of justice and human rights for all’.
Ms Nu is also co-founder of ‘Justice for Women’, which works to promote women’s rights, raises awareness about sexual harassment and discrimination and provides basic legal education.
With the political reforms in Burma since 2011, opportunities for human rights defenders to operate in the country have opened up. However, the environment for defending rights remains restricted and attacks against defenders numerous. The changing political landscape has seen a rapid increase in foreign companies operating in the country and with it reported threats against HRDs working in the field of economic, social, and cultural rights. Human rights defenders have experienced arbitrary arrest and former detainees report the fear of re-arrest.
‘We have to be very careful. Defenders feel they are being watched. I make sure I speak in terms of the international human rights legal framework, and don’t directly confront the government. I adopt a very diplomatic approach’.
The protection of human rights defenders remains a crucial component of securing the respect of rights in Burma. Ms Nu is clear that when human rights defenders are threatened, there is no protection of the population as a whole, and there can be no progress towards a truly democratic country or economic development. The UN has focused specific attention on Myanmar through the work of the Special Advisor of the Secretary General and the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar. There are also several UN bodies working in the country.
This comes from an interview with ISHR on 10 November 2014.
On 7 February 2016, Big News Network carried a profile of Cao Shunli, the Chinese human rights defender who died in custody on 14 March 2014. It starts with a beautiful quote of Cao Shunli (in an article on the China Change website on The Life and Death of Cao Shunli: “I was so saddened. I thought: you [China] are such a big government, but you do this to one individual. I don’t understand it.”
I have blogged enough on Cao Shunli [https://thoolen.wordpress.com/tag/cao-shunli/] skip her life story here but the profile is worth reading for those who want to know more about this remarkable woman. Cao was a final nominee for the Martin Ennals Award 2014, for which True Heroes Films (THF) produced a moving video about her work that includes footage of the Chinese quashing of the motion of silence at the UN. [see: http://www.martinennalsaward.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=248&Itemid=161&lang=en]
The article does not refer to the establishment of the annual Cao Shunli Memorial Award for Human Rights Defenders. On 9 March 2015 Three rights groups launched the award in honor of Cao Shunli: Human Rights Campaign in China, Civil Rights & Livelihood Watch, and Rights Defense Network. The award is handed out on March 14, to mark the day Cao Shunli passed away. The recipient will be awarded funding to conduct human rights initiatives, especially “to push for civil society participation in international human rights activities” and to monitor the Chinese government’s implementation of its human rights obligations. In a joint announcement, the three NGOs said that the award will “commemorate Ms. Cao Shunli, so her life’s story will inspire generations to come.” Read the rest of this entry »
This month’s profile of a human rights defender in the ISHR Monitor is that of Teo Soh Lung, Director of Function 8 Limited. The interview was conducted during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Singapore.
Soh Lung started her career as a lawyer with no intention of becoming a public figure, but ‘I always felt that as lawyers we should do more than just earn a living.’ Early in her career Soh Lung worked at a Catholic centre, a form of half-way house, which assisted people ranging from migrant workers, Filipino domestic workers to former convicted offenders. ‘We were happily busy doing this kind of work, not thinking that we were ‘defenders’ as such.’
In the early 1980s, Soh Lung became active in the Law Society of Singapore and with a number of other lawyers established the criminal legal aim scheme. In association with the Law Society she started to comment on bills proposed by the Government. ‘We thought, as lawyers we should assist the Government by commenting on bills. Singapore was a one-party State at this time. However, the Government did not want to hear our opinions and soon afterwards a law was passed which restricted our right to comment on bills.’
On 21 May 1987 Soh Lung was arrested without charge as permitted by the Internal Security Act (ISA). Around this time 21 other young people including lawyers involved in the Law Society were also arrested. ‘I was accused of trying to overthrow the Government and manipulating the Law Society – I was made out by the Government to be the ring leader.’
Months later, those detained were released. Given no one knew the truth about what had transpired, 9 out of the 22 arrested decided to publish a press statement which denied the Government’s story and confirmed that they had been tortured while in detention. The next day the 8 of the 9 were re-arrested (the ninth was out of the country). ‘Our cells were incredibly dirty. There were slits for air. I was in solitary confinement the entire time, other than a lizard and insects that kept me company.’
While detained, Soh Lung commenced habeas corpus proceedings, arguing that she had been unlawfully detained. ‘Initially Francis Seow, the former Solicitor General, represented my case. However, when he came to the prison to interview me he himself was arrested because he was communicating with international human rights bodies and the American Ambassador – the Government alleged he was receiving money from the CIA. He spent 72 days in jail.’ Soh Lung referred to the difficultly she had finding lawyers to represent her. ‘Historically anyone that represented ISA detainees were then detained themselves.’
When the Court handed down its decision, it decided Soh Lung’s case on technical grounds. This meant that her substantive argument had not been considered – and most importantly – that she could be re-arrested as and when the Government wished. ‘As soon as we stepped outside of the prison gate I was re-arrested. This was, and still is not, unusual. The judicial system doesn’t have any power to keep people free if the Government wants them to remain imprisoned.’ Soh Lung was in prison for another 2 years, during which time the law changed and the right to judicial review, as well as the Privy Council were abolished.
‘As a lawyer if you start a fight, you need to fight until the end. After my appeals of my re-arrests were unsuccessful and the change to the law, I realised there was nothing more I could do with the judiciary to ensure my release. In 1990 after two years of detention, I was released with restrictions.’ It took Soh Lung 20 years to publish the book she wrote about her detention the year after she was released.
‘I knew people would continue to be treated as I was if I didn’t speak out about it. There were people who were arrested before me under the ISA, but I didn’t know about this when I was arrested. I wanted to create awareness within civil society.’ The civil society movement, and in particular ISA defenders, in Singapore went quiet in the 1990’s after Soh Lung’s arrest, but regained strength and became more active about the time of the release of her book and her story.
‘In 2013 there was an event on the 50th anniversary of Operation Cold Store during which names of those who had been arbitrarily detained were made public. A few years after the event, there were 1315 names on the list – which was initially a list of about 700. After all this time and among others who had similarly suffered, people had the strength to speak out about their experience.’
In 2010 Soh Lung and others detained with her established Function 8, an NGO which submits on indefinite imprisonment without trial that is currently permitted by three Singaporean statutes – the Internal Security Act, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. Soh Lung travelled to Geneva as an observer on behalf of the Alliance of Like-Minded Civil Society Organisations in Singapore (ALMOS) during Singapore’s UPR. ‘We are excited about engaging more with the UPR. It is a new process for us. One which we believe can assist to hold Singapore accountable to its international obligations and bring about national change, and hopefully one day, the repeal of the ISA.’
Source: Defender profile: Teo Soh Lung from Singapore | ISHR
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 