On 8 May 2014 human rights defender and lawyer Ms Shireen Essawi began a hunger strike after learning of the postponement of her trial for nine months and a day. She is charged with cooperating with actors who are working against the state of Israel. Shireen Essawi is a human rights lawyer who has participated in monitoring and documenting human rights violations committed against Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons, especially children, women, and prisoners from the Gaza Strip. The human rights defender also reported on practices adopted by Israeli authorities for Palestinian and Arab prisoners in Israeli jails that she believes violate human rights, such as preventing visits by lawyers.
The postponement of her trial on 7 May 2014 follows several court appearances by the human rights defender since her arrest on 6 March 2014. It is reported that under Israeli law, a trial may be suspended and detention can continue upon the condition that a final judgment and sentence is issued within nine months and a day of the adjournment. Shireen Essawi began her hunger strike out of solidarity with Palestinian prisoners, and has declared she will continue it in protest at the adjournment of her trial. The human rights defender was arrested at her home in Jerusalem as part of a wave of arrests targeting lawyers. Her colleagues have since been released on bail, pending trials.
Front Line Defenders expresses its concern at the postponement of the trial and continued detention of Shireen Essawi, which is solely related to her peaceful and legitimate human rights work, in particular concerning the rights of Palestinians and Arab Israelis.
On 12 May 2014 Charter97 brings a story that shows that Belarus finds it awkward to let human rights defenders into the country but it equally that high-level intervention by sports officials can help. According to Christer Englund, the President of the Swedish Ice Hockey Association, the detention of Paulina Kluge and the earlier detention of Martin Uggla are obvious violations of the arrangements between the International Ice Hockey Federation and the Belarusian authorities. “No visas are needed for those having a ticket for a hockey match. It shouldn’t matter what your name is,”Christer Englund said. “The issue is now being discussed on the level of Lukashenka and Fasel.” Paulina Kluge was allowed to enter Belarus in the end he said in interview with SVD sport.
Human rights defender Martin Uggla, who had been deported from Belarus earlier, wrote on Facebook: “Another Swedish human rights activist from Östgruppen – Paulina Kluge – was detained at the airport in Minsk on May 9. She was waiting for the deportation. My case was being discussed at the highest level (Fasel and Lukashenka) at that time. They began to discuss both issues. As a result, Paulina was allowed to enter the country! They said it was a ‘technical error’. As for my status, there’s no new information so far”. https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/human-rights-defenders-call-for-release-political-prisoners-during-ice-hockey-world-championship-in-belarus/
[About 30 opposition activists have been detained by the police in the last two weeks]
The ISHR Newsletter of 24 April carries an interesting portrait of Malaysian human rights defender Thilaga Sulathireh. She states that she initially joined the struggle for LGBTI rights in Malaysia in response to her own experience of discrimination and harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. She now devotes herself to promoting and protecting the rights of others. The violence and discrimination inflicted on the LGBTI community in Malaysia, particularly on trans people, strengthened Thilaga’s determination to promote transgender rights, and challenge patriarchal norms and oppressive religious traditions and values.
It was just announced that the following three Human Right Defenders have been selected as the Final Nominees for the Martin Ennals Award2014: Read the rest of this entry »
The NGO Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (Empower) is deeply saddened by the passing of Irene Fernandez. This is how her colleagues reacted:
“Many of us knew her as a comrade and friend, stretching back years to the beginnings of our lives as activists and human rights defenders Irene Fernandez has had a long and vibrant engagement with human rights since the 1970s. She worked tirelessly for the rights of people whose causes were unpopular even among more sympathetic Malaysians: migrant workers, domestic workers, sex workers, and people living with HIV. She was there at the birth of the women’s movement in Malaysia in the 1980s and became a founder member of All Women’s Action Society (Awam) as well as Women’s Development Collective. Empower and Tenaganita, under her direction, collaborated on a one-year project in 2010. We were looking forward to many more such collaborations with Irene before her unexpected passing.
Irene was a hero to many for her deep commitment to her principles. She could be stern and unyielding, but these were qualities that served her well in fighting against relentless State persecution. Neither the 13-year criminal trial nor the 2012 sedition case succeeded in breaking her will. Empower regrets that should her harassers be one day brought to account for their actions, she did not live to witness it. We must believe, as she did, that the struggle to reaffirm our democratic rights is universal. It is our right and our responsibility to stand up for justice and equality. No human being is unimportant, no matter the gender, ethnicity, wealth, or social status. In carrying her legacy to the future, we must find in ourselves the courage she showed in standing up to those who deny the common humanity of our brothers and sisters.”
Vigil for Cao Shunli in March 2014 in Dublin – (c) Front Line
Didi Kirsten Tatlow reports in The New York Times of 28 March how the issue of Cao Shunli’s death in detention in China has not ended. A lawyer for Cao Shunli said her family wants an independent autopsy by pathologists from outside China, saying they do not trust local pathologists or the police to make an accurate report. “If we can we would like to invite an international expert or an international expert organization to come here to do an autopsy,” said the lawyer, Ms Wang Yu. “’The family has not requested an autopsy yet, though they want one, because they don’t trust anyone here to do a fair job,” [The Beijing Lawyers Association and the Beijing Municipal Justice Bureau seem to be putting pressure on the lawyer] Read the rest of this entry »
A column in the South African City Press under the title “A chilling point of order for SA” written by Juliette De Rivero on 26 March 2014 makes a punchy statement about the disappointment felt all though the human rights movement when South Africa opted to support China’s point of order in the UN Council of Human Rights. In my post about this ‘court drama’ (reference below) I did not list all the countries coming out against allowing a moment of silence for the deceased Chinese human rights defender Cao Shunli and indeed the position of South Africa was in many way the most surprising, in de Rivero’s words: “…The South African delegate took the floor and warned that allowing the activists to proceed with the moment of silence would “create a dangerous precedent” that the council would not be able to sustain in the future.He noted that the action was “irregular and incompatible with the rules of procedure of this council”.South Africa’s choice to stand with the government that prevented Cao Shunli from participating in the UN came as a blow to the activist community – a community that was willing to stand up for Cao just as it had been willing to denounce the injustice of apartheid.South Africa’s concern that the moment of silence – not the death of the activist – was setting a bad precedent in the UN body sent such a chilling message to the human rights community that it should not be ignored…”
Let me add: That silence is a way of speaking should be clear to all, including South Africa, e.g. when on 6 December 2013 the General Assembly held a moment of silence to honour the memory of Nelson Mandela (“Madiba”).
(Cao Shunli, the Chinese activist who died in custody (c) Photograph: Reuters)
For those with an interest in how the UN Council deals with criticism – in this case of China – should follow the debate on the UN webcast (or see the video on demand later) [http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/25th-regular-session-of-the-human-rights-council/2178978642001/#]. What happened in short is that during the debate on the adoption of China’s UPR report on 20 March, the International Service of Human Rights (ISHR) called for a few moments of silence to remember Cao Shunli, the human rights defender who recently died in detention (see references below). China then invoked a point of order saying that speakers should make general statements and that did not include asking for silence. During a long procedural debate many views were expressed – mostly supportive of China – but some others clearly stating that freedom of speech included the right not to speak. The interpretation of the rules of procedure then seemed to lead to the conclusion that the UPR (Universal Periodic Review) should not be ‘politicized”….and that from the eminently political entities called Governments! Sensing that a majority would support it, China insisted on a ruling by the Chairman that this kind of intervention needs to be ruled out for the future. The big majority of States, fearing a ‘precedent-setting’, rejected even the compromise proposal by the Chair to discuss the issue further in the Bureau (at a later time) with a vote of 20 against 13 (and 12 abstentions). The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the second NGO to get the floor, then continued the request for a minute of silence for Cao Shunli. This was of course again interrupted. So, the Council ended up supporting China’s tough stance, in spite of several other NGOs and a few countries coming out with strong support for the moment of silence.
When the FIDH then let one its member organisations (including the Campaign Against Tibet) speak on its behalf, the Chinese delegation (perhaps emboldened by its earlier success) decided to interrupt again asking that the FIDH only identifies itself and not its members. This led to another procedural debate on whether NGOs with consultative status are allowed to mention other NGOs that have no such status (a standing practice I should add, which was established far back in the 80s when Argentina tried – in vain – to stop the ICJ from letting an Argentinian lawyer, Emilio Mignone, to speak about the disappearance of his own daughter).
Perhaps there will be further debate on these procedural aspects, but it is unlikely that the UPR comes out of this as a serious innovation in dealing with human rights violations.
Today, 14 March, Amnesty International brought out a statement severely criticizing China‘s treatment of human rights defenders in need of medical care. Cao Shunli, 52, died from organ failure on Friday at a hospital in Beijing, after five months in detention. Repeated requests by Cao’s family for her to receive medical treatment for serious health problems were denied.[ https://thoolen.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/serious-concern-for-health-of-detained-human-rights-defender-cao-shunli/]
“Cao Shunli’s death exposes just how callous and calculating the Chinese authorities are prepared to be to silence critics. The authorities today have blood on their hands.” said Anu Kultalahti, China Researcher at Amnesty International. “Cao Shunli was a courageous woman who paid the ultimate price for the fight for human rights in China. She should have never been detained in the first place; but to then deny her the medical treatment she desperately needed is a most barbaric act.”
Cao had led attempts to allow activists to contribute to China’s national human rights report, ahead of a UPR review at the UN Human Rights Council in 2013 and was arrested in September as she attempted to travel to Geneva to attend a human rights training course. Her detention was seen by many as a reprisal for her wanting to contribute to a public discussion on violations in China – the charges against her concerned “picking quarrels and making trouble” . The full Council is expected to hear the result of the UPR session on Wednesday 19 March. It will be interesting to see how the States and in particular China is going to react to this tragic event.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 