HumanistLife

Freedom of expression under threat: freedom of expression and preventing attacks on journalists

by

When journalists can't speak freely.

When journalists can’t speak freely. Freedom of expression: ‘one of our most abused civil liberties’.

“Freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly are rights that enable people to share ideas, form new thinking, and join together with others to claim their rights. It is through the exercise of these public freedoms that we make informed, considered and intelligent decisions about our development. To restrict them undermines progress…I take this opportunity to echo the Secretary-General’s condemnation of acts of reprisal against individuals by reason of their engagement with the United Nations.”

Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein, High Commissioner for Human Rights

Freedom of expression is the indispensable condition for the full realization of the spectrum of human rights covered by UN covenants and resolutions. However, it is also one of our most abused civil liberties.

During this session, the need to prevent impunity for attacks against journalists has been raised a number of times, in conjunction with the tabling and passage of two resolutions: the first specifically targeting the issue (and builds on UNGA’s 2013 landmark resolution), while the second seeks to protect civil society space.

Such attention is well warranted. Not only does an attack on a journalist represent an attack on the whole of society’s right to freely seek and impart information, but the level of impunity enjoyed by perpetrators – 9 out of 10 attacks on journalists goes unpunished – sets a precedent for censorship and recurrence. In a side event hosted by Article 19, Guy Berger, Head of Freedom of Expression and Media Development at UNESCO, noted that due to the societal role of journalists as representatives of free expression, ending impunity for attacks against them demonstrates that impunity in any form is simply unacceptable.

While intimidation and violence against journalists is not always carried out by state actors, institutionalized censorship and attempts to limit freedom of expression for journalists and whistleblowers remains a modern day scourge, both outside and within the Council. Externally, blasphemy, offence and defamation laws, typically used to protect religious sensitivities and consistently denounced as inconsistent with international human rights law, are increasingly being used as a sweeping term to silence debate or dissent on politics. Inside the Human Rights Council, states are interrupting statements made by NGOs with alarming frequency, calling for the speaker to be silenced, often citing spurious procedural grounds.

The case of Raif Badawi serves to illustrate both the external and internal challenges to freedom of expression. His case has been well publicized, no doubt due to the shocking sentence of 10 years, 1000 lashes and a fine of 1 million riyals that he received for establishing a liberal website, and has been duly raised numerous times at the Human Rights Council. The repeated references to his case and the international pressure to #FreeRaif has been much to the distaste of the Saudi Arabian delegation, who last week made the audacious claim that ‘the right to freedom of opinion and expression is guaranteed in the Kingdom’, and that there are no political prisoners in the country. Showing their respect for freedom of expression, the delegation proceeded to interrupt Badawi’s sister, Samar, who had flown to Geneva to raise the case of her brother and his lawyer – her husband, Waleed Abu Al-khair, who has also been arbitrarily detained – throughout the course of her speech, in a scene reminiscent of their attempt to silence Center for Inquiry representative Josephine Macintosh in June.

However, as Badawi’s case as a victim of blasphemy or defamation laws is by no means unique, Saudi Arabia is not the only delegation to interrupt NGOs. The number of points of order has been steadily creeping upwards, yet skyrocketed this session with almost 100 made this Session by a range of states (for further information, see here). Verbal attempts to silence NGOs within the UN, frustrating though they may be, are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of reprisals faced by activists who appear before the Council. In a side event, the International Service for Human Rights emphasized the extent of reprisals faced by human rights defenders who engage with UN mechanisms, citing, among others, the case of Cao Shunli. Shunli took part in the Universal Periodic Review of China, was imprisoned on her return, and subsequently died in prison following the authorities’ denial of her access to medical care, paying the ultimate price for engaging in human rights advocacy.

Just yesterday, Nabeel Rajab, Head of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and Deputy Secretary General of FIDH, was arrested following his European advocacy trip, during which he attended the Human Rights Council and met with various representatives of state missions and NGOs. Rajab was in prison from 2012 until May this year, on protest-related charges and for ‘insulting Bahrainis’; his current interrogation is based on ‘insulting a public institution’ on Twitter. Today, he will be transferred to the Public Prosecution Office. I had the pleasure of meeting Nabeel in September, and encourage anyone reading this to join the call for his immediate release.

In the words of Phil Lynch, Director of ISHR, ‘the Human Rights Council should be a place where NGOs are safe and free to advocate, agitate and, at times, irritate. That is our role, our responsibility, and our right.’

Ensuring this right necessitates the practical implementation of the existing resolutions on the protection of journalists and on Civil Society Space: theoretical adoption does not suffice.

While adopting a resolution by no means ensures protection in practice for the work of civil society organisations and human rights defenders, it contributes to the establishment of a legal framework that can be used in their defence, and will ensure that the issue is raised in a formal discussion before the Council in an upcoming session. However, it is important to emphasise that protecting journalists, human rights defenders and civil society space is not a matter of creating new rights: it is ensuring that the democratic and participatory space for the full realization of human rights is secured for all.

A victory for universality: UN Human Rights Council adopts resolution protecting LGBTI persons

by

Amelia Cooper reports again from the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, where she speaks on behalf of the British Humanist Association

Amelia Cooper reports again from the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, where she speaks on behalf of the British Humanist Association

‘There is no justification ever, for the degrading, the debasing or the exploitation of other human beings – on whatever basis: nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age or caste.’

This statement was made by the new High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein, in his introductory remarks to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva: a powerful, timely reminder of the universality of human rights. Notable in this statement is the inclusion of ‘sexual orientation’, which has faced numerous attacks and denunciations as being outside the remit of the Council, despite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ emphasis that there will be no distinction ‘of any kind’ in the application of human rights. However, it is with great pleasure that I write to say that last night, following fierce debate, tense votes, and years of global advocacy, the Human Rights Council adopted a resolution based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), only the second of its kind.

The past year has been a tumultuous one for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex (LGBTI) people, with great successes regarding equal marriage taking place in the US and the UK, while elsewhere, such as in Russia, Nigeria, and Uganda, a spate of anti-homosexuality legislation has criminalized certain types of love, or made it impossible for LGBTI people to live openly. The global increase in homophobic aggression led one gay man to remark that ‘a hunting season is open, and we are the hunted’[1].

Without direct experience, however, it is easy to forget the rampant homophobia, both state-sanctioned and carried out by vigilantes, that permeates every aspect of daily life for LGBTI persons throughout the world – including in Europe.

Last week, I attended a side event hosted by ARC International, a leading advocacy group focused on achieving equality for LGBTI, and was shocked and heartbroken in equal measures to hear of the brutal violence that individuals suffer because of who they love.

Jabulani, from the South African Iranti Organisation, detailed innumerable cases of corrective rape and attacks carried out with impunity, ending by saying ‘The fact is that loving someone of your same sex is a direct threat to your bodily integrity’.

In Latin America, there are ‘curative clinics’ where LGBTI people are taken, abused and violated to ‘normalise’ their bodies. In the psyche of the perpetrator, this is not sexual abuse: it is a method by which people be ‘cured’ of their identity. The suicide rate among LGBTI youth in Latin America is 50% higher than their peers; in Central America, the life expectancy for transgender individuals is 24-28 years old. Transgender people do not have the benefit of ‘the closet’, due to their gender expression, and are therefore visible and oft targeted.

In Europe, Nori Spauwen of COC Netherlands said that the protection of LGBTI persons remains ‘a patchwork of national policy and Council of Europe recommendations’, and emphasized that having a legal, pro-equality framework is an indispensable precondition to elimination discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In the EU, more than half of all lesbian women have faced violence or verbal abuse in the past year, while crimes committed against LGBTI persons continue to be grossly underreported, due to the victims’ belief that nothing will change, or because they fear a homo/transphobic police reaction.

Any of these cases, on an individual basis, would suffice to show that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity must stop; when together, they illustrate that this is a global scourge that must stop now.

Yesterday’s adoption of the resolution ‘combating violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity’ is a critically important achievement in upholding the universality of human rights and creating a global framework to combat discrimination against LGBTI persons.

Introduced by Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Uruguay, and subsequently co-sponsored by an additional 42 states, the resolution expresses grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination suffered by LGBTI, calls for an updated study to be carried out by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and ensures that the issue will remain on the Human Rights Council agenda.

The resolution faced a number of hostile amendments, including a proposal by Egypt (on behalf of ten states) to delete all references to sexual orientation and gender identity from the text. The Brazilian ambassador remarked that ‘Deleting all reference to sexual orientation and gender identity from this resolution would be the same as eliminating all references to women from the resolution on violence against women’. However, given that Egypt formed part of the core group who proposed the pernicious Protection of the Family resolution in June, their hostility to this resolution was hardly surprising.

A number of states spoke during the voting process, with impassioned statements from the resolution sponsors, including Chile’s statement that ‘this resolution does not seek to create new rights…there are some whose rights are more violated and need more protection’. Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, framed LGBTI equality as a danger to the country, saying ‘The wider connotations of the term ‘sexual orientation’ can be extremely detrimental and inimical to our Muslim societies in particular, and to our youth as a whole’.

Thankfully, the resolution survived the persistent attempts to undermine it and was passed with by a vote of 25-14 (with seven abstentions, including from China and India) to huge smiles, happy tears and close embraces in a rare moment of emotional diplomacy.

While the resolution alone will not bring an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, it is a remarkable achievement in enshrining LGBTI equality as part of the international agenda, and provides a framework for further discussion of the issue. As the final regular session of the 2014 Human Rights Council has now closed, the resolution is an enormous step forward in terms of LGBTI equality, undermining the national legislation that criminalizes love and proving that human rights are truly universal.

 

 

For further information, see the joint NGO statement following the passage of the resolution.

[1] Dima, a Russian man who was left blind in one eye after an armed group stormed a gay community centre. Quoted by Channel 4, and featured in their documentary ‘Hunted’. http://www.channel4.com/news/gay-russian-sochi-hunting-season-we-are-the-hunted

 

The trials and tribulations of the 26th session of the UN Human Rights Council

by

Fierce debate at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. Photo: UN.

Fierce debate at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. Photo: UN.

‘State obligations to achieve equality and non discrimination are immediate, and not subject to progressive realisation,’ wrote Maina Kiai, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, a phrase that was to become my basic principle during the 26th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

In the weeks leading up to the Council, the international media was dominated by reports of state-sanctioned abuses of human rights, making apparent the gulf between the discussions on the promotion and protection of human rights in Geneva, and the reality on the ground. Despite legally binding instruments establishing rights standards existing for more than sixty years, the global situation of human rights is deplorable. The assertions made by scholars that States ‘usually obey’ (Koh, 1997) international rules, and that ‘almost all nations observe almost all principles of international law almost all of the time’(Henkin, 1979) are, in the words of Marc Limon, Director of the Universal Rights Group, ‘somewhat utopian’; in mine, frankly untrue. ‘It’s the implementation, stupid!’ wrote Limon – and how right he is. With this in mind, I arrived in Geneva with several statements to deliver on behalf of the British Humanist Association, urging state co-operation with human rights mechanisms and adherence to international law within a range of contexts.

The session had a large focus on women’s rights, with specific panels addressing women and development; child, early and forced marriage; and violence against women In addition, a resolution was passed on combating gender based violence, and there was much positive discussion about the inclusion of a gender-specific goal in the Post-2015 Development Agenda. There is international consensus that sustainable development cannot be achieved without female emancipation, and the link between good governance and equality is widely documented: public policy is instrumental in ‘transforming the institutional norms and practices’[1] and in combating the ‘myriads of social pathologies’[2] which legitimize and perpetuate inequality. Despite this, women suffer systematic and legally enshrined discrimination throughout the world, which contravenes both Council membership obligations and international law.

‘Quite plainly, Mr President, there is no excuse for the persistence of state discrimination against women… Legal inequality legitimises gender-inequitable attitudes and patriarchal dominance, which are manifested in acts of psychological, physical and sexual abuse against women,[3] and contribute to the widespread culture of impunity. How can such issues be challenged when domestic authorities classify women as second-class citizens?’

Although there is, undoubtedly, much to be done by way of implementation of existing UN guidelines, I am pleased to announce that a resolution ‘accelerating efforts to eliminate all form of violence against women’ was passed: this is the first time it has been recognized as a specific human rights violation, and will therefore shape future discourse. Furthermore, the central nature of women’s rights in Post-2015 discussions gives me hope that there will be increased UN monitoring, targets and indicators on women’s rights, shining a brighter light on this than ever before.

Freedom of expression was in focus during the June session, both inside and outside the Council. During the campaign against Twitter censorship in Pakistan, a copy of the campaign letter (signed by the BHA, among other organisations) was hand-delivered to the Pakistani delegation in Geneva. In an oral statement, I raised the issue of blasphemy laws, addressing Pakistan’s attempt to silence their citizens as symptomatic of a wider issue, which has now given rise to a myriad of human rights abuses:

‘The recourse to justice for those accused of blasphemy is, at best, skewed; at worst, non-existent. Arbitrary arrests[4], mob violence[5] and extra-judicial killings[6] are common consequences of blasphemy allegations. Lawyers refuse to take defence cases, for fear of reprisals[7]: unsurprising, given that in the past month, the lawyer on a blasphemy case in Saudi Arabia is now in jail[8], while in Pakistan, lawyer Rashid Rehman, who said that defending someone accused of blasphemy was akin to ‘walking in to the jaws of death’[9], has indeed been murdered[10].’

During the Interactive Dialogue with the outgoing Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue, I once again raised the issue of blasphemy, citing Raif Badawi’s case, and shining a light on the gulf between the Saudi Arabian delegation’s words in Geneva, and their government’s actions at home:

‘During the 25th Session of this Council, the Saudi Arabian delegate reiterated the importance of the Rabat Plan of Action, and stated that the country ‘exerts its supportive efforts domestically’[11]. Why, therefore, does Raif Badawi remain in jail, convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to ten years and 1000 lashes for establishing a liberal website[12]?…May we remind States that membership to this Council obliges them ‘to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights’[13], not just in platitudes, but in practice.’

We were not the only NGO to raise Badawi’s case, and a close friend and colleague spoke on behalf of the US Center for Inquiry (CfI), calling for his immediate release. Throughout her speech, the Saudi Arabian delegation made repeated (and increasingly desperate) interruptions, saying to the Vice President ‘I told you to shut her up!’ (video). The USA, Ireland, France and Canada all intervened, emphasizing her right to speak, and she was indeed allowed to continue. Ironically, Saudi Arabia’s attempts to silence her generated a huge amount of media attention, and in turn have raised the profile of Badawi’s case.

Outside of the Palais des Nations, the Saudi delegation’s attitude was mirrored by the Egyptian judiciary, with far greater consequences. The guilty verdict delivered to three Al Jazeera journalists, and eleven others in absentia, was absolutely galling. The trial was farcical, the evidence laughable, and the consequences all too serious. While speaking to the Egyptian ambassador, horrified at the verdicts and referring to the wider clampdown on dissent, which has seen 16,000 people incarcerated, I received innumerable platitudes – that the case can be appealed, that Egypt has an independent judiciary, and that the Government are in fact concerned about the harsh nature of recent verdicts, but cannot intervene with the judiciary as that would be authoritarian, and against the principles of democracy that they stand by. If only that were true! I can but hope that there will be an appeal, and that with sufficient international pressure, the innocent journalists will be freed.

Cases such as this appear in the media every few months, reminding us that freedom of expression, which we take for granted, is a luxury, if not a fantasy, for many. In May, I spent a month travelling around Vietnam, and – please bear with my tangential story – after a chance meeting with an local man, some friends and I had dinner with him. Over the course of the evening, he spoke to us about the human rights situation in Vietnam, focusing on the absence of freedom of expression. As he spoke about the political prisoners, incarcerated for their liberal, democratic thoughts, he was constantly looking over his shoulder, his eyes darting around the streets. When asked what was wrong, he said he was checking for secret police. This stunned me: I had been travelling around his country, visiting towns and commenting on their beauty, going to museums, thinking I was learning about the culture, when underneath it all lay a police state.

I told him I would try my best to raise the issue at the UN, and am incredibly satisfied to say that I did so, raising the broad legal framework that is invoked to eliminate dissent, and the role of incarceration, ‘police intimidation, harassment…[and] prolonged detention without access to legal counsel’[14] preventing potential critics from or punishing them for speaking out. However, I can’t tell him that I did: email traffic is monitored, he said, and it would be dangerous for us to communicate. After I spoke, the ex-Ambassador of Vietnam to the UN in Geneva took the floor: so disheartened by the gross violations of human rights by his government, he sought political asylum in Geneva, and bravely condemned his previous colleagues and country. He confirmed that Vietnam is a police state, with 1 in 18 people working in state security. The courage of both men is astounding, and I am incredibly honoured to have met them.

Throughout the session, informal consultations take place regarding the resolutions that are tabled that session, which are then adopted or rejected in the last two days of the Council. It is with sadness that I report the adoption of a regressive resolution on the protection of the family, its innocuous name shrouding a far darker intention to roll back progress on the rights of individuals and minorities. A number of States continued to oppose the resolution, with the UK Mission making a powerful, impassioned intervention in the moments leading up to the vote. The passage of the resolution, which excludes the rights of LGBT and threatens the rights of women and children, is a major blot on the Council’s record. However, some positive steps were taken, including the announcement of a Commission of Inquiry on Eritrea, and the adoption by consensus of a resolution reaffirming that the rights enjoyed by people offline must also be protected online.

The end of this session also marked the end of Navi Pillay’s period as High Commissioner for Human Rights: she is a remarkable woman, who, through her office, has made great steps for human rights worldwide. She will be greatly missed.

Looking ahead to September, it is clear that our fight for human rights for all is far from over: much remains to be done. While the Session may have been peppered with disappointments, the determination of human rights defenders continuously surfaced worldwide, in the face of brutal adversity, and one must take great comfort and inspiration from that. I look forward to the next meeting of the Human Rights Council, and will walk in to the building with renewed passion and steely resolve.

‘I think right now is the moment…We don’t know what is it the moment of, and maybe something much crazier will happen. But really, we see the sunshine coming in…Our whole condition was very sad, but we still feel warmth, and the life in our bodies can still tell that there is excitement in there, even though death is waiting. We had better not enjoy the moment, but create the moment.’

—Ai Weiwei

Notes

[1]‘Gender Equality, Poverty Eradication and the MDGs: Promoting Women’s Capabilities and Participation, Gender and Development Series #13’, Naila Kabeer. Economic and Social Commission in Asia and the Pacific, 2003; quoted in

 ‘Gender Equality in the Post-2015 Agenda: Where Does it Stand?’, Alexandra Spieldoch, 2013, p.5  http://www.boell.org/downloads/Spieldoch_Gender_and_Sustainable_Development.pdf

[2]http://www.opendemocracy.net/arab-awakening/oguz-alyanak-funda-ustek/inconvenient-truth-about-child-brides%0A

[3] ‘Practices stemming from gender inequality and dominant ideals
of manhood were associated with partner violence perpetration, such as gender inequitable attitudes…’ p.69, ‘Why do some men use violence against women, and how can we prevent it? Quantitative findings from the UN Multi Country Study on men and violence in Asia and the Pacific’, 2013 http://www.undp.org/content/dam/rbap/docs/Research%20&%20Publications/womens_empowerment/RBAP-Gender-2013-P4P-VAW-Report.pdf

[4] All arrests under blasphemy laws are, according to international law, arbitrary. However, the already unjust law is often employed falsely, due to failures in investigative process, , or to settle personal vendettas. Further, a recent mass arrest in Pakistan only cited 8 of the 68 accuseds’ names.

[5]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304655304579550030970480094

[6] Murder of an atheist blogger in Bangladesh http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2013/05/2013511988676973.html ; murder of defence layer Rashid Rehman in Pakistan http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27319433. At least 52 people accused of blasphemy in Pakistan have been lynched since 1990, according to ‘Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan; Historical Overview’, Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS). Quoted in many media outlets such as http://tribune.com.pk/story/433305/crss-report-52-murdered-in-two-decades-over-blasphemy/; http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/08/us-pakistan-blasphemy-idUSBREA4709N20140508

[7]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27319433

[8] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elham-manea/waleed-abulkhair-imprison_b_5267086.html

[9]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/world/asia/pakistani-activist-shot-dead-aided-blasphemy-suspects.html

[10] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27319433

[11] ‘My country exerts its supportive efforts domestically to combat the phenomenon’, Meshal Alotibi, 12th March 2014, http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/human-rights-council/regular-sessions/25th-session/watch/clustered-id-contd-sr-on-religion-and-protection-of-human-rights-22nd-meeting-25th-regular-session-of-human-rights-council/3329494304001

[12]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27318400

[13] Paragraph 9, A/RES/60/251 (Human Rights Council Founding Resolution) 15th March 2006

[14] http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/vietnam?page=1

‘Protecting the family’ and polluting the council

by

Amelia Cooper, representative of the British Humanist Association, writes from the 26th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The Human Rights Council meets three times a year, and during each session, States are able to propose resolutions that offer guidance on enhancing the human rights situation worldwide. Such resolutions are not legally binding; however, they (should) aim to reaffirm State commitments to existing treaties, encompass the nuances of developing situations, and recommend a specific course of action to be taken such that the enjoyment of human rights worldwide can be advanced.

Unfortunately, a resolution currently on the table stands in stark contrast to these idealistic clauses. An Egyptian-led initiative, backed by a ‘core group’ of supporters including Bangladesh, China, Côte d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Tunisia and Uganda, has addressed the international community’s need to ‘protect the family’.

This seemingly innocuous – and almost quaint – title shrouds an insidious agenda designed to undermine the principles of equality and universality that the Council is founded upon, and which, if adopted, threatens to undo the decades of progress that has been made towards equality for women, the rights of children, and, most notably, will exclude the rights of LGBTI persons. Bob Last, of the UK mission wrote that:

‘Of all the resolutions the Council could do without, the most disingenuous is the Egyptian led resolution on the ‘protection of the family’. This is widely seen as a counter strike to the Council resolution on sexual orientation’.

The notion of protecting the family as a unit is, in itself, at odds with the human rights approach. Every individual has human rights, and families are comprised of said individuals: it is therefore legitimate to ask, first and foremost, whether a resolution proposing the protection of a family unit ‘even has a place within the Council’s mandate’[1].

The title of the resolution implies that ‘the family’, which is later defined as ‘the natural and fundamental group unit of society’, is under threat and must therefore be guarded: this sentence in itself is testimony to the exclusive nature of the resolution. For what is, in modern society, ‘the family’? It certainly isn’t the nuclear family of past centuries, by which I mean a man, woman and their biological children. Today’s notion of a family is pluralistic, including step-parents and siblings, adopted children, same-sex parents, single parents, and families headed by grandparents to name but a few.

However, the use of the singular ‘family’ suggests that there is a superior familial structure that must be protected from these new-fangled units, and the suggestion made by a number of States to include previously agreed UN language, stating that ‘in different cultural, social and political systems, various forms of the family exist’ had not yet been added to the text. The protection of this ‘family’ will not only exclude different familial formulations, but will enshrine gender stereotypes (the father as the breadwinner and head of the family; the mother as the caregiver) which could be used to undermine the equal societal participation of women.

Furthermore, the title echoes the language used to justify the spate of anti-homosexuality legislation in Russia, Uganda and Nigeria: criminalizing the ‘propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships’ is done with the intention of ‘protecting’ children, and given that the resolution states that the family has the ‘primarily responsibility for…[the] protection of children’, it seems that the core-group believes that the family itself must now be protected from anything non-traditional. Please, international community, think of the children!

It is a painful moment when you realize that, within the mechanics of the Human Rights Council – which I have held for so long as a “global good-guy” – a delicate balance must always be found between States who want inclusion and equality, and those who, quite simply, don’t.

The existing text of the resolution had frustrated and saddened me in equal parts, but it seemed that the implications of homophobia, sexism and patriarchy simply did not satisfy some members of the Human Rights Council. On Friday, ‘the Pakistan representative elaborated that the definition of family is well known to be “a man, a woman and his [sic] children.” The delegate made clear that the resolution was essential “to protect against any pollution of the family” through new ideas about family structures not recognised in law’[1]. At the following negotiations, which I joined on Monday, the delegation of Pakistan intervened with a proposal to make explicit this bigotry, the inclusion of a paragraph:

“Acknowledging also that the right to found a family for a man and a woman implies also the possibility to procreate and live together as a married couple.”’

While we celebrate the progression of rights for LGBTI people at home, and the international community continues to recognize that any laws violating said rights stand in stark contravention to human rights law, it is easy to forget that there is a strong, reactionary backlash against equality for all. The laws passed in Uganda, Nigeria and Russia are not rare, nor are the mindsets that they reflect. ‘Homosexual acts’ are still punishable by death in 7 countries, and in over 70 countries, LBGTI persons can be legally prosecuted by virtue of their sexuality or gender identity. This resolution is just one brick out of many attempts to build a wall against equality for LGBTI.

The response of the pro-equality States during them meeting was ‘tactically (and at times painfully) cordial’[1], as they named a host of alternative family structures, without an explicit mention of sexual orientation or gender identity. However, the UK mission’s blog post (mentioned earlier) and one of their tweets shows that the pernicious agenda of the resolution is well-recognised: perhaps their silence on LGBTI is to prevent a controversy that may swing other States away from an inclusion on the pluralism of modern families.

The resolution will be voted on at the end of next week, and it will be a crucial moment for not only LGBTI rights, but the very principles of non-discrimination in international law. Resolutions are constantly formed out of ‘agreed UN language’, and to allow the inclusion of anything with a vague semblance of Pakistan’s suggestion would be a major setback to international discourse. I have my fingers crossed that the next draft will enshrine, rather than undermine, equality, and that the pernicious agenda of this resolution can be shelved once again.

Notes

[1] http://www.article19.org/join-the-debate.php/155/view/

The British Humanist Association at the United Nations

by

by Amelia Cooper

The Human Rights and Alliance of Civilizations Room in the Palace of Nations, as used by the United Nations Human Rights Council

The Human Rights and Alliance of Civilizations Room in the Palace of Nations, as used by the United Nations Human Rights Council

Representing a non-partisan organization such as the British Humanist Association at the United Nations Human Rights Council comes with certain frustrations at the increasingly politicised atmosphere in which we work. The Council was established as the global authority for the protection and promotion of human rights, yet its mandate is often undermined or obstructed by its members, as demonstrated by the recent election of new member states, in which human rights violations are not only commonplace but legally sanctioned. Similarly, the presence and objectives of certain interest groups, such as the new, moral-sounding Friends of the Family coalition, seem to run counter to the principle of universality that human rights are based upon.

However, despite despairing at certain elements of the Council, the past session has been an undoubted success for the BHA, with four formal speeches being delivered, one State reply, international media coverage, a film premiere, and positive connections being made with a range of other like-minded NGOs.

Following the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief’s annual report, which focused on collective religious hatred, the BHA emphasised the importance of correct and inclusive reference to non-believers in legislation. The Special Rapporteur’s report had set a significant precedent for this, referring explicitly to non-believers as common victims of narrow identity politics, and advocating secularism in saying that ‘it seems difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of an application of the concept of an official “state religion” that in practice does not have adverse effects on religious minorities, thus discriminating against their member.’

The BHA, citing the Human Rights Committee’s 22nd General Comment, which states that the terms ‘religion’ and ‘belief’ include‘theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs,’ reminded the Council that:

‘Creating de jure equality for all members of religious and belief minorities, regardless of the State’s religious preference, is essential to establish a framework in which equal rights can be enjoyed. ‘Oppression of thought…is a sign, not of strength, but of egomania and cowardice’. [1]States have a duty to remove any obstacles to freedom of religion or belief from their constitutions and penal codes. Failure to do so violates their international obligation as formal guarantors of equal human rights for all.’

This speech was reinforced by the International Humanist and Ethical Union, who spoke on the importance of reference to non-believers in UN documentation.

The second speech by the BHA, on anti-homosexuality legislation, warranted a response by the Nigerian delegate, and received coverage that was reproduced internationally. The BHA disproved the notion that there is no international legal agreement on, or ‘legal backing’ for, equal rights for homosexuals:

‘There is no legitimate justification that can be used to undermine the universality of human rights. Fetishizing the origins of homosexuality negates from the fact that imprisoning someone on the basis of their sexual orientation is a violation of human rights, including freedoms of expression, association and assembly.

  • Article 1 of the ICCPR states that there will be no distinction ‘of any kind’[2] in the application of human rights.
  • Human Rights Council Resolution 17/19[3] is the international agreement to prioritize equality for LGBT.[4]
  • The High Commissioner herself noted that there is no room in international law or UN Documentation for exclusion.’[5]

The Nigerian response hinged upon misquoting our speech, and the fact that their bill was voted in democratically, yet did not address our principal arguments that any discriminatory legislation – regardless of how it is passed in to law – violates international human rights law.

Our third speech addressed the abuses of freedom of religion or belief in Malaysia, the gravity of which is often underestimated.  Just last week, for example, 114 Shias were arrested for commemorating a Shia festival – including a four-month-old infant.[6]

  • Registration of religion on state identity cards[7] is obligatory, and only certain classical religions are recognised.[8]
  • Ethnic Malays are automatically considered Muslim[9]: conversion is almost impossible,[10] and apostates subjected to punishments such as enforced rehabilitation[11].
  • A fatwa declaring Shia Islam a deviant ideology has been incorporated into the legislation of 11 of Malaysia’s 13 States.[12] 
  • ‘Offenses against religion’ are punishable by up to three years in prison and a $1000 fine.[13]
  • Proselytizing is constitutionally restricted to Sunni Muslims by Article 11.4.[14]

We joined the international call for constitutional amendments, emphasizing that ‘Malaysian legislature remains the greatest obstacle to freedom of thought and its concomitant rights.’  Unfortunately, Malaysia refused to accept the recommendations made by both states and NGOs regarding freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief within the country.

Our final speech was on the pernicious instrumentalisation of cultural prejudices and traditional values in the social and systematic denial of equality to women, and the necessity of creating de jure equality, supported by implementation, to combat impunity:

‘It is incumbent upon States, regardless of their internal socio-culture, to respect international legal obligations, and to repeal or amend domestic laws discriminating against women, for example those inherent in the application of Sharia law.[15] Secondly, this must be supported by real enforcement. The UN Multi-Country Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific found that between 72 and 97%[16] of the men studied who had perpetrated rape did not experience any legal consequences, while until an international petition was launched, the punishment given to a gang of rapists in Kenya, whose violent abuse paralysed a sixteen-year-old girl, was to cut the grass at the police station.[17] These cases are demonstrative of the worldwide climate of impunity surrounding gender based violence.’

We called upon States to renew their 1993 commitment to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, and to do so with ‘an introspective examination of both their legal systems and the quality of their law enforcement.’

This speech chimed with the screening of Honor Diaries that we co-sponsored with US Center for Inquiry and the International Humanist and Ethical Union. The film explores the concept of honour and its impact on equality (or the denial thereof) for women. The screening was followed by an engaged and practical discussion on how best to promote gender equality, with Paula Kweskin, the producer, and Raheel Raza, one of the activists featured in the film and a representative for CfI, as panellists. Raza was also able to present the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, with a scarf signed by hundreds of women calling for gender equality.

Humanist principles are repeatedly proven to be deeply intertwined with human rights. At the Human Rights Council, we will continue to advocate these principles in the creation and implementation of international legislation; such that one day all people are able to fully enjoy the basic rights established in the UDHR more than sixty years ago.

Notes

[1] Kacem El Ghazzali and Alber Saber, as quoted in ‘Freedom of Thought 2013’, International Humanist and Ethical Union, available to download at http://freethoughtreport.com, p.13
[2] Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
[3] A/HRC/RES/17/19, adopted by the Human Rights Council in June 2011.
[4] ‘Expressing grave concern at acts of violence and discrimination, in all regions of the world, committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation and gender identity…How international human rights law can be used to end violence and related human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity…Further decides to remain seized of this priority issue.’ A/HRC/RES/17/19 http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/148/76/PDF/G1114876.pdf?OpenElement
[5] Navi Pillay in her response to the States during the Interactive Dialogue, 6th March 2014
[7] National Registration Department (NRD) (known as Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara, JPN in Malay) http://www.jpn.com.my/docs/MyKad.htm
[8] This violates General Comment 22 of the Human Rights Council: ‘Article 18 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief’ http://www.humanrights.gov.au/freedom-thought-conscience-and-religion-or-belief
[9] 
Article 160 of the Constitution: ‘”Malay” means a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language, conforms to Malay custom and – (a) was before Merdeka Day born in the Federation or in Singapore or born of parents one of whom was born in the Federation or in Singapore, or is on that day domiciled in the Federation or in Singapore; or (b) is the issue of such a person’ http://confinder.richmond.edu/admin/docs/malaysia.pdf
[10] The case of Lina Joy, who applied to have Islam removed from her MyKad, as detailed in the International Humanist and Ethical Union’s ‘Freedom of Thought Report 2013’, p.146. The report is available to download here: http://freethoughtreport.com/download-the-report/
[11] Freedom of Thought Report 2013, International Humanist and Ethical Union, p.146. Available to download http://freethoughtreport.com/download-the-report/. This report also noted that ‘The state governments of Kelantan and Terengganu passed laws in 1993 and 2002, respectively, making apostasy a capital offense. Apostasy is defined as the conversion from Islam to another faith. No one has been convicted under these laws and, according to a 1993 statement by the Attorney General, the laws cannot be enforced absent a constitutional amendment’. While the legality of these laws is unclear, they are demonstrative of the attitudes held by some Malaysian states regarding religion.
[12] ‘Shia Malaysians on Trial’, Wall Street Journal, published 15th December 2013 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB30001424052702304173704579259473076713800
[13] Articles 295-298A of the Malaysian penal code, http://www.agc.gov.my/Akta/Vol.%2012/Act%20574.pdf[14] Article 11(4): ‘State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Lubuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.’
[15] ‘Women’s Rights Under Sharia’, The Clarion Project, 19th February 2014 http://www.clarionproject.org/understanding-islamism/womens-rights-under-sharia
[16] ‘Why do some men use violence against women, and how can we prevent it? Quantitative findings from the UN Multi Country Study on men and violence in Asia and the Pacific’, 2013, p.3 http://www.undp.org/content/dam/rbap/docs/Research%20&%20Publications/womens_empowerment/RBAP-Gender-2013-P4P-VAW-Report.pdf