radiofree.asia

Category: Human Rights

  • A Declaration of War on the Poor

    On 16 September we marched in our thousands in Ballito to oppose evictions and racism. However, the attacks on the poor are escalating and the Dolphin Coast Residents & Ratepayers’ Association have made a public declaration of war against one of our branches.

    Since the formation of the Government of National Unity there has been a huge increase in state attacks on shack settlements around Durban and elsewhere. This includes settlements in Belair and the Bluff, both formerly white suburbs, and the Lindokuhle Mnguni Occupation in Johannesburg, which is near to a middle-class area. In all these cases settlements in middle class areas are being targeted. There have also been evictions in KwaDebeka in Durban.

    We have also been resisting evictions along the North Coast of KwaZulu-Natal where the super-rich lived in mansions in gated communities. They employ violent and militarized security companies to police the poor. The police follow the lead of these security companies. The Hlanganani occupation in Salt rock, the Sihlalangenkani occupation in Umhlali and the Ekuphumleni occupation in Ballito are all resisting evictions. The Phola and Magebhula settlements, also on the North Coast, under the KwaDukuza Municipality, have also suffered violent evictions.

    It seems clear that two things are driving this general attack on the poor. One is that the DA, which has been viciously evicting in the Western Cape, has pressured the ANC to step up its attacks on the poor. Another is that the state is cynically responding to the public outcry about the frightening levels of violence in the country, including kidnapping and extortion, with violent attacks on the poor and on migrants in the name of ‘fighting crime’. They are criminalising and abusing vulnerable people instead of dealing with the real crisis of violence.

    In the case of the evictions from land near the gated communities on the North Coast of KwaZulu-Natal the power of property, of wealth, is being mobilised to crush grassroots urban planning and decommodification of land organised via popular democratic power.

    The ANC gives special preference to the super-rich in these gated communities. They were even given an exception for loadshedding. They have told us that we are living on ‘prime land’ and must be moved away to desolate human dumping grounds far from work and schools.

    In our statement issued before the march in Ballito on 16 September we said that:

    “The KwaDukuza Municipality is openly working with the rich to remove poor black people in Ballito and Umhlali. The ratepayers’ association and the ANC led municipality are working together to evict poor black people, to destroy our homes and communities.

    They say that our presence reduces the value of the land, as if value is just a question of the price of the land and has nothing to do with the value of land for the human beings who live on it. They say that we must be removed because we are a health hazard as we must use the bush to relieve ourselves whereas the obvious solution to the lack of sanitation is to provide sanitation. They say that we are ‘chasing tourists away’. The strong element of racism driving all this is often openly displayed on the social media used by the white residents of the gated communities. The black elites who live in the gated communities are silent about this racism.”

    Now the residents of the gated communities, the super-rich, have made their racism and contempt for the poor clear. The Dolphin Coast Residents & Ratepayers’ Association have released a viciously anti-poor and racist video in which we are said to be criminal, dangerous, unhygienic and polluting. These are old colonial stereotypes about impoverished black people, stereotypes that have long been used by governments and elites to justify state violence and the destruction of homes, communities and livelihoods.

    The video aggressively criminalises impoverishment declaring that we are engaged in illegal occupation, illegal trading and illegal water electricity connections and demanding that the state ‘take action’ and that ‘the law be enforced’.

    When it demands the enforcement of the law it is not demanding that the limited but important rights given to the poor in the Constitution are guaranteed. This is an open demand for violence against us by private security and the state, for the destruction of our homes, our community infrastructure and our livelihoods. It is a declaration of war against the poor by the rich, a declaration of war against the black poor by the white dominated elite in the area.

    It is true that we are denied access to land, water, electricity, sanitation and refuse removal. The solution to this is to provide land and services, not to incite state violence against us when we make our own arrangements to build viable lives and communities.

    We would like to note that not all the wealthy residents of the area are taking this hostile, anti-poor and racist position. One resident has publicly stood up to make the important point that our living conditions are due to state failure and that this is the problem that needs to be fixed. No doubt he is not alone and there are other decent people who also recognise our humanity.

    The racist and anti-poor video put out by The Dolphin Coast Residents & Ratepayers’ Association must be condemned in the strongest terms. It should be investigated by the Human Rights Commission.

    It is also important for us to note that according to the KwaDukuza Speaker’s office the Mayor has refused to respond to the People’s Memorandum submitted on the 16 September march. She has long been failing to engage people with respect, to take the dignity of the poor seriously and to run an efficient administration. This anti-democratic refusal to respond to the Memorandum is provoking the anger of the people.

    We will continue to defend our right to live on the North Coast and to demand that our occupations be recognised and provided with all the services required for a decent and dignified life.

    Our humanity is not negotiable. South Africa belongs to all who live in it, including the poor. There can be no compromise with racism. We will hold the land.

    The post A Declaration of War on the Poor first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Boris Johnson calls for referendum on leaving ECHR

    Move over European convention on human rights likely to put pressure on Tory leadership candidates to follow suit

    Boris Johnson has called for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European convention on human rights, a move likely to increase pressure on those vying for the Conservative leadership to follow suit.

    The former prime minister told the Daily Telegraph there was a “strong case” for a vote on the ECHR, which some Tories blame for hampering their efforts to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda.

    Continue reading…

  • In Latest Setback to Green Deal, EU Proposes 12-Month Delay to Anti-Deforestation Law

    eu deforestation regulation
    5 Mins Read

    The EU is considering a year-long delay to its landmark anti-deforestation law after facing calls from governments and companies alike.

    In the latest episode in the EU’s long-running tussle over environmental policies, the bloc is now proposing a 12-month delay to its statement ban on products linked to deforestation.

    It’s been a long time coming – 20 of the 27 member states had asked the EU to soften or even suspend the law, who argued that the legislation would unfairly hurt small farmers and businesses. And they were joined by governments and corporations from across the globe, whose intense lobbying efforts since the law was announced in June 2023 appear to have been successful.

    The delay will still need to be approved by the European Parliament and member states, but if that happens, the deforestation regulation would then come into effect on December 30, 2025 for large companies, and June 30, 2026 for small businesses.

    The move has been hailed by leaders across the world, but slammed by climate campaigners, who have accused Ursula von der Leyen – about to begin her second term as the EU Commission president – of undermining the European green deal, one of her key achievements.

    A key voice among the critics was Lithuanian MEP Virginijus Sinkevičius, who was the environment commissioner until mid-July and drafted the original deforestation regulation. He said the delay would represent “a step backward in the fight against climate change”, putting 80,000 acres of forest at risk every day, and increasing 15% of global carbon emissions.

    EU accused of jumping the gun with deforestation law

    eu deforestation law
    Courtesy: Rich Carey/Shutterstock

    Under the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), companies would be banned from importing commodities like cocoa, coffee, soy, palm and oil – and selling products such as chocolate, furniture or tyres – from land that has been degraded or recently deforested.

    The decision was welcomed as one of the ambitious moves to cut back deforestation on a global scale. Through its imports, the EU is the second-largest contributor to deforestation, which is responsible for 6.5% of global carbon emissions (over twice as high as the aviation sector).

    But governments across the world – from Brazil and Ivory Coast to Australia, Malaysia, and Indonesia – have pushed the EU to postpone the start of the EUDR. They argued that the wrong data was being used to measure forests, labelled the law as protectionist, and said it would harm millions of smallholder farmers who export to the EU.

    The bloc’s own member states said it would disrupt the EU’s supply chain and push up prices at a time when the cost of living continues to be a major pain point for consumers.

    To ensure compliance, companies would need to use satellite monitoring to map their supply chains down to the farm where the raw materials were grown, even if they’re in remote or rural regions. This has been criticised as highly complex, especially for large supply chains that also involve intermediaries.

    Starbucks, which just bought two research farms to combat climate change, is among the companies facing the heaviest impact of the EUDR, given it buys 3% of the world’s coffee. “It’s the right thing to do, we’re totally on board,” Elliot Bentzen, the company’s director of trade and traffic, told Green Queen earlier this year.

    But he added that there’s a ton of grey area in the EUDR, which doesn’t properly lay out the changes needed. The EU is asking for GPS coordinates for every farm, but the timeline for companies to comply is too quick and has left them scrambling, according to Bentzen. “We’re freaking out a bit. Everyone is freaking out,” he said, noting that the EU “bit off more than it can chew”.

    This is why the EU Commission intends for the extra 12 months to be a phasing-in period to ensure “proper and effective implementation”, calling it “a balanced solution to support operators around the world in securing a smooth implementation from the start”.

    “Several global partners have repeatedly expressed concerns about their state of preparedness, most recently during the United Nations General Assembly week in New York,” it said. “The guidance presented today will provide additional clarity to companies and enforcing authorities to facilitate the application of the rules, coming on top of the Commission’s continuous support for stakeholders since the law’s adoption.”

    Delay could have been avoided with proper support

    eu deforestation delay
    Courtesy: Marcio Isensee e Sa/Getty Images

    “Ursula von der Leyen might as well have wielded the chainsaw herself. People in Europe don’t want deforestation products but that’s what this delay will give them,” climate campaign group Greenpeace said in a statement. This is true. The post-electoral Eurobarometer survey found that more than a quarter (28%) of EU citizens were encouraged to vote because of climate change.

    “By undermining one of the key achievements of the European green deal, this decision casts serious doubt on the Commission president’s commitment to delivering on the EU’s environmental promises,” said Anke Schulmeister-Oldenhove, senior forest policy officer at WWF.

    The effects of the EUDR will reverberate internationally. For example, nearly 70% of cocoa imports come from Ivory Coast, the world’s largest producer of the crop. But the delay has even been criticised by Barry Callebaut, the largest B2B chocolate company. “EUDR requires a lot of effort and resources for compliance from all stakeholders along the supply chain. However, these efforts are important to drive the sustainable transformation in the cocoa supply chain,” it said.

    Some MEPs also denounced the move. Bernd Lange, who heads the EU Parliament’s international trade committee, called it a “disgrace”, suggesting that the delay could have been avoided had the Commission released supporting documents months ago. The decision has “prolonged unnecessary uncertainty for everyone involved,” he said.

    Stientje van Veldhoven, VP and European director of the World Resources Institute, echoed this sentiment, saying the EU had the technical and financial resources to establish supply chain traceability: “While we recognise the challenges the regulation poses for some producing countries, particularly for smallholder farmers, the focus should have been on easing implementation and ensuring greater support for tropical-producing nations.”

    This is not the first time the EU has backed down from a climate commitment. Its pesticide regulation has been scrapped following lobbying efforts, which also successfully stalled or weakened the Sustainable Food Systems Framework, the Industrial Emissions Directive, and the Farm to Fork Strategy, among others.

    That said, the EU did hold off lobby pressure to pass its nature restoration law earlier this year. And last month, an EU-funded report by agrifood lobbies asked the EU Commission to create a plant-based action plan by 2026, recognising the need to eat less meat and adopt planet-friendly eating patterns.

    The post In Latest Setback to Green Deal, EU Proposes 12-Month Delay to Anti-Deforestation Law appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Tanzania suspends news websites over ad referencing killings of dissidents

    Regulator says advert by publisher of the Citizen newspaper ‘likely to harm national unity’

    Tanzania has suspended the online operations of a top newspaper publisher after one of its publications ran an animated advert depicting the country’s president, Samia Suluhu Hassan, and referencing a spate of recent abductions and killings of dissidents.

    The advert, published on X and Instagram on Tuesday by the Citizen, an English-language newspaper, showed a character resembling the president flipping through TV channels. Each channel showed people speaking about loved ones they had lost through disappearances.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Reuters holds a ‘Sustainability Awards’ ceremony – packed with big polluters

    Environmental activists have disrupted the Reuters Sustainability Awards ceremony in central London – stacked with big polluters. They aptly branded the event “The Greenwashing Awards” as the likes of corporate climate crisis criminals such as carbon mega-emitter Drax sidled up as finalists.

    Reuters Sustainability Awards packed with big polluters

    On Tuesday 1 October, corporate media outlet Reuters hosted its annual Sustainability Awards event in London.

    Its website describes the affair as:

    the world’s leading Awards that celebrate leadership in sustainable business.

    However, over 100 companies with chequered environmental and human rights records were among the finalists. These included:

    • Selby based Biofuel giant Drax, who are the UKs biggest carbon emitter.  In May energy regulator Ofgem slapped it with £25m in fines over misreporting in its supply chains. The wood pellet-burning power station has sourced from companies razing high-risk and old growth ancient forests, primarily in the US, Canada, and the Baltic States.
    • Holcim Ltd, whose subsidiary paid Isis millions during Syria’s civil war to keep its concrete factories open.
    • Aris Mining, who are suing the country of Colombia because of community unionsation
    • Fortescue, the Australian mining giant who the Indigenous Yindjibarndi peoples are suing for mining on Aboriginal land, and recently welcomed the disastrous former chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng as an advisor.

    Other nominees include Amazon, Mars, and the tobacco giant Philip Morris International.

    Virgin Atlantic was also among the nominations for an award for its ‘Sustainable Aviation Fuel’ project. However, this is a slick industry greenwashing con – in part because SAF technology isn’t remotely scalable to current aviation levels.

    Moreover, Virgin Atlantic’s SAF is a case and point of where SAFs are already causing environmental destruction. In particular, an investigation by openDemocracy found that the company has sourced vast amounts of supposed used cooking oil from Asia – where it has identified evidence of suppliers passing off deforestation-linked virgin palm oil as this.

    Corporate climate criminals getting together to pat each other on the back

    In reality then, the awards have little to do with genuine sustainability and tackling the climate crisis. Instead, it’s a prime opportunity for environment-wrecking companies to greenwash their reputations.

    Tellingly, the Reuters Sustainability Awards website goes on to say:

    The Awards ceremony is not only a great night to recognise the hard work and the amazing achievement of being a finalist and finding out the result of the awards, but it also offers the chance to enhance business networks which lead to valuable collaborations and connections.

    In other words, it provides the perfect chance for big polluters to rub shoulders, under a smokescreen of celebrating sustainability.

    Notably, companies paid Reuters £500-1000 to enter into the awards, and then a further minimum of £8000 to attend the event itself.

    What’s more, these climate-wrecking companies may as well have been marking their own homework – and practically were. This is because news site Reuters is a paid shill in the pocket of fossil fuel firms.

    Specifically, investigative outlet Desmog hightlighted in 2023 that Reuters’s in-house ad agency tops the table of corporate media outlets in its marketing for big oil and gas. In particular, it noted that out of multiple corporate media outlets:

    only one company, Reuters, offers fossil-fuel advertisers every possible avenue to reach its audience, including custom events.

    Essentially, it offers the full sweep of sponsored commercial partnership content to fossil fuel clients. It’s therefore perhaps little wonder its so-called sustainability awards was stuffed with these companies too.

    ‘Welcome to the Greenwashing Awards’

    Given all this, activists crashed the event to call out the staggering hypocrisy of Reuters laundering the bogus sustainability credentials of these notorious companies.

    Protesters from Axe Drax and Climate Resistance unfurled an enormous banner above the entrance to the central London venue. In big bold green print, this read:

    Welcome To The Greenwashing Awards

    Banner hanging over entrance that reads: "Welcome to the Greenwashing Awards" in green dripping font. Reuters Sustainability Awards

    They handed out ‘Certificates of Greenwashing’ to participants, which listed some of the abuses on the back:

    Person holding a 'Certificate of Greenwashing'. It reads: "This certificate is proudly awarded to 91 of the 153 nominated companies here tonight - in recognition of their deceitful use of propaganda to distract from their harmful practices to environment, people, and planet. Congratulations! Held at: The Reuters Greenwashing Awards - 1 October 2024." Reuters Sustainability Awards

    Unsurprisingly, the action drew a heavy police presence:

    Two cop vans gather outside the event.

    Police van outside the event with two cops heading to the doors.

    However, activists at the award ceremony were undeterred, staging a sit-in demonstration in the foyer to the awards:

    Protesters hold a banner in the foyer which reads: "Forests are not fuel".

    Group of upwards of six cops stand watching a small group of protesters sit in the foyer.

    Axe Drax’s Polly Hallam said of the Reuters Sustainability Awards:

    What we are seeing here is an example of the very same multinationals who are guilty of perpetuating the climate crisis pretending to have green credentials to distract us from their environmental and human rights abuses. They pay money to get a badge for press releases and websites in order to launder their reputation. These awards distract us from the real work needed to rapidly decarbonise and get on track to solving the catastrophe that continues to unfold.

    Echoing this, Climate Resistance activist Sam Simons said that:

    Big polluters are using their political influence to stonewall climate action and protect their own short-term profits. Drax, the UK’s single largest carbon emitter, donated £12,000 to Labour and sponsored their party conference, in order buy influence and protect their dirty business. We face a climate crisis – only last month, huge swathes of Europe were underwater. Yet these companies are more focused on laundering their reputations rather than stopping the actual harmful practices that are contributing to the problem.

    Feature and in-text images via Axe Drax

    By Hannah Sharland

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Unrealisable Justice: Julian Assange in Strasbourg

    It was good to hear that voice again. A voice of provoking interest that pitter patters, feline across a parquet, followed by the usual devastating conclusion. Julian Assange’s last public address was made in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. There, he was a guest vulnerable to the capricious wishes of changing governments. At Belmarsh Prison in London, he was rendered silent, his views conveyed through visitors, legal emissaries and his family.

    The hearing in Strasbourg on October 1, organised by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), arose from concerns raised in a report by Iceland’s Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir, in which she expressed the view that Assange’s case was “a classic example of ‘shooting the messenger’.” She found it “appalling that Mr Assange’s prosecution was portrayed as if it was supposed to bring justice to some unnamed victims the existence of whom has never been proven, whereas perpetrators of torture or arbitrary detention enjoy absolute impunity.”

    His prosecution, Ævarsdóttir went onto explain, had been designed to obscure and deflect the revelations found in WikiLeaks’ disclosures, among them abundant evidence of war crimes committed by US and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, instances of torture and arbitrary detention in the infamous Guantánamo Bay camp facility, illegal rendition programs implicating member states of the Council of Europe and unlawful mass surveillance, among others.

    A draft resolution was accordingly formulated, expressing, among other things, alarm at Assange’s treatment and disproportionate punishment “for engaging in activities that journalists perform on a daily basis” which made him, effectively, a political prisoner; the importance of holding state security and intelligence services accountable; the need to “urgently reform the 1917 Espionage Act” to include conditional maliciousness to cause harm to the security of the US or aid a foreign power and exclude its application to publishers, journalists and whistleblowers.

    Assange’s full testimony began with reflection and foreboding: the stripping away of his self in incarceration, the search, as yet, for words to convey that experience, and the fate of various prisoners who died through hanging, murder and medical neglect. While filled with gratitude by the efforts made by PACE and the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee, not to mention innumerable parliamentarians, presidents, prime ministers, even the Pope, none of their interventions “should have been necessary.” But they proved invaluable, as “the legal protections that did exist, many existed only on paper or were not effective in any remotely reasonable time frame.”

    The legal system facing Assange was described as encouraging an “unrealisable justice”. Choosing freedom instead of purgatorial process, he could not seek it, the plea deal with the US government effectively barring his filing of a case at the European Court of Human Rights or a freedom of information request. “I am not free today because the system worked,” he insisted. “I am free today because after years of incarceration because I plead guilty to journalism. I plead guilty to seeking information from a source. I plead guilty to informing the public what that information was. I did not plead guilty to anything else.”

    When founded, WikiLeaks was intended to enlighten people about the workings of the world. “Having a map of where we are lets us understand where we might go.” Power can be held to account by those informed, justice sought where there is none. The organisation did not just expose assassinations, torture, rendition and mass surveillance, but “the policies, the agreements and the structures behind them.”

    Since leaving Belmarsh prison, Assange rued the abstracting of truth. It seemed “less discernible”. Much ground had been “lost” in the interim; truth had been battered, “undermined, attacked, weakened and diminished. I see more impunity, more secrecy, more retaliation for telling the truth and more self-censorship.”

    Much of the critique offered by Assange focused on the source of power behind any legal actions. Laws, in themselves, “are just pieces of paper and they can be reinterpreted for political expedience”. The ruling class dictates them and reinterprets or changes them depending on circumstances.

    In his case, the security state “was powerful enough to push for a reinterpretation of the US constitution,” thereby denuding the expansive, “black and white” effect of the First Amendment. Mike Pompeo, when director of the Central Intelligence Agency, simply lent on Attorney General William Barr, himself a former CIA officer, to seek the publisher’s extradition and re-arrest of Chelsea Manning. Along the way, Pompeo directed the agency to draw up plans of abduction and assassination while targeting Assange’s European colleagues and his family.

    The US Department of Justice, Assange could only reflect, cared little for moderating tonic of legalities – that was something to be postponed to a later date. “In the meantime, the deterrent effect that it seeks, the retributive actions that it seeks, have had their effect.” A “dangerous new global legal position” had been established as a result: “Only US citizens have free speech rights. Europeans and other nationalities do not have free speech rights.”

    PACE had, before it, an opportunity to set norms, that “the freedom to speak and the freedom to publish the truth are not privileges enjoyed by a few but rights guaranteed to all”. “The criminalisation of newsgathering activities is a threat to investigative journalism everywhere. I was formally convicted, by a foreign power, for asking for, receiving, and publishing truthful information about that power while I was in Europe.”

    A spectator, reader or listener might leave such an address deflated. But it is fitting that a man subjected to the labyrinthine, life-draining nature of several legal systems should be the one to exhort to a commitment: that all do their part to keep the light bright, “that the pursuit of truth will live on, and the voices of the many are not silenced by the interests of the few.”

    The post Unrealisable Justice: Julian Assange in Strasbourg first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Campaigners take on Scotland’s top court over failures on legal aid

    Environmental and human rights campaigners rallied outside the Court of Session, Scotland’s top civil court, on Tuesday 1 October. It was to mark the Scottish Government missing a crucial deadline for compliance with the UN Aarhus Convention’s access to justice requirements – including legal aid.

    Scotland: breaking a UN convention on legal aid?

    The rally featured speeches from the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland (ERCS) and community campaigners who have faced unaffordable legal expenses when taking environmental cases to court:

    Participants symbolically ‘blockaded’ the court with traffic barriers to highlight ongoing barriers to justice:

    They called on the Scottish Government to remove all the financial obstacles that prevent people from taking environmental cases to court.

    The UNECE Aarhus Convention guarantees the right to go to court to challenge decisions, acts and omissions that break environmental law. Article 9 of the Convention requires that access to the courts is fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.

    The United Kingdom ratified the UNECE Aarhus Convention in 2005. Scotland is obliged to ensure that its legal system is compliant with the Convention.

    Failures over access to justice

    In October 2021, the Aarhus Convention’s governing bodies adopted Decision VII/8s – requiring Scotland, as part of the UK, to, ‘as a matter of urgency’ meet six recommendations to make access to justice ‘fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive’ by 1 October 2024.

    The Scottish Government has made only minor amendments to court rules which do not fully address the issues relating to court costs, and the First Minister’s 2024-5 Programme for Government dropped both a Legal Aid Reform Bill, and a Human Rights Bill, both of which would have improved access to justice.

    Legal costs for environmental litigation can amount to tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds. At the moment, the ‘loser pays rule’ means that litigants have to pay the costs of their opponent if they lose.

    Although there are some caps to how much this might be, it is still unaffordable and causes a ‘chilling effect’ that prevents environmental cases from ever being taken to court.

    Shivali Fifield, ERCS chief officer, said:

    Upholding our environmental rights in court is the ultimate guarantee of the rule of law. Without this credible threat, polluters can act with impunity. The Scottish Government must take immediate action to replace the ‘loser pays’ rule, reduce courts costs, and expand legal aid, so that we can meet the access to justice requirements of the Aarhus Convention and make our legal system affordable for everyone.

    Scotland must do better

    Wyndford Resident’s Union is a union representing residents in Glasgow fighting to save their home from one of Scotland’s biggest demolition projects. Caz Rae, member of Wyndford Resident’s Union, said:

    Without legal aid, Wyndford Residents Union couldn’t have challenged the environmental impacts of demolishing our four high-rise flats instead of retrofitting them. It has allowed us to go to court on the demolition that is forcing our community out and threatening a beautiful wildlife corridor.

    Access to justice is important for us to protect our communities and the environment, and create a legacy of a greener, cleaner future for how we do housing.

    Phil Taylor, director at Open Seas, said:

    Open Seas took Scottish Ministers to court because they were failing to consider their own Marine Plan, when making decisions about fishing.

    Taking legal action like ours is incredibly expensive – equivalent to the annual cost of nearly three members of staff. Our costs were exacerbated by the Government’s appeal, which was weak and sought only to re-litigate the same arguments.

    The environment needs strong voices to stand up for it and we need the burden of challenging Governmental failures to be reduced.

    Featured image and additional images via ERCS

    By The Canary

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Saudi fitness instructor stabbed in face while jailed over women’s rights posts

    Pen used in assault on Manahel al-Otaibi, who has been imprisoned for 11 years for ‘terrorist’ tweets after secret trial

    A Saudi Arabian fitness instructor and influencer has been stabbed in the face in prison after being jailed in January for promoting women’s rights on social media.

    Manahel al-Otaibi, 30, was sentenced to 11 years in prison for “terrorist offences” in a secret trial that generated widespread criticism, with activists saying it showed the “hollowness” of Saudi progress in human rights.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Jenrick just accidently ADMITTED the UK carries out ‘extra-judicial assassinations’

    Conservative Party leadership candidate Robert Jenrick seems to have put his foot in it with his latest scaremongering video.

    Jenrick: we kill suspects to avoid the ECHR

    Declassified journalist Matt Kennard said Jenrick was “casually revealing a UK extra-judicial assassination program designed to evade ECHR jurisdiction”. In his video, the apparent frontrunner in the Tory leadership race admitted:

    Our special forces are killing, rather than capturing, terrorists because our lawyers tell us that, if they’re caught, the European court will set them free.

    Fellow candidate James Cleverly said he wasn’t “comfortable repeating”. He added that “our military do not murder people”.

    Jenrick claimed to be quoting fellow Tory Ben Wallace, though. Wallace had claimed in 2023 that “we are more often than not forced into taking lethal action than actually raiding and detaining”. He added that “we’ve been able to use drones and aircraft to make kinetic strikes against terror suspects”.

    Killing terrorists, or aiding them?

    The big question is who gets to decide when an extra-judicial murder will happen? And who determines which groups or people should receive the ‘terrorist’ label? In Britain, explains the Crown Prosecution Service:

    The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism, both in and outside of the UK, as the use or threat of one or more of the actions listed below, and where they are designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

    The specific actions included are:

    • serious violence against a person;
    • serious damage to property;
    • endangering a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the action);
    • creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public; and
    • action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

    But this definition would seem implicate the state of Israel, a close UK ally. The colonial power has massacred thousands of children and other civilians in occupied Gaza and beyond. It has also destroyed or damaged “more than half of Gaza’s homes”, “85 percent of school buildings”, healthcare facilities, businesses, roads, and farmland.

    Britain’s government still considers the terrorists in the Israeli occupation forces to be friends, though. That’s why the UK military is reportedly training Israeli occupation forces.

    And Britain has not only allowed arms to enter Israel via UK airspace, but greenlit arms deals and supplied parts for Israeli jets, like the one responsible for bombing “the residential compound of a British medical charity in Gaza”. UK authorities, however, have arrested campaigners trying to stop factories complicit in war crimes under counter-terrorism laws.

    Covert US flights, meanwhile, have left from RAF Akrotiri on Cyprus throughout Israel’s genocide in Gaza. And dozens of British warplanes have flown to both Israel and Lebanon. British spy flights have also been passing intelligence to Israel.

    Terrorism, then, seems to be subjective. The official position seems to be that you can murder some, but you need to support others. And that’s not a position that Jenrick, or anyone else, should be proud of.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Badenoch says 10% of civil servants are ‘very bad’ and jokes they are ‘should be in prison bad’ – as it happened

    This live blog is closed

    Popular Conservatism, or PopCon, has released the results of a survey of party members suggesting more than half of them favour a merger with Reform UK. Some 30% of the respondents said they tended to support the idea, and 23% were strongly in favour. The survey covered 470 members.

    Annunziata Rees-Mogg, PopCon’s head of communications and a former Brexit party MEP, said:

    Every Conservative activist and canvasser knows people who had been Tories, but voted Reform UK in July. It is no surprise our panellists understand that the next leader of the party needs to take action to bring many like-minded voters back to the Tories. Almost three-quarters want a relationship with Reform in order to unite the right.

    The answer I was often given by people in government at the time was that lockdowns were very popular.

    They were getting 60, 70, 80% popularity ratings in the opinion polls. But you mustn’t believe those opinion polls, they’re basically nonsense.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Julian Assange says he ‘chose freedom over unrealisable justice’

    WikiLeaks founder says he pleaded ‘guilty to journalism’ in deal for his release and calls for protection of press freedom

    Julian Assange has said he chose freedom “over unrealisable justice” as he described his plea deal with US authorities and urged European lawmakers to act to protect freedom of expression in a climate with “more impunity, more secrecy [and] more retaliation for telling the truth”.

    In his first public statement since the plea deal in June ended his nearly 14 years of prison, embassy confinement and house arrest in the UK, the WikiLeaks founder argued that legal protections for whistleblowers and journalists “only existed on paper” or “were not effective in any remotely reasonable time”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Julian Assange just revealed exactly WHAT he said in his plea bargain

    Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said on Tuesday 1 October he was released after years of incarceration only because he pleaded guilty to doing “journalism”, warning freedom of expression was now at a “dark crossroads”.

    Assange: ‘I was guilty of doing journalism’

    Assange was addressing the Council of Europe rights body at its Strasbourg headquarters in his first public comments since his release. He said:

    I am not free today because the system worked. I am free today after years of incarceration because I pleaded guilty to journalism.

    The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) had issued a report expressing alarm at Assange’s treatment, saying it had a “chilling effect on human rights”.

    Assange spent most of the last 14 years either holed up in the Ecuadoran embassy in London to avoid arrest, or locked up at Belmarsh Prison. He was released under a plea bargain in June, after serving a sentence for publishing hundreds of thousands of confidential US government documents.

    The trove included searingly frank US State Department descriptions of foreign leaders, accounts of extrajudicial killings and intelligence gathering against allies.

    Assange returned to Australia and since then had not publicly commented on his legal woes or his years behind bars.

    Facing a potential 175-year sentence, “I eventually chose freedom over unrealisable justice… Justice for me is now precluded,” Assange said, referring to the conditions of his plea bargain.

    14 years, lost

    Speaking calmly and flanked by his wife Stella, who fought for his release, he added:

    Journalism is not a crime, it is a pillar of a free and informed society. The fundamental issue is simple. Journalists should not be prosecuted for doing their jobs,” said Assange.

    The Wikileaks chief said that he could have lost years more of his life had he tried to fight his case all the way:

    Perhaps, ultimately, if it had gotten to the Supreme Court of the United States and I was still alive… I might have won. But in the meantime I had lost 14 years under house arrest, embassy, siege, and maximum security prison.

    “Ground has been lost” during his incarceration, he said, regretting that he now sees “more impunity, more secrecy and more retaliation for telling the truth:

    Freedom of expression and all that flows from it is at a dark crossroads… Let us all commit to doing our part to ensure the light of freedom never dims and the pursuit of truth will live on and the voices of many are not silenced by the interests of the few.

    Assange was still visibly affected by his experiences, tiring towards the end of the session even as he thanked “all the people who have fought for my liberation”.

    Assange ‘still needs time to recover’

    Stella Assange told reporters after the committee hearing that:

    It was truly exceptional that he came here today… He needs time to be able to recover. He’s only been free for a few weeks and we’re really just in the process of starting from zero, or from less than zero.

    Asked what the next moves for Wikileaks might be, the site’s editor-in-chief Kristin Hrafnsson told reporters Assange was:

    committed as ever to the basic principles that he’s always abided by – transparency, justice, quality journalism.

    Featured image via PACE TV – YouTube

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Tugendhat condemns Tory rival over claim UK special forces ‘kill rather than capture terrorists’

    Party leadership contender says Robert Jenrick’s remarks show ‘fundamental misunderstanding’ of law of war

    The former security minister Tom Tugendhat has criticised the claim by one of his Conservative leadership rivals that UK special forces are “killing rather than capturing” terrorism suspects, saying they were a “fundamental misunderstanding” of the law of war.

    Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, has defended his claim on Tuesday, and said it echoed those of the former defence secretary Ben Wallace because of fears that European laws would free any detained assailants.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Jenrick faces scrutiny over claim UK special forces ‘kill rather than capture terrorists’

    The Tory leadership candidate made the claim in a campaign video calling for the UK to leave the European convention on human rights

    Robert Jenrick is facing condemnation for claiming that UK special forces are “killing rather than capturing” terrorists because of fears that European laws would free any detained assailants.

    In a campaign video launched on X, the Conservative leadership candidate made the statement while listing reasons for leaving the European convention on human rights.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Volker Türk: Environmental human rights defenders are champions for our future

    Volker Türk, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

    Global CITIZENS FESTIVAL 2024

    New York

    Friends, New Yorkers, global citizens.

    Human rights defenders are champions for our future – shining a light on repression, on injustice and on solutions to humanity’s greatest challenges.

    In return, they are often smeared, intimidated, imprisoned, and worse.

    According to data gathered by my Office, last year, 320 human rights defenders, journalists and trade unionists in 40 countries were killed. Many of them while protecting nature and the environment.

    Across the globe, environmental human rights defenders are leading efforts to tackle a climate crisis that is growing ever more ferocious, more terrifying, and more present.

    They are standing up for the marginalized, for the natural world, and for the planet.

    For the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

    They deserve our gratitude and our protection.

    My office is proud to support the Leaders Network for Environmental Activists and Defenders (LEAD), a new initiative focused on meaningful and safe participation of defenders in climate and environmental discussions.

    But they need your support too. So I urge you to join my office.

    Take action to protect civic space and help us to build a more sustainable and more equal future. 

    https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2024/09/environmental-human-rights-defenders-are-champions-our-future-turk

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Kemi Badenoch’s maternity pay comments show how ‘hopelessly out of touch’ Tories are, TUC says – UK politics live

    Leadership rivals Jenrick, Cleverly and Tugendhat reject her comments, as row over her ‘excessive’ claim escalates

    Q: Do you agree with Kemi Badenoch that some cultures are less valid than others?

    Jenrick says culture matters. But he says he disagres with Badenoch on immigration numbers. He says he thinks you have to have a cap on numbers. And he also says he believes the UK has to leave the European convention on human rights. He says Badenoch is just talking about developing a plan in a few years time, and that’s “a recipe for infighting and for losing the public’s trust”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Where was Amnesty International during the Genocide in Gaza?

    Israel is genociding the Palestinians one neighborhood at the time, one hospital at the time, one school at the time, one refugee camp at the time, one ‘safe zone’ at the time
    – Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt,
    10 August 2024

    One would expect that human rights organisations would spring into action during an impending or unfolding genocide – the ultimate violation of human rights. Maybe human rights NGOs actions should be proportional to the level of the crimes they are concerned with. Thus, the more killing, torture, arbitrary imprisonment, bombing…, etc., that is plainly evident, the more action one would expect. So, what is the output of some of the leading human rights organisations in the face of the genocide in Gaza? Below is an analysis of Amnesty International’s press releases and announced actions [1].

    Will they come clean?

    First things first. To assess the credibility of any organisation, one should know their relationship with Israel and the United States – both participants in the unfolding genocide. On this account, Amnesty International has never come clean about its relationship with the Israeli government. Uri Blau, a Haaretz investigative journalist, recently revealed that Amnesty_Intl.-Israel was taken over and run by Israeli operatives paid for by the Foreign Ministry. [2] They ran interference in reporting on the situation in the occupied territories, participated in conferences, and even set up a "human rights" institute at Tel Aviv university. This was a nice way to co-opt the human rights industry. The principal who ran AI-Israel even gave an interview boasting of his exploits.

    And did AI-Israel have a hand editing any Amnesty reports about the situation in the occupied territories or its many wars in the region? Some Palestinian lawyers reported having problematic encounters with AI-Israel officials, to the extent that they refused to have any dealings with it thereafter. One could well imagine AI-Israel officials reporting on Palestinians who reached out to them. So how ethical is it for Amnesty International to expose Palestinians contacting AI-Israel to imminent danger? When will Amnesty International acknowledge this dirty relationship and ensure that it maintains the requisite distance from the Israeli government in the future?

    The genocide will be televised

    Next, one must establish if what we witness amounts to a genocide. Craig Mokhiber, the former UN official in the High Commission for Human Rights, resigned because his agency was not reacting given the unfolding situation in Gaza, and stated in his resignation letter; "this is a textbook case of genocide". NB: the letter was submitted on 28 October 2023. Mokhiber stated that it is usually difficult to establish whether a genocide is taking place because one doesn’t know the motivation of the leading military and political leadership. [3] In the current context, there is no doubt about the motivation; one only has to listen to Netanyahu, Gallant, Ganz, Smotrich, Ben Gvir… And also most of the parliamentarians – they made genocidal statements in the Knesset; they were competing with each other to see who would be most truculent.

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) statement on the case brought in front of the court by South Africa also suggests that we are witnessing a genocide – at least most of the justices urged Israeli action to forestall a genocide.

    Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, and in particular, the refugee camps exhibit a high population density. The Israeli military is bombing these locations using huge bombs recently delivered by 500+ of American military cargo planes. [4] There is no doubt about this, one can even witness the bombing realtime on Al Jazeera. Civilians are directed to evacuate areas only to be bombed in locations that had been putatively named "safe areas," hospitals, schools, UN compounds, etc. Fleeing civilians were targeted; all bakeries were destroyed; hundreds of wells destroyed; scores of chicken farms ravaged; entire families wiped out…. Thus it is not only the level of killing, but also the destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure that is happening now. The weaponry is very accurate, thus the targeting was done intentionally; so it is not an issue of "collateral damage," but it is intentional and indiscriminate targeting. A principle of International humanitarian law is that actions should be proportionate, but Israeli military and politicians revel at the disproportionate nature of the destruction; it is the Dahiya doctrine applied to Gaza. [5] This doctrine refers to the disproportionate violence perpetrated against the Lebanese population in the Dahiya neighbourhood in Beirut in 2006; the neighbourhood was entirely flattened with huge bombs. Alastair Crooke, the former British diplomat, summarises the situation succinctly: "Gaza is already a monument to callous inhumanity and suffering. It will get worse…" [6]

    One thing is certain: if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, then it is genocide. [7] Under these circumstances, one would expect all human rights organisations to spring into action and demand court actions, UN Security Council resolutions, calls for key officials to be held accountable for crimes against humanity, and for the US, UK, Germany… and others to stop enabling Israel’s genocidal actions.

    Nature of coverage

    A few things are evident when reviewing AI’s press releases: one is struck by the paucity of coverage, the trite and generic form of statements, the unwillingness to call out the nature of some crimes, and unwillingness to debunk some of the crass Israeli propaganda meant to further de-humanise the Palestinians, and to justify Israel’s crimes.

    Since 7 October 2023, there have only been 60 press releases – none of any substance. One is struck also that there are a number of press releases about Israel/OPT that don’t mention the ongoing genocide at all! [8] Or the commentary is part of a discussion of human rights in general.

    Ahistorical

    Gaza has been subject to numerous massacres – several not even registering in the media accounts in the so-called West. There were several of the post-2006 attacks (aka "mowing the lawn" operations) usually referred to by their Israeli sugar-coated operation names. After each such operation AI dutifully produced its trite reports, but was rather circumspect in calling out Israeli crimes; and whenever it did issue a statement about a particular crime, it was immediately offset by references to Palestinian crimes.

    A good historical starting point to assess the current violations of international humanitarian law would be the Goldstone report (2008) – which documented and established serious Israeli crimes during "Operation Cast Lead". [9] Alas, one is struck by the ahistorical nature of AI’s press releases and reports. It is as if history started yesterday, but then this is the nature of the "rights-based reporting," where there is virtually no reference to history. When it suits Amnesty it will ignore history. [10] Would one’s assessment of a criminal be altered by the fact that he was a serial criminal? If so, then it behooves AI to emphasise Israel’s long history of mass crimes against the Palestinian population. But acknowledging the long history of dispossession and brutality against the native population would suggest that "we" should be in solidarity with the Palestinians. Alas, that is not a position Amnesty is willing to take. It prefers to utter its clucking sounds, and admonish "both sides" as if there were a moral equivalence between the violence perpetrated by oppressor and oppressed.

    False balance

    Amnesty wants to appear impartial, and clamours for both Palestinian and Israeli rights. Thus AI will issue a report outlining some of the Israeli crimes, but will then issue a report on the "Palestinian war crimes". In general, according to AI, most of the actions perpetrated by the Palestinians are ipso facto war crimes; there is no need for further investigation or discussion. A disgraceful example is an article discussing Palestinian war crimes published on 12 July 2024. Thus after more than nine months of bombings, maybe 186,000+ dead [11], calculated starvation, summary executions and evidence of rampant mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners… Amnesty chose to demand the release of the Israeli hostages! According to Erika Guevara Rosas, AI’s "Senior Director for Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns," holding Israeli civilian hostages is a war crime. [12] Lost in this narrative is an explanation as to why the hostages are held – they are the only means to obtain the release of some of the thousands of Palestinian prisoners. And true to form, a few days later AI released a longish press release critical of the Israeli brutal treatment of prisoners. Producing reports critical of "both sides" are attempts to claim impartiality.

    It is rather odd that when Palestinians take hostages, Amnesty considers this a war crime. Yet when Israel imprisons thousands without charges, routinely kidnaps and keeps prisoners in deplorable conditions, then this is not a war crime. In the West Bank, Israeli military take the parents of “wanted” Palestinians hostage, but Amnesty doesn’t condemn this practice to the same extent.

    Amnesty ignores the 1960 UNGA resolution acknowledging the right for an oppressed/colonised population to defend themselves – this includes armed struggle; and that Israel has an obligation to protect the oppressed population. The nature of the violence suggests that it is not possible to assume a “neutral” position. Thus, Amnesty’s proclivity to admonish “both sides” is ethically suspect.

    Not countering Israeli propaganda

    One useful function AI could play would be to debunk Israeli propaganda meant to dehumanise Palestinians to serve as a pretext for its genocidal campaign. The day after the Palestinian incursion, the Israeli propaganda machine was ready to push stories about rapes, babies cooked in microwave ovens, brutal murders, and so on. However, Amnesty has not countered these fabricated stories; in fact it has helped propagate the Israeli narrative. For example, it repeatedly referred to the 7 October attack as "horrific" – a term almost exclusively used to describe Palestinian actions. It doesn’t account for the fact that it was the Israeli military who killed more than half the Israeli civilians on that day. [13] There were no babies cooked to death or impaled on bayonets. Alas, even with a pompous sounding "Evidence Investigation Unit," Amnesty doesn’t seem to care to separate facts from hateful slander. If the latter is meant to dehumanise the Palestinians, then exposing this propaganda would go some way to humanise the victim. It seems that that is not in Amnesty’s purview.

    In the press release demanding the release of Israeli hostages, Erika Guevara Rosas stated: "Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza that has resulted in the death of over 38,000 Palestinians". This is factually correct, but contextually challenged. Guevara is using the Palestinian Health ministry’s figures that are based on the actual recovery of bodies; it misses all the victims under the rubble. The Lancet study estimates that about 8% of the Gazan population has been killed – that is in the order of 186,000 dead. Furthermore, the deaths attributable to epidemics, starvation, etc., are also missed in the Health Ministry’s statistics. The London School of Hygiene and Johns Hopkins University have attempted to estimate this mortality rate. [14]. Their estimates and methodology are complex, and it is best to read it directly from their reports. Suffice it to say that the mortality rate has increased dramatically.

    Maybe a clearer explanation of the available statistics would be in order.

    Lets investigate!

    There are plenty of daily criminal attacks, but it is only the particularly outrageous ones when AI feels compelled to utter some comment. The discovery of mass burial sites near hospitals that had recently been invaded by the Israeli military elicited some commentary [15]. Instead of pointing a finger at Israel, and suggesting serious crimes had been perpetrated, it calls for an "independent investigation". If only AI’s sanctimonious investigators could enter the scene, then one could establish what really happened. The other implication of AI’s call for investigation is that it doesn’t value the voice of the victims of Israeli crimes. Thus it is not up to Palestinians to call out their oppressor, but some "independent" body has to take its jolly good time determining whether a crime was committed; a report will follow a few years later. In the meantime, all Israeli crimes are merely "alleged" crimes.

    There is a more problematic aspect to AI’s call for investigations, namely, that it is giving credence to Israeli exculpatory claims and justifications for its attacks. Thus bombing the Al Shifa hospital was justified on the spurious grounds that there was an Al Qassam bunker in the vicinity. Or, bombing a location with many refugees in tents by stating that some of the resistance commanders were in the area. Given the history of Israeli lies about all the massacres that it has perpetrated, one would think that Amnesty would be more sceptical of Israeli claims, and to challenge them outright. Instead it calls for investigations. Furthermore, when is it justified to kill 100+ civilians in order to kill two fighters? It is curious that a human rights organisation doesn't reject this outright – there is no need for an investigation. Maybe an analogy could clarify the objection. Imagine that a rapist justified his crime by stating that the victim wore provocative clothing. Amnesty’s actions are akin to investigating if the victim’s clothing was actually sexy.

    On 26 August 2024, AI issued a press release on two of the bombings of camps of displaced people killing hundreds. [16] A priori, one would say that it is a welcome report, but one is struck by the fact that these incidents "need to be investigated as war crimes". Amnesty even reviewed the statements made by the Israeli military to justify the bombing. And to add a comic element, Amnesty sent a note to "Ministry of Justice officials," i.e., Hamas, to determine if its fighters were sheltering in the bombed locations. In other words, it is asking the Palestinians whether the Israeli bombings were justified! And to top things off, Amnesty regurgitated its accusation that the Palestinian actions, e.g., taking hostages amounted to clear war crimes. On the one hand, AI asks that Israeli actions be investigated, yet for the Palestinians the accusation is clear: these are war crimes.

    Amnesty usefully states that using civilians as human shields is "prohibited under international law." Suggesting that if any fighter mingles with the civilian population, this amounts to a crime. The Palestinian fighters have little choice about where they can operate given that the population is constantly forced to move – the fighters included. But there is a difference between fighters being in close proximity to civilians, and the Israeli practice of placing Palestinian civilians on top of military vehicles or forcing them to enter houses ahead of Israeli soldiers. The difference is the coercion involved, and the fact that the fighters are in the midst of their own people. Thus in the press release, Amnesty wags its finger about fighters finding themselves together with civilians. However, Amnesty has yet to issue one of it missives about the civilians Israeli military forces to act as human shields. We await another press release.

    Losing the forest for the trees

    The crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians, i.e., genocide, crimes against humanity, and so on, must be described as mass crimes – referent to the population at large. However, Amnesty’s favourite technique to avoid mentioning the mass crimes is to dwell on individual stories to the exclusion of the totality of the crimes. On 19 August 2024, Amnesty issued a press release about the flouting of the Arms Trade Treaty. Thus: "Amnesty International has long been calling for a comprehensive arms embargo on both Israel and Palestinian armed groups because of longstanding patterns of serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including war crimes…". True to form Amnesty bleats about an embargo on "both sides," as if there were hundreds of military cargo airplanes delivering weapons to the Palestinians. But instead of mentioning the total tonnage of bombs dropped on Gaza, it provides two examples [17]:

    • Amnesty has documented the use of US-manufactured weapons in a number of unlawful airstrikes, including US-made Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) in two deadly, unlawful air strikes on homes in the occupied Gaza Strip, which killed 43 civilians – 19 children, 14 women and 10 men – on 10 and 22 October 2023.
    • A GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, made in the US by Boeing, was used in an Israeli strike in January 2024 which hit a family home in the Tal al-Sultan area of Rafah, killing 18 civilians, including 10 children, four men, and four women.

    According to Euromed Human Rights: "Israel dropped 70,000 tons of bombs on Gaza Strip since last October, exceeding World War II bombings in Dresden, Hamburg, London combined." [18] Maybe providing such statistics would be more effective.

    Similarly, on 18 July 2024, AI released a rather lengthy report on prison conditions. [19] To its credit, the press release was better than most AI output, but again, after a cursory mention of the total number of cases, it emphasises a few examples of prisoner’s conditions. It is dwelling on a few items to the exclusion of the mass injustice condition.

    Long list of neglect

    Ever since 7 October 2023, there have been many incidents that didn't elicit a single comment by Amnesty International. Here are a few items:

    • Israel bombed Palestinians waiting to obtain food from a humanitarian aid delivery truck; there were about 210 killed.
    • Triple-tap bombings. Israelis bomb an area killing civilians, and then those who come to rescue them, and those who seek to rescue the rescuers.
    • Al Jazeera showed a video of airplanes dropping supplies in Gaza. A few minutes later Israelis bombed the locations where the parachutes landed.
    • Several hundred medical and emergency rescue staff have been killed; 170+ journalists, and in some cases the journalists’ families were also killed.
    • Destruction of universities, schools and hospitals. Israeli soldiers themselves posted videos of rejoicing soldiers when hospitals and universities were blown up.
    • There is a serious shortage of potable water for most Gazans. The quality and quantity of water available in Gaza was already a serious issue prior to October 2023. Groundwater had saline seepage, and thus the sodium level was above safe limits. With the destruction of wells, and the inoperability of desalination plants, the access to safe water became a serious challenge. Furthermore, the Israeli military are flooding tunnels with sea water, further contaminating groundwater.
    • Israeli military declared a large garbage dump site to be a "safe zone".
    • The Israeli military forced relocations of population from North to South, and later on South to North. And of course more houses were destroyed in the meantime. There are no places where civilians can escape to safety.
    • The condition of prisoners held in Israeli jails is appalling: brutality, neglect, meagre access to food and water. Al Jazeera featured the case of Moazez Abayat [20] A man who suffered torture, brutal treatment, meagre access to food and water. It was clear that Abayat had lost his mind in prison, and this is certainly not an isolated case. In August, soldiers sodomised prisoners… and +972 magazine published an article about the conditions at a military prison with a jarring statement: "The situation there [Sde Teiman detention center] is more horrific than anything we’ve heard about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo."
    • The Hannibal killings, i.e., Israeli military killed Israelis to avoid having them taken as hostages. Haaretz reported that more than half the Israeli civilians killed on 7 October were killed by the military.
    • Israeli propagandists were ready to make allegations of widespread rape and murder of children. Most of those claims were false.
    • The grand larceny and theft of Palestinian land in the West Bank continues, and in the process hundreds have been killed.
    • Israeli drones broadcast recordings of children in distress to entice people to investigate, and consequently kill them.
    • The day after rulings by international courts (ICJ or ICC), the Israelis engaged in massive bombardments and other destructive actions. It is their means to send a "FU" message. On the eve of Netanyahu’s trip to the US, the Israeli military bombed a refugee camp killing dozens. On the day Netanyahu addressed the US Congress, 100+ Palestinians were killed.The point of this: Israel can do whatever it wants, and it has the US’s backing.
    • On the eve of negotiations, Israel perpetrates particularly serious mass crimes. Early in August the US announced "negotiations," but with meagre Israeli interest. On 10 August, Israel bombed a school killing 100+. Furthermore, Israelis murdered two of the Palestinian negotiators. Who will want to negotiate with Israel now?
    • The lack of medicines is causing the certain deaths of those with chronic diseases. The protracted war is a death sentence to diabetics, renal patients, cancer victims….

    Impotence and futility

    Amnesty issues a few press releases and maybe a report thereafter, but there is no meaningful action. Thus far Amnesty has organised a petition calling for a ceasefire! One can fill the petition form with gibberish, and press the button however many times, and it will register in this preposterous exercise. [21] Liberal souls will be assuaged.

    There have been three instances where AI urged its members to write very polite letters to Israeli officials. Thus mass crimes are happening at present, and these "urgent actions" merely plead for the fate of three individuals. All sample letters start with "Dear General…"; that is the way Amnesty likes its members to address the genocidal creeps. These letter writing campaigns are a means to get young idealistic activists to engage in "actions" that are of virtually no consequence.

    Every year Amnesty claims to have more members – in the millions. Appealing to this membership base to do something meaningful could possibly be more effective. Palestinian civil society groups have long clamoured for BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions). Why can’t AI urge its members to boycott Israeli products? The answer is evident: the mega donors (e.g., Harvey Weinstein, Hollywood’s notorious sex predator and Israel cheerleader; the Sackler Foundation) funding Amnesty’s activities would revolt. [22]

    Manifest double standards

    Amnesty has produced several press releases advocating intervention in Syria, even using holocaust memes ("never again") to emphasise its point. It even produced a melodramatic multimedia production on the "horrors" at a notorious prison. [23] When it comes to Israel, Amnesty doesn’t call for intervention; it certainly doesn’t refer to holocaust memes as "never again" seems not to apply to the Palestinians. Amnesty also doesn’t produce melodramatic videos on the most notorious Israeli prisons where inmates are tortured, brutalised and killed.

    Regarding the situation in Venezuela, Amnesty demands "urgent actions from ICC prosecutor”. [24] When it comes to Israel doesn’t call upon the international courts to prosecute Israel for war crimes or worse. According to Donatella Rovera, a senior AI investigator, Amnesty doesn’t issue such calls. [25] Another standard applies.

    On 21 May 2024, Amnesty issued a press release urging the ICC to issue arrest warrants against Netanyahu, Gallant and three Palestinian resistance leaders. What Agnes Callamard, AI’s Secretary General, doesn’t explain is the fact that whereas an arrest warrant was issued for Putin, when it comes to Netanyahu, the prosecutor merely petitioned the court to consider issuing a warrant. Given the uproar and threats issued by US politicians, the ICC quietly dropped the matter – thus there are no warrants issued against Netanyahu and Gallant at present. There is scant evidence of a moral backbone at the ICC. But the ICC statements allows Amnesty to posture by wagging its finger at “both sides”.

    On 2 September 2024, Amnesty issued a demand for Mongolia to arrest President Putin, and did so in a rather hectoring tone. [26] And although the ICC no longer seeks to prosecute Netanyahu, this doesn’t stop other organisations to call on governments hosting Netanyahu for his arrest. Alas, Amnesty didn’t send a similar demand to the US. Maybe such a call would have tarnished Netanyahu’s reputation during his recent address to the US Congress.

    On the eve of the Gulf War against Iraq, Amnesty produced a report on the purported case of Iraqi soldiers “throwing babies out of incubators”. President Bush appeared on TV showing this report and using it as a justification for war. After the hoax was exposed Amnesty didn’t issue any apology or explanation. But now we face a real situation in Gaza where the Israeli military ordered the evacuation of Gaza’s largest hospital and consequently dozens of newborns had to be taken off incubators or other equipment. The doctor attending the children noted that most of them would die. One would say that this would provide emotive material to campaign to obtain a ceasefire; the plight of babies might resonate with Western liberal souls. Alas, Amnesty was silent in this instance.

    And there are blind spots

    One must marvel at the long list of press releases and reports Amnesty produces on a regular basis. No corner of the planet is exempt of an Amnesty commentary or reprimand. From commenting on transexual rights in Mongolia, sex workers rights, climate change, migrant rights and discrimination, etc. And many of its missives wag a finger at the offending state with titles including "… must do this". Amnesty frequently waves its human rights magic wand. Somehow they think they have the standing of a UN-like organisation to pontificate on any topic anywhere in the world.

    But one encounters blind spots in AI’s coverage. There are very few admonishing press releases regarding US, UK, or Israeli atrocious behaviour. When offending actions are mentioned at all, one finds them couched with terms such as "alleged"; and certainly not calling for a tribunal to hold criminals to account. The war in Ukraine has elicited minor critical commentary except chastising Russia; the US role in causing and fuelling the war are not mentioned. In general, AI’s position on issues aligns with US, UK and Israeli state policy. There is no criticism or even mention of the US’s penchant for forever wars; for waging violent actions in many places in the world. These seem to be just fine by Amnesty’s standards.

    The United Nations Security Council has become a joke – where one finds the US and its acolytes brazenly lying, and exhibiting monumental hypocrisy and cynicism. Any relevant resolution delivering a modicum of justice is routinely vetoed. This is plainly evident regarding calls for a ceasefire in Gaza with such resolutions vetoed. On 21 December 2023, the US put forth a "compromise" resolution regarding a ceasefire and humanitarian aid. The curious thing is that on the same day the diplomats acknowledged that Israel would not be bound by the resolution – it was merely an exercise of hypocrisy on steroids. Yet the next day, Agnes Callamard, AI’s Secretary General, stated that: "This is a much-needed resolution…”!
    [27]. To her credit, she also stated: "It is disgraceful that the US was able to stall and use the threat of its veto power to force the UN Security Council to weaken a much-needed call for an immediate end to attacks by all parties.”

    There is no pushback

    An important role any organisation could play would be to confront local supporters of regimes involved in mass crimes. There are notorious cases:

    • Nikki Haley, the failed presidential candidate, went to Israel to express her support to the extent that she wrote “kill them all” on an Israel artillery shell.
    • At the August 2024 Democratic National Convention attendees were active cheerleaders for the Israeli actions.
    • The US Congress welcomed Netanyahu and gave him 57 standing ovations.

    Maybe these outrageous statements and actions would elicit critical commentary. It is not only a generic trite statement about what is happening “over there,” but what is also necessary is to challenge the local enablers of mass crimes. Alas, Amnesty would rather consort with US politicians rather than to confront them.

    The bane of HR NGOs

    In Europe, various governments and NGOs provide scholarships for students to specialise in Human Rights. The courses are offered in several countries, and hundreds of students attend Human Rights centres each year. Italians get to study in Finland for a year…. And we find the grotesque situation of Dutch students studying human rights in Israel; it is a bit like going for education on animal rights to a slaughterhouse. This is all courtesy of EU largesse. The graduates then work for hundreds of NGOs or government agencies. Each of them will then wave their human rights wand over a topic that may be fashionable, invariably gay/trans rights, women’s reproductive rights, sex worker’s rights, etc. Further fuelling the human rights industry is the lavish funding obtained from various lottery funds – much of the profits from such institutions are disbursed to NGOs. The human rights industry experiences subsidised growth. Thus each NGO with its own warped agenda receives funds directly or indirectly. The directors of some NGOs command six figure salaries – a favourite for out-of-office politicians seeking a sinecure. [28]

    In the Netherlands where this process has been in place for decades, the human rights lobby has mushroomed in size and now manifests a dysfunctional dynamic, i.e., the NGOs bring incessant lawsuits against the government tying it down in court.

    Do NGOs advocating Palestinian human rights get to play in this merry-go-round? Fat chance!

    Human rights are for the birds

    When confronted with mass crimes what is needed is justice, and not one of its bastardised, neutered, malleable and ineffective substitutes. If one wants justice then it behooves one to speak in terms of justice, and to avoid the human rights mumbo jumbo. This is specially the case when human rights have been cynically exploited and weaponised by the US and UK. [29] A framework that can be used to justify wars, the so-called humanitarian interventions, cannot be a framework that advances justice or motivates people to act against mass crimes. The criminals react accordingly, i.e., they aren’t bothered if they are called transgressors of human rights, but may fear being accused of mass crimes.

    The mask comes off

    The current wars in Gaza, Ukraine, etc., and the reactions surrounding them has torn off the mask of the American empire revealing its hypocrisy, cynicism and sadism. Many of the "values" so dear to the neoliberals have been shown to be a sham. "Democracy," "International law," "freedom of speech,"…., and of course "human rights” have fallen off their pedestals. The collateral damage of the collapse also tears into the United Nations, the ICC, ICJ, and also the human rights industry because they also have been shown to be so ineffective and compromised. Amnesty International is demonstrably a conflicted organisation steeped in hypocrisy. It is a tool used by the UK and US governments to weaponise “human rights” to suit its own ends: the justification of wars, and the demonisation of "regimes," i.e., the governments that the empire doesn’t like. It has been a conduit for pro-war propaganda in the past, and even calling for so-called humanitarian military interventions.

    What is needed are critical voices that highlight the daily massacres, that call for the criminals and their enablers to be held to account, and to sue for a modicum of justice. Calling for a ceasefire is the bare minimum. Alas, most human rights NGOs don’t even fulfil this task. When Amnesty International postures about all sorts of trendy human rights everywhere in the world, but then doesn’t cover genocide and spring into effective action, then let it shut up entirely.

    One thing is certain: Amnesty International is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem.

    Notes

    1. [1] This is an analysis of Amnesty’s press releases and reports. These can be found here: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/ Amnesty’s position are also available on Twitter, but these are not covered here. The press releases and reports by other HR organisations are very similar and exhibit the same bias.
    2. [2] Uri Blau, Documents reveal how Israel made Amnesty’s local branch a front for the Foreign Ministry in the 70s; The Israeli government funded the establishment and activity of the Amnesty International branch in Israel in the 1960s and 70s. Official documents reveal that the chairman of the organization was in constant contact with the Foreign Ministry and received instructions from it; Haaretz, 18 March 2017.
      https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/3/22/israels-human-rights-spies-manipulating-the-discourse
      Neve Gordon and Nicola Perugini, "Israel’s human rights spies": Manipulating the discourse Revelations about Israel’s infiltration of NGOs in the 1970s shocked many, but human rights ‘spies’ are still out there, 22 Mar 2017.
    3. [3] Craig Mokhiber (Director of the New York Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights), The resignation letter.
      https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/11/a-textbook-case-of-genocide/
    4. [4] Avi Scharf, Weapons shipments to Israel: A Dizzying Pace, Then a Drop: How U.S. Arms Shipments to Israel Slowed Down subtitle: Publicly available flight tracking data shows how many U.S. arms shipments have arrived in Israel each month since the Gaza war started, revealing a sharp rise and then gradual tapering off in the pace of deliveries, Haaretz, 27 June 2024.
    5. [5] Israel wants to be feared to maintain its morally bankrupt deterrence policy. Thus any resistance must be smashed with disproportionate power. The Dahiya neighbourhood in Beirut was brutally bombed, and the politicians ordering the bombing were very pleased with the level of destruction. Thus the Dahiya doctrine.
    6. [6] Alastair Crooke, Trickery, Humiliation, Death – and the Timeless Hunger for ‘Honour and Glory’, Strategic Culture, 30 December 2023.
    7. [7] Ilan Pappe, the great Israeli historian, once replied to a question of whether Israel was an apartheid state by stating: "if it quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, then it is apartheid".
    8. [8] Some examples of AI Press releases about OPT that don’t mention Gaza at all. AI, Dutch Investor pushes for human rights safeguards to stop use of surveillance technology against Palestinians, 4 July 2024. Refers to the intrusive video spying. AI, Israel’s attempt to sway WhatsApp case casts doubt on its ability to deal with NSO spyware cases, 25 July 2024.
    9. [9] Operation "Cast Lead" is a curious name for a military operation. It actually refers to a passage in Deuteronomy where the Hebrews exterminate their opponents to the extent that they pour molten lead down their throats.
    10. [10]Contrast AI’s ahistorical reporting on the situation in Gaza with that of Syria. When it comes to Syria, the history of the “regime” is suddenly an issue.
    11. [11] Rasha Khatib, Martin McKee and Salim Yusuf, “Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential”, The Lancet, Volume 404, Issue 10449, pp237-238, 20 July 2024.
      https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext
    12. [12] AI, Israel/ OPT: Hamas and other armed groups must immediately release civilians held hostage in Gaza,12 July 2024
    13. [13] By Yaniv Kubovich • Haaretz 7 July 2024 IDF Ordered Hannibal Directive on October 7 to Prevent Hamas Taking Soldiers Captive Subtitle: “there was crazy hysteria, and decisions started being made without verified information: Documents and testimonies obtained by Haaretz reveal the Hannibal operational order, which directs the use of force to prevent soldiers being taken into captivity, was employed at three army facilities infiltrated by Hamas, potentially endangering civilians as well”
    14. [14] Crisis in Gaza: Scenario-based Health Impact Projections
      https://gaza-projections.org/gaza_projections_report.pdf
    15. [15] AI, Gaza: Discovery of mass graves highlights urgent need to grant access to independent human
      rights investigators, 24 April 2024.
    16. [16] AI, Israel/OPT: Israeli attacks targeting Hamas and other armed group fighters that killed
      scores of displaced civilians in Rafah should be investigated as war crimes, 26 August 2024.
    17. [17] AI, Global: Governments’ brazen flouting of Arms Trade Treaty rules leading to devastating loss of life, 19 August 2024.
    18. [18] https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/gaza-one-most-intense-bombardments-history
      https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/amount-of-israeli-bombs-dropped-on-gaza-surpasses-that-of-world-war-ii/3239665
    19. [19] AI, “Israel must end mass incommunicado detention and torture of Palestinians from Gaza”, 18 July 2024.
    20. [20] https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/7/10/freed-former-palestinian-bodybuilder-alleges-abuse-by-israeli-jailers
      and https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/palestine-west-bank-muazzaz-abayat-prison-interview
    21. [21]
      https://www.amnesty.org/en/petition/demand-a-ceasefire-by-all-parties-to-end-civilian-suffering/
    22. [22] Thomas Frank, Hypocrite at the good cause parties, Le Monde Diplomatique, February 2018. Frank reports that Harvey Weinstein made "AI-USA possible”.
    23. [23] Paul de Rooij, Amnesty International trumpets for another "Humanitarian" war… this time in Syria, MintPress, 23 March 2018.
    24. [24] Amnesty, Venezuela: Scale and gravity of ongoing crimes demand urgent actions from ICC prosecutor, 9 August 2024
      https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/08/venezuela-crimes-demand-urgent-action-icc-prosecutor/
    25. [25] Personal communication with Donatella Rovera, January 2003.
    26. [26] AI, “Mongolia: Putin must be arrested and surrendered to the International Criminal Court”, 2 September 2024.
    27. [27] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/12/israel-opt-adoption-of-un-resolution-to-expedite-humanitarian-aid-to-gaza-an-important-but-insufficient-step/
      Israel/OPT: Adoption of UN resolution to expedite humanitarian aid to Gaza an important but insufficient step, 22 Decemeber 2024.
    28. [28] Irene Khan, the former Amnesty general secretary, received a £533,000 "golden handshake" when she departed.
    29. [29] For some of the background history of Amnesty International, see: Kirsten Sellars, The Rise and Rise of Human Rights, Sutton Publications, 2002. Also, Alfred de Zayas, The Human Rights Industry, Clarity Press, 2023.
    The post Where was Amnesty International during the Genocide in Gaza? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Former REDRESS Director to Lead New Era for Essex’s Human Rights Centre 

    Professor Carla Ferstman has been appointed the new director of Essex’s Human Rights Centre. Professor Ferstman succeeds Interim Director Judith Bueno de Mesquita and becomes the latest in a long line of renowned human rights lawyers and academics to lead the centre. “The Human Rights Centre is a path-breaking and multidisciplinary community of students, researchers and practitioners dedicated […]

    This post was originally published on Human Rights Centre Blog.

  • Alabama executes death-row prisoner with nitrogen gas

    Alan Miller, 59, second person in US to be executed via controversial technique, shook and trembled on gurney

    Alabama has carried out the second execution in the US using the controversial method of nitrogen gas, an experimental technique for humans that veterinarians have deemed unacceptable in the US and Europe for the euthanasia of most animals.

    Alan Eugene Miller, 59, was pronounced dead at 6.38pm local time at a south Alabama prison.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Breaking Down Sudan’s Struggle: What the World Is Missing

    “This war is not a civil war, it’s a counterrevolutionary war against civilians. It’s a war of military elites against the entire civilian population,” says Sudanese organizer Nisrin Elamin. Sudan is currently experiencing the largest mass displacement event in the world today. Thousands are dead and famine is “almost everywhere” in the country. In this episode of “Movement Memos,” Elamin…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • CAFOD calls for justice as another environmental defender is killed in Honduras

    Juan Lopes - Screenshot

    Juan Lopes

    Catholic aid agency CAFOD has called for justice, after the murder of a prominent environmentalist that CAFOD supported.

    Following the news of the murder of Juan Lopez – anti-mining, environmentalist, community leader and Municipal Councillor of Tocoa, northern Honduras – who was shot dead by several men as he headed home in his car from church, Paz Redondo, CAFOD’s Country Representative for Central America said: “The assassination of Juan Lopez clearly shows once again the complicity between the authorities, international companies, and organised crime in Tocoa, and the inability of the government to protect environmental and human rights defenders in the emblematic case of the Guapinol river – despite the fact that precautionary measures had been ordered by the Interamerican Court of Human Rights – IACHR.“

    Juan Lopez denounced the corruption within local and central governments in Honduras during a public press conference just before he was killed.

    Paz Redondo continues: “Justice needs to be more than words for the state of Honduras, a state that shows once again its fragility and inability to combat corruption within its ranks, as it continues to serve the interests of extractives and organised crime. Juan publicly denounced this corruption within local and central governments and was killed days after his and his fellow activists’ latest public press conference.”

    For over a decade, the communities of Guapinol, San Pedro and other areas in the vicinity of Tocoa have been denouncing the illegal granting of mining concessions in the “Carlos Escaleras National Park” in Honduras. Their advocacy efforts were fruitful in February, when the Honduran government approved Decree 18-2024 to protect the core zone of the national park, a key achievement to safeguard the environment against mining and energy projects in the area.

    The murder of Juan Lopez is not the first killing in the Guapinol case. Over 160 community members in Tocoa have been killed protecting their land and natural resources since 2010 (Amnesty, 2024). In 2023, three community leaders were killed in what the community saw as retaliation, following the release of defenders who had been criminalised. Later in the year, in October 2023, 30 members of the Municipal Committee for the Defense of Common and Public Goods of Tocoa and of the Bufete Justicia para los Pueblos, were granted precautionary measures by the Human Rights Interamerican Court (IACHR).

    Juan Lopez was killed despite precautionary measures which were ordered by the IACHR last October. The community of Tocoa believes his death could have been prevented if the Honduran authorities had implemented the precautionary measures granted to Juan Lopez. CAFOD, alongside ERIC has accompanied the Guapinol community in their fight to protect the land and natural resources essential for their survival, and we will continue supporting them as they defend their environmental rights.

    Tags: Honduras, Juan Lopes, CAFOD, Paz Redondo, Nick Whittingham, CAFOD

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Call for Input: Special Rapporteur’s Human Rights Council report on human rights defenders in remote and rural areas

    The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders is seeking input for her upcoming report to the Human Rights Council, which will focus on human rights defenders working in remote and rural areas. The report, to be presented in March 2025, will explore the unique challenges faced by these human rights defenders, such as geographic isolation, limited access to resources, and lack of meaningful consultation. Despite these challenges, human rights defenders in these regions play a critical role in defending human rights, maintaining public institutions, and ensuring the rule of law.

    This call for input invites contributions from a range of stakeholders, including States, businesses, civil society organizations, and human rights defenders themselves. The aim is to assess the nature of threats, obstacles, and opportunities for human rights defenders in these remote regions. Submissions should focus on topics like gender-specific challenges, protection strategies, successes achieved, and examples of good practices. These inputs will help shape practical recommendations on improving safety, access to resources, and support for defenders in rural areas.

    The collected inputs will inform the report and be published on the OHCHR website to foster dialogue and improve protection measures for human rights defenders in these challenging environments.

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Rwandan forces and M23 rebels shelled refugee camps in DRC, report claims

    Human Rights Watch alleges potential violation of international human rights law on many occasions this year

    Rwandan forces and M23 rebels have shelled refugee camps and other highly populated areas in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo on many occasions this year, Human Rights Watch has claimed.

    The NGO also accused the DRC’s armed forces and its allied militias of putting the camps’ residents in danger by stationing their artillery nearby in its report alleging violation of international humanitarian and human rights law in the longstanding war in the central African country.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • ‘Indefinite torture’: Australian children held in Syrian camp feel abandoned as other countries repatriate citizens

    Plea for repatriation comes as high court refused appeal brought by Save the Children to return Australian families of slain Islamic State fighters

    Australian children held in a Syrian detention camp for more than five years – some born in the camp and having never left it – are despairing as they watch hundreds of other foreign children leave for home.

    “They can’t understand why they don’t have a chance to be saved like the other Australians and given a shot at a normal life,” one mother in the camp told Guardian Australia.

    Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Outrage as Hungary presides over EU talks on democratic standards

    Country held chair due to rotating presidency despite Orbán government being under EU sanctions procedure

    Hungary’s government has presided over EU talks on upholding democratic standards across the continent, in a development one prominent MEP described as “outrageous”.

    Viktor Orbán’s government has been under an EU sanctions procedure since 2018 for posing a “systemic threat” to democracy and the rule of law.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The US state of Missouri is set to execute an innocent Black man TODAY

    Today, the US state of Missouri is executing Marcellus Williams, an innocent Black man – for a crime he didn’t commit:

    On 11th August 1998, Felicia Gayle – a former reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was found stabbed to death in her home. The suspect left behind:

    considerable forensic evidence, including fingerprints, footprints, hair, and trace DNA on the murder weapon, a knife from Ms. Gayle’s kitchen.

    They convicted Marcellus Williams of her murder in August 2001. However:

    None of this forensic evidence matches Mr. Williams.

    DNA evidence found on the murder weapon ‘affirmatively excluded Williams as the perpetrator’:

    Marcellus Williams: onnocent

    The prosecutions case against Marcellus Williams was based entirely on the unreliable testimony of two incentivised witnesses.

    According to the Innocence Project:

    The case against Mr. Williams turned on the testimony of two unreliable witnesses who were incentivized by promises of leniency in their own pending criminal cases and reward money. 

    They continued:

    Both of these individuals were known fabricators; neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police. Their statements were inconsistent with their own prior statements, with each other’s accounts, and with the crime scene evidence, and none of the information they provided could be independently verified.

    Ignoring the evidence

    In 2015, the Missouri Supreme Court stayed Marcellus Williams’s execution. They also appointed a special master to review DNA testing of evidence that could potentially exonerate Williams. This proved that it was not his DNA on the murder weapon.

    Then in 2017, the case was sent back to the Missouri Supreme court – without a hearing. This means the court then scheduled his execution without considering the DNA results. On 22 August, governor Eric Greitens gave Williams a stay of execution. This was just hours before the execution.

    Under Missouri Law, the stay was to remain in place until the Board of Inquiry concluded its review and issued a formal report.

    However, in June 2023, while enquiries were still ongoing, current governor Mike Parson dissolved the board. Missouri attorney general Andrew Bailey then sought a new execution date. 

    According to the Innocence Project:

    Mr. Williams filed a civil suit against Governor Parson because the dissolution of the Board without a report or recommendation violated Missouri law and Mr. Williams’s constitutional rights. After a Cole County judge denied the Governor’s motion to dismiss this lawsuit, the Governor persuaded the Missouri Supreme Court to intervene. 

    On June 4, 2024, the Missouri Supreme Court dismissed Mr. Williams’s civil lawsuit and immediately scheduled his execution for Sept. 24.

    Executing innocent black men

    This will not be the first time the US has executed an innocent Black man. Only last week, South Carolina executed Khalil Divine Black Sun Allah – only days after the key witness for the prosecution came forward to say he had lied at trial and they would be killing an innocent man:

    Currently, the criminal justice industrial complex in the US is racist to its core. From policing and the murders of innocent Black people, right through to the prison and criminal sentencing system. In 2021, black Americans were imprisoned at five times the rate of white Americans. Seven states imprison black residents at more than nine times the rate of white residents.

    Yet another execution of an innocent Black man encapsulates how the criminal justice apparatus doesn’t exist to protect Black lives, but to further oppress Black communities:

    They are planning to execute Marcellus Williams today. The Innocence Project have put together a page which tells you how you can help stop it, before its too late. Where’s Michael Schofield when you need him?

    Feature image via KSDK News/Youtube

    By HG

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Inside a secret summit of Afghan women’s rights activists – podcast

    Annie Kelly reports from a conference in Albania where Afghan women have spoken publicly about the Taliban’s brutal crackdown on their freedom

    In August, the Taliban published “vice and virtue” laws that banned women’s voices being heard in public. Weeks later, more than 130 women travelled to Tirana in Albania to attend the All Afghan Women summit to talk about the Taliban’s human rights abuses.

    The Guardian reporter Annie Kelly spoke to Afghan women at the conference about how their lives had changed since the Taliban took control.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • 29 human rights organizations urge UN member states to raise the issue of human rights in Bahrain during General Assembly high-level debate

    Bahrain: Joint Letter on Human Rights Priorities to All Member States of the United Nations General Assembly

    Re: 79th Session of the UN General Assembly 

    23 September 2024 

    Your Excellencies,

    During the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA 79), we urge you to raise human rights priorities in Bahrain, including concerns about the continued arbitrary detention of human rights defenders, scholars, bloggers, and opposition leaders in Bahrain, the use of the death penalty, and the revocation of citizenship. The high-level general debate (24-28 September), pertinently themed “Leaving no one behind: acting together for the advancement of peace, sustainable development and human dignity for present and future generations,” is a critical opportunity to push for resolution on these long-standing human rights abuses.

    The royal pardon issued by King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa on 4 September 2024, for 457 individuals, which was the third mass amnesty in 2024, included the release of over 150 political prisoners, according to research conducted by the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD). The first pardon, on 8 April 2024, included an estimated 650 political prisoners, while the second pardon, on 15 June 2024, largely excluded political prisoners, according to BIRD.

    While the pardons this year are notable, resulting in the lowest number of individuals wrongfully imprisoned in Bahrain since 2011, they largely excluded prominent human rights defenders and leading opposition activists who played significant roles in the 2011 pro-democracy protests. They include:

    • Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, a Bahraini-Danish human rights defender, has been arbitrarily detained since 2011. Authorities have subjected Al-Khawaja to severe physical, sexual, and psychological torture.
    • Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace, an award-winning human rights defender, blogger, and scholar, has been arbitrarily detained since 2011. Dr. Al-Singace has been on a liquids-only hunger strike to protest the confiscation of his research manuscripts for over three years.
    • Hassan Mushaima, a Bahraini opposition leader aged 76, has been arbitrarily detained since 2011. He, along with Dr. Al-Singace, has been denied adequate medical care, sunlight and ventilation despite being held in a medical centre, where he has been held in prolonged solitary confinement since 2021.
    • Sheikh Ali Salman, the leader of the dissolved opposition party Al-Wefaq, has been imprisoned since 2014. Amnesty International called his 2018 life imprisonment conviction “a travesty of justice.”

    Five UN experts recently expressed concern about the continued arbitrary detention of human rights defenders and opposition leaders who were excluded from the April pardon, raising alarm about the deteriorating health of Dr. Al-Singace, Mushaima, Sheikh Mirza Mahroos and Al-Khawaja, resulting from their detention. Al-Khawaja, Al-Singace and Mushaima have also all been included in the UN Secretary-General’s report on reprisals for cooperation with the UN.

    Additionally, 26 individuals in Bahrain remain on death row at risk of imminent execution, many of whom allege torture and unfair trials. Mohammed Ramadan and Husain Moosa, who have now spent over a decade unlawfully detained, were sentenced to death in 2014 in an unfair trial marred by torture allegations. In 2021, the UNWGAD found that both men are arbitrarily detained and called for their immediate release.

    Between 2012 and 2019, the Bahraini government revoked the citizenship of 990 individuals, and while citizenship of an estimated 698 individuals was restored by the King in 2019 and through courts, at least 292 individuals remain denaturalised, according to BIRD. This includes Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, who was named in the 2024 UN Secretary-General’s report on reprisals against individuals who cooperate with UN mechanisms, which was presented at the 57th session of the Human Rights Council.

    In light of the high-level General Debate which begins on Tuesday, 24 September, we strongly believe that this is a unique and vital opportunity for intensified diplomatic action to advocate for the release of human rights defenders, opposition leaders, death row inmates, and all those who remain unfairly imprisoned in Bahrain.

    Thus, we respectfully urge your delegation to:

    • Raise individual cases of human rights defenders and opposition leaders, namely Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace, Hassan Mushaima, Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, and Sheikh Ali Salman.
    • Urge Bahraini authorities to end the use of the death penalty in Bahrain, raising the cases of Mohamed Ramadan and Husain Moosa, calling on Bahrain to commute all outstanding death sentences, and establish an official moratorium on executions.
    • Call on Bahraini authorities to reinstate the citizenship of individuals rendered stateless on politically-motivated charges and reform their laws in line with their obligations under  international law.

    Sincerely,

    1. Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
    2. ALQST for Human Rights
    3. Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
    4. ARTICLE 19
    5. Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR)
    6. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
    7. CIVICUS
    8. Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
    9. DAWN
    10. FairSquare
    11. Freedom House
    12. Front Line Defenders
    13. Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
    14. Human Rights First
    15. Human Rights Watch
    16. Index on Censorship
    17. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
    18. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
    19. MENA Rights Group
    20. Middle East Democracy Center (MEDC)
    21. PEN International
    22. Rafto Foundation for Human Rights
    23. Reprieve
    24. Scholars at Risk
    25. The #FreeAlKhawaja Campaign
    26. The European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)
    27. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defende

    The post 29 human rights organizations urge UN member states to raise the issue of human rights in Bahrain during General Assembly high-level debate appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

    This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

  • Children from Indonesia, Syria and Ukraine share hopes for the future – in pictures

    To mark the centenary of the rights of the child, Save the Children has partnered with children from Indonesia, Syria and Ukraine to produce a unique and creative photo series reflecting their identities, rights and hopes for the future. Working with photographers Ulet Ifansasti (in Indonesia), Kate Stanworth (in Jordan), and Oksana Parafeniuk (in Romania), children were invited to create photo montages and write poems expressing who they are, what matters to them and how they feel about their rights

    *Some names have been changed

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • UN Panel Calls Out Israel for “Serious Violations” of Child Rights Treaty

    A United Nations committee on Thursday called out Israel for “serious violations” of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the occupied Palestinian territories, particularly with its nearly yearlong assault on the Gaza Strip. “The outrageous death of children is almost historically unique. This is an extremely dark place in history,” said Bragi Guðbrandsson, vice chair of the U.N.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.