radiofree.asia

Category: Law

  • Europe’s human rights watchdog warns UK over illegal migration bill

    Council of Europe’s experts say bill is ‘step backwards’ in fight against modern slavery

    Europe’s human rights watchdog has warned the UK government that its plans to curb the rights of trafficking victims in its illegal migration bill is a “significant step backwards” in the fight against human trafficking and modern slavery and demonstrates a lack of compliance with international law.

    In a highly unusual move, the Council of Europe’s group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings (Greta) on Wednesday expressed deep concern about the bill and its lack of compliance with core elements of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings.

    Continue reading…

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

  • MPs urged to uphold UK’s global obligations in migration bill debate

    Council of Europe commissioner raises concerns that legislation may not meet human rights standards

    A European human rights commissioner has warned UK parliamentarians, before a debate on the government’s illegal migration bill, to uphold international obligations when scrutinising the proposed legislation.

    In a letter to the House of Commons and House of Lords published on Monday, the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights, Dunja Mijatović, said: “It is essential that parliamentarians prevent legislation that is incompatible with the United Kingdom’s international obligations being passed.”

    Continue reading…

  • Rwanda scheme would ‘completely erode’ UK’s standing on world stage

    New Human Rights Watch head Tirana Hassan says UK’s plan to deport asylum seekers is ‘cheap politics’

    The UK’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda would “completely erode” Britain’s standing on the world stage, the new head of Human Rights Watch (HRW) has said.

    Tirana Hassan, who takes over as HRW’s executive director on Monday, also said other conservative governments in Europe were considering following Britain’s lead and looking at African states as an offshore dumping ground for asylum seekers, potentially dealing further blows to established refugee protections.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Welcoming Benjamin Netanyahu to No 10 is an insult to British Palestinians like me | Sara Husseini

    The government’s mealy mouthed criticism of the Israeli PM’s increasingly rightwing policies is not enough. He should be persona non grata in the UK

    The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, might have been hoping for some brief respite from the tumult back home during his flying visit to London. Instead, in addition to his meeting with Rishi Sunak and other officials, the Likud leader was met with protests from human rights activists, including a protest by Amnesty International, a Palestine solidarity demonstration outside No 10 and another by the British Jewish group Na’amod.

    Such protests are well justified. Since the new government was sworn in, as reported by international governments, lawyers and human rights groups, Israel has furthered “annexation” of occupied land and advanced construction in illegal settlements. In 2023 so far, 75 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces (as of 13 March); last year, at least 231 Palestinians were killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, including nearly 40 children.

    Continue reading…

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

  • ‘Historic moment’ as El Salvador abortion case fuels hopes for expanded access across Latin America

    Human rights court hears seriously ill woman denied procedure as advocates call for change in region with world’s most restrictive abortion laws

    Human rights activists in Latin America hope that a historic court hearing over the case of a Salvadoran woman who was denied an abortion despite her high-risk pregnancy could open the way for El Salvador to decriminalize abortions – and set an important precedent across the region.

    The inter-American court of human rights (IACHR) this week considered the historic case of the woman, known as Beatriz, who was prohibited from having an abortion in 2013, even though she was seriously ill and the foetus she was carrying would not have survived outside the uterus.

    Continue reading…

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

  • How the Cuban government and people collaborated on the Family Code

    Natalia Marques spoke to young activists in Cuba to find out how the new law was won through grassroots dialogue.

  • Brother of Biafra separatist held in Nigeria loses court challenge against UK

    UK government not required to state whether Nnamdi Kanu, a British national, was victim of extraordinary rendition, judge rules

    The brother of a British national being held in Nigeria after falling victim to extraordinary rendition has said he is disappointed after the high court dismissed his challenge to UK ministers’ handling of the case.

    Kingsley Kanu, brother of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (Ipob), a prominent separatist movement proscribed in Nigeria, claimed that three foreign secretaries – Liz Truss, Dominic Raab and then James Cleverly – had acted unlawfully by failing to reach a view on whether he had been subjected to extraordinary rendition.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Experts cast doubt on Braverman’s hopes of ECHR rule change on Rwanda

    Home secretary’s claims of ‘constructive’ talks regarding Strasbourg’s injunctions disputed by legal scholars

    Legal experts have cast doubt on the UK’s claims of “possible reforms” to European court of human rights procedures that stopped an asylum seeker from being deported to Rwanda last year.

    During a two-day visit to the country’s capital, Kigali, Suella Braverman told a selected group of government-friendly papers that she was “encouraged” by the government’s “constructive” talks with Strasbourg to overhaul court injunctions. An ECHR injunction last June prevented an Iraqi national from being deported from the UK to the east African country.

    Continue reading…

  • Cruel Tory migration bill will erode basic right to seek asylum | Letters

    The impact the policy will have across the world can’t be ignored, says Oliver Lough. Plus letters from Derrick Joad, Nigel Griffin and David Duell

    Rafael Behr is right to draw attention to both the unworkability and the inhumanity of the proposed illegal migration bill (‘Stop the boats’ shows how Britain is really being governed: by Tory campaign leaflet, 14 March). But it is also important to look beyond domestic concerns. At a time when displacement across borders due to war, climate breakdown and economic collapse are becoming increasingly common, Britain risks joining a growing list of privileged countries whose actions threaten to undermine the basic right to seek asylum from persecution. Already, the US is turning away refugees at its southern border, and the militarisation and criminalisation of asylum in the Mediterranean is well entrenched.

    Countries adjacent to crises are the primary hosts of most of the world’s refugees. They are not blind to the hypocrisy of wealthy nations, which insist that refugees be supported and protected “over there” while relying on hostile and legally dubious solutions to prevent them coming “over here”. If the world’s richest countries are prepared to undermine its norms, the international refugee protection regime risks descending into a free-for-all, where each country will act as it sees fit – denial of refugee status, detention, violent pushbacks and forced repatriation – with the rights and needs of vulnerable people relegated to an absolute last priority.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Trinidad and Tobago is failing children locked in Syrian camps – it must bring them home | Kenneth Mohammed

    During Covid, the Caribbean republic shut its borders, stranding citizens overseas; now it has left children vulnerable to illness, death and IS recruitment

    When is it acceptable for a government to lock its citizens out of their country, to leave them stranded overseas, trampling the constitutional and human rights of those who pay their salaries? During a pandemic perhaps?

    When is it acceptable to disown nationals, especially children who are victims of misguided decisions made by their brainwashed parents? When their parents left to join Islamic State perhaps?

    Continue reading…

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

  • A fairer way to pay slavery reparations | Letter

    John Cookson says only those whose ancestors gained from slavery should be responsible for reparations

    The initiative by the Trevelyan family to pay reparations is very laudable and welcome (British slave owners’ family makes public apology in Grenada, 27 February). They directly benefited from slavery, so this is appropriate. I have serious reservations about reparations being paid by me. The government paying reparations means that my taxes would be used. My ancestors gained nothing from slavery. They worked in the mills and factories of Lancashire, particularly in Salford and Manchester, in the most appalling conditions, and were housed in insanitary, dangerous and unhealthy accommodation with a record of disease and deprivation among the worst in Europe. Anyone who doubts this should read Engel’s 1845 book, The Condition of the Working Class in England.

    If reparations are to be paid, a tax on the aristocrats and fat cats whose ancestors profited from slavery would be the only just solution.
    John Cookson
    Bournemouth, Dorset

    Continue reading…

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

  • Queensland boy, 13, spends at least 45 days in solitary confinement despite not being sentenced to detention

    Exclusive: First Nations teenager spent 22 consecutive days isolated after being remanded on minor offences

    A 13-year-old First Nations boy remanded for minor criminal offences was kept in total solitary confinement in a Queensland youth detention centre for at least 45 days, Guardian Australia has learned.

    It is understood the boy also claimed that on one occasion he was denied drinking water at the Cleveland youth detention centre (CYDT) in Townsville, after he became distressed during a prolonged period in isolation and flooded the cell.

    Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

    Continue reading…

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

  • The Reality of Reproductive Rights of Women: A Comparative Study of India and the U.S.A

    Introduction

    “It is impossible to think about the welfare of the world unless the condition of women is improved. It is impossible for a bird to fly on only one wing.” ~ Swami Vivekanand.

    Nearly three-quarters of a century later, the silence around unsafe abortions, maternal deaths, use of contraceptives and reproductive rights still deafens independent India.

    Broadly, reproductive rights refer to an individual’s ability to choose whether or not to procreate and to maintain reproductive health. This includes the right to start a family, terminate a pregnancy, use contraception, and obtain reproductive health care. The trajectory of women’s emancipation in India has veritably been dynamic. Tracing it right from their participation in nationalist movements, to being forced into the domiciliary domain and to their recent revival as super-women, women in our country have seen it all.

    The judiciary has been the flag bearer for securing and furthering reproductive rights here and now. Nevertheless, women’s sexual and reproductive rights in the country still hang in the realm of obliviousness. Despite women successfully marching towards closing gender gaps, the griming realities of maternal health and abortion-related fatalities have weighed heavily against all the progress made.

    The griming reality

    Despite India being the forerunner in the world to come up with infrastructural and policy measures ensuring safe abortion and contraception, women continue to encounter obstacles in exercising their reproductive rights, including poor health services and dismissal of decision-making authority. It is a problem that encompasses reproductive rights, sexual health, family planning, and maternal health.

    Women are often made to face the weight of administrative delays. In one such example, a woman was prevented from having an abortion after 20 weeks, despite having requested one at 17 weeks.

    Furthermore, inconsistent judgements add to the general lack of clarity surrounding the conditions in which a woman may legitimately terminate her pregnancy. While a Supreme Court decision in 2019 enabled a woman from Mumbai to terminate her pregnancy at 24 weeks due to a foetal anomaly that would jeopardise her life, previous rulings have penalised women who seek abortions after the 20-week mark, even where medically proven problems existed. Like in early 2017, the apex court decided against a lady whose foetus had a down syndrome-diagnosed abortion at 26 weeks. She was forced to deliver the baby with severe brain disorders, all credit to India’s archaic abortion law.

    Additionally, discriminatory precepts like spousal consent being an informal but imperative condition to obtain reproductive health services implicitly or explicitly sabotage women’s reproductive autonomy. Legal protection of reproductive rights as human rights is essential for gender parity and gender equity.

    Judiciary to the rescue

    Despite these inconsistencies, the Supreme Court has made paramount strides in India regarding the reproductive rights of women. Each country, however, has its restriction and exceptions when it comes to abortion rights.

    While abortion has been a contention in America for decades, many states, particularly those led by conservatives, have recently expressed interest in or initiated legislation to limit abortion drastically. Recent newsworthy events include the US Supreme Court’s draught decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. The historic rulings in  Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and Roe v. Wade (1973) which protected women’s right to abortion, are reversed in the draught opinion. The apex court of the United States in a significant ruling in 1973, two years after India legalised abortion, recognised for the first time that the constitutional right to privacy is not so shallow that it does not even grant women the autonomy to decide the termination of her pregnancy.

    On the other hand, the Indian judiciary gave true sense to the societal needs in the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy judgment which bestowed upon an individual the sense and privilege of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It also reaffirmed the decision in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, which held that reproductive rights include a woman’s right to carry a pregnancy to term, give birth, and raise children; and that these rights are part of a woman’s right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, the apex court has also extended the meaning of personal liberty by decriminalising adultery and homosexuality.

    The reproductive rights are directly affected by these decisions. The right to safe abortion is an essential component of women’s right to bodily integrity, life, and self-determination, and it must be guarded.

    Conclusion and way forward

    We must not paint the Indian legislative and judiciary as perfect, despite their consistently supporting abortion rights from a liberal standpoint. The old legislation on abortion rights was exemplary but the new one was overdue as it broadened its scope to encompass single women and adjusted the abortion threshold considering recent medical breakthroughs. In addition, the USA recognised the right to privacy in 1891 whereas India recognised it in 2017 bringing the right to abortion under its wide ambit. While it may be said that these developments are late, it is undeniable that India is on the correct path despite the setbacks. On the other hand, the established good norms in the USA have been shaken with the recent trends on the judicial front which is concerning for the developed society of the nation.

    The governments in both the nations should focus on providing access to licit and safe abortion, which are integral to sexual and reproductive parity and public health issues. The legal systems must consider these rights as a fundamental part of the laws it enacts, the policies it inserts place and the programs it engenders. The responsibility additionally lies with civil society and development actors to raise these issues for public debate and demands.

    As mentioned earlier, the legal protections outlined in the judgements serve as a powerful call to defend and uphold women’s reproductive rights, defined as both reproductive health and autonomy, including for marginalised communities in future litigation.

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • Japanese man granted retrial after 45 years on death row

    Iwao Hakamada, 87, was convicted of four murders in 1968 but granted ‘temporary release’ in 2014 after new evidence emerged

    A court in Japan has granted a retrial to a man – thought to be the world’s longest-serving death row inmate – who was sentenced to hang for the murders of a family of four almost six decades ago.

    The Tokyo high court ruled on Monday that Iwao Hakamada, 87, should be tried again for the crimes in a decision campaigners said was a “step towards justice”.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Giving the middle finger is a ‘God-given right’, Canadian judge rules

    Gesture may not be civil or polite but ‘it is not a crime’ and is protected under Canada’s constitution, judgment says

    Giving your neighbour the middle finger may not be polite but is protected as part of a person’s right to freedom of expression under the Canadian constitution, a judge has ruled.

    In a 26-page decision, Judge Dennis Galiatsatos of the French-speaking province of Quebec dismissed a case against a man accused of harassing his neighbour in a Montreal suburb.

    Continue reading…

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

  • The Guardian view on refugee rights: a warning from history | Editorial

    Rishi Sunak’s pretence of serious statecraft is belied by his embrace of shabby populism when it comes to immigration law

    Britain did not sign up to the 1951 United Nations refugee convention by accident, nor was the country bamboozled into the European convention on human rights and cooperation with the Strasbourg court that enforces the convention. It was an architect of those institutions.

    The ambition was to lay solid foundations of European cooperation for the establishment of a peaceful democratic order after the second world war. Winston Churchill was a leading advocate of that project.

    Continue reading…

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

  • What are the legal obstacles faced by the UK’s illegal migration bill?

    Suella Braverman has denied the government is breaking the law but experts say it faces many challenges

    A major piece of legislation unveiled this week seeks to achieve nothing less than the holy grail of current immigration policy: making asylum claims inadmissible from those who travel to the UK on small boats.

    The illegal migration bill, to give its provisional title, would involve a duty placed on the home secretary to remove “as soon as reasonably practicable”, to Rwanda or a “safe third country”, anyone who arrives on a small boat. Those who arrive will also be prevented from ever claiming asylum in the UK.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Brexit trade treaty ‘could be terminated’ if UK quits ECHR over small boat crossings

    Legal experts say Brussels has right to take retaliatory action, making cross-border law enforcement harder

    The UK’s trade agreement with the EU could be immediately terminated if the British government quits the European convention on human rights (EHCR) over the issue of stopping small boat crossings across the Channel, legal experts have said.

    Under the 2020 trade and cooperation agreement (TCA), the EU has the right to take retaliatory action including the ending of the hard-fought agreements on extradition and access to the database of biometric data including fingerprints and DNA, said Steve Peers, a professor of EU and human rights law.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Campaign calls for gender apartheid to be crime under international law

    Prominent Afghans and Iranians say current laws do not capture the systematic suppression of women

    A prominent group of Afghan and Iranian women are backing a campaign calling for gender apartheid to be recognised as a crime under international law.

    The campaign, launched on International Women’s Day, reflects a belief that the current laws covering discrimination against women do not capture the systematic nature of the policies imposed in Afghanistan and Iran to downgrade the status of women in society.

    Continue reading…

  • What does the UK government’s bill on illegal migration propose?

    Ministers say the bill will stop people crossing the Channel in small boats but critics say the plans are unworkable

    In 2022, 45,755 men, women and children crossed the Channel in small boats to reach the UK, most of whom then claimed asylum. Nearly 3,000 people have already made the crossing this year, with official estimates expecting more than 80,000 this year.

    Rishi Sunak has promised to end the small boats once and for all, by introducing the illegal migration bill. Critics including former Tory ministers have claimed it is doomed to be halted by challenges in the EU courts and will be used as an issue to attack Labour in a general election campaign.

    Continue reading…

  • Suella Braverman: small boats plan will push boundaries of international law

    Rishi Sunak says bill will ‘take back control of our borders’ but critics argue the proposals are unworkable

    Suella Braverman has admitted the government is attempting to push “the boundaries of international law” with legislation aimed at reducing small boat crossings in the Channel.

    The law, to be disclosed to MPs at lunchtime on Tuesday, is expected to place a legal duty on the home secretary to detain and remove nearly all asylum seekers who arrive “irregularly” such as via small boats in the Channel.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Ukraine urges ICC to investigate video appearing to show Russians killing PoW

    Graphic clip shows detained combatant standing in a shallow trench before being apparently shot

    Ukraine has urged the international criminal court to investigate footage circulating on social media that appeared to show Russian fighters killing a Ukrainian prisoner of war.

    In the graphic clip that first circulated on Telegram, a detained combatant is seen standing in a shallow trench and smoking a cigarette. The soldier says “Glory to Ukraine” and is then apparently shot with automatic weapons.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Rishi Sunak to launch bill to stop people arriving on small boats claiming asylum

    Law would also place duty on home secretary to send anyone who arrives on small boat in UK to Rwanda or another country

    Rishi Sunak is to announce new laws stopping people entering the UK on small boats from claiming asylum, with the prime minister saying: “Make no mistake, if you come here illegally, you will not to be able to stay.”

    The prime minister and his home secretary will launch the legislation this week, as part of the government’s drive to “tackle illegal migration”, one of its main priorities.

    Continue reading…

  • Campaigners hail law raising age of marriage to 18 in England and Wales

    Now illegal for 16- and 17-year-olds to marry or enter a civil partnership, even with parental consent

    Campaigners have hailed a new law raising the legal age of marriage in England and Wales as a significant milestone in child protection.

    The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act comes into force on Monday following a five-year campaign and will prevent 16- and 17-year-olds from marrying or entering a civil partnership, even if they have parental consent.

    Continue reading…

  • The real scandal of the Shamima Begum citizenship case | Letters

    Former supreme court justice Jonathan Sumption on last week’s ruling on the home secretary’s decision to deprive Begum of her citizenship. Plus letters from Ilina Todorovska, Owen Stewart, Andrew Snowdon and Carmel Bedford

    Prof Conor Gearty complains about the special immigration appeals commission’s “deference” to the government in its judgment on Shamima Begum (Shamima Begum has shown up courts’ deference to this government. It’s a worrying new era, 23 February). Decisions on deprivation of citizenship are required by statute to be made by the home secretary. The commission’s job was therefore to decide whether the home secretary’s decision was properly made, not whether it agreed with it. That is what it did. In a democracy governed by the rule of law, Prof Gearty should not have been surprised.

    Meanwhile, his analysis distracts attention from the real scandal. By statute, the home secretary cannot deprive a person of British citizenship if it would render them stateless. The person must have citizenship of at least one other country. When the decision was made, in 2019, Ms Begum was 19. She was a citizen of Bangladesh, but only in the most technical sense. She had provisional citizenship until she was 21, when it would lapse unless she took it up. This was because her parents were born there. But she has never been to Bangladesh. She has no links with the country. And Bangladesh has disowned her. Her Bangladeshi citizenship always was a legal fiction. Today, it is not even that. She is 23. As a result of the home secretary’s decision, she is stuck in a camp in Syria, with no citizenship anywhere and no prospect of one. Children who make a terrible mistake are surely redeemable. But statelessness is for ever.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Shamima Begum has shown up courts’ deference to this government. It’s a worrying new era | Conor Gearty

    Issues related to national security have always been hard to crack, but judges are unwilling to consider human rights

    Are the courts reverting to type? Until quite recently, it was widely assumed that the last people to look to for protection from the state were the judges. The Irish knew this, so too did union officials, leftwing campaigners and civil libertarian activists. Progress on racial and gender equality was achieved despite judges, not because of them.

    Then along came the 1998 Human Rights Act and the flourishing of a new generation of abrasively liberal judges, men and women not afraid to impose their will on the executive where the law demanded it, undaunted by “enemy of the people” jibes. The Human Rights Act survives in law, it is true – but what of its spirit?

    Continue reading…

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

  • ‘Life and death situation’: Queensland police minister’s claims on youth justice rebuked by experts

    Mark Ryan criticised for saying government’s move to override Human Rights Act is for ‘the greater good’

    Queensland’s police minister, Mark Ryan, says the controversial bid to override the state’s Human Rights Act and charge children who breach bail is due to a “life and death situation”, prompting backlash from experts who say the laws are unlikely to save lives.

    On Monday Ryan tabled the proposed youth justice legislation that would make breaches of bail an offence for children. Along with the new bail laws, he submitted a statement that acknowledged they were not compatible with human rights or international standards.

    Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

    Continue reading…

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

  • Queensland’s plan to override human rights law ‘deeply concerning’, says commissioner

    Scott McDougall alarmed at Palaszczuk government plan to make breach of bail an offence for children

    The Queensland human rights commissioner says he is “deeply concerned” at the state’s plan to charge children with criminal offences for breaching their bail conditions – the first time the Labor government has sought to override protections enshrined in its own Human Rights Act.

    Proposed youth justice legislation, which would make breaches of bail an offence for children, was tabled in parliament on Monday by the police minister, Mark Ryan.

    Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

    Continue reading…

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

  • Labour explores plan to make clean air a human right with new legislation

    Shadow justice secretary Steve Reed will criticise ministers’ attempts to repeal Human Rights Act

    A new wave of human rights legislation to guarantee clean air quality and nutrition could be rolled out by the next Labour government, under plans announced by the shadow justice secretary on Friday.

    Steve Reed will vow to fight “tooth and nail” against any attempt by the government to repeal the Human Rights Act, and instead look to roll out the “next frontier” of “fundamental freedoms”.

    Continue reading…

  • US ranking on abuse of power index hurt by inequality and violence

    Country came near median of 163 countries on Index of Impunity, higher than Hungary and Singapore

    The US scores surprisingly badly in a new ranking system charting abuses of power by nation states, launched by a group co-chaired by former UK foreign secretary David Miliband.

    The US comes close to the median of 163 countries ranked in the Index of Impunity, reflecting a poor record on discrimination, inequality and access to democracy. The country’s arms exports and record of violence are an even bigger negative factor.

    Continue reading…

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