radiofree.asia

Category: Law

  • This British ‘bill of rights’ is constitutional butchery that will make us all less free | Shami Chakrabarti

    The 1998 Human Rights Act, an outstanding legal achievement, is being taken apart simply to empower the government

    After years of threats and Conservative manifesto commitments, it looks like a British “bill of rights” to scrap and replace the 1998 Human Rights Act is finally upon us. “My ministers,” read the Prince of Wales in his mother’s place on Tuesday, “will restore the balance of power between the legislature and the courts.”

    But scratch the surface and you find this bill of rights to be precisely the opposite – not a document to empower ordinary people in post-Brexit Britain, but a power grab by the state. Remember, this is the prime minister who once illegally shut down parliament for irritating his political agenda – for the No 10 Praetorian Guard, “legislature” is euphemism for the “executive”.

    Shami Chakrabarti was shadow attorney general for England and Wales from 2016 to 2020, and was director of Liberty from 2003 to 2016

    Continue reading…

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

  • Queen’s speech shows Boris Johnson is out of ideas, says Labour

    Agenda includes bills to overhaul planning and human rights law but few new cost of living measures

    Keir Starmer said Boris Johnson’s government was “bereft of ideas or purpose” after a Queen’s speech that included bills to overhaul the planning system and rewrite human rights law, but few new measures to tackle the cost of living crisis.

    Warning that the UK faced a “stagflation crisis” the Labour leader said: “We need a government of the moment, with the ideas that meet the aspirations of the people.”

    Continue reading…

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

  • Consequences ‘dire’ if Human Rights Act ditched, more than 50 groups warn

    Exclusive: PM is told tearing up act could endanger women and girls and damage peace in Northern Ireland

    Tearing up the Human Rights Act would have “dire consequences” including removing obligations to properly address violence against women and girls and destabilising peace in Northern Ireland, more than 50 organisations have warned.

    In a letter to Boris Johnson, Amnesty, Liberty, the British Institute of Human Rights and others have spelled out the “significant implications” of repealing the act, which is expected to be announced in the Queen’s speech on Tuesday, asking for an urgent meeting to discuss the plans.

    Continue reading…

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

  • UK urged to act after UN panel rules detention of Briton in India ‘arbitrary’

    Jagtar Singh Johal has been detained since 2017 and allegedly tortured, accused of helping to fund assassination plot

    The UK is under pressure to insist India release Jagtar Singh Johal, a British citizen, after a UN working group ruled he had been arbitrarily detained by India and his detention lacked any legal basis.

    Boris Johnson apparently raised the case when he met the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, last month and provided a written note of consular cases, but Foreign Office ministers have not confirmed whether they regard his detention as arbitrary.

    Continue reading…

  • Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in India: An Urgent Need for Intervention

    Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) is a global concern, and a major human rights violation of girls and women worldwide. Due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, UNICEF estimates that two million additional cases of FGM/C may occur over the next decade. Although FGM/C is predominantly practised in 30 countries spanning the African continent, it is a global phenomenon seen in other parts of the world as well. This piece will focus on the practice of FGM/C in India and the legal aspects surrounding its practice.

    According to the World Health Organization (WHO), FGM/C encompasses “all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.”

    The practice of FGM/C has no medical benefits, can cause severe health complications, and can lead to physical, psychological and emotional harm.

     

    The Practice of FGM/C in India

    At present, India has no law banning the practice of FGM/C in the country. In 2017, Sahiyo, a non-governmental organisation working towards eradicating FGM/C, released a report highlighting the prevalence of the practice in India. FGM/C, ALSO known as ‘Khatna or Khafd,’ is mainly practised by the Dawoodi Bohra community, a sub-sect of Shia Muslims in India.

    The practice as performed in the Dawoodi Bohra community on girls aged 6-7 years involves either the partial or complete removal of the clitoral hood as it is considered to be an ‘immoral lump of flesh’ which obstructs the attainment of ‘taharat’ or ‘purity.’ As the practice is mainly carried out on young girls, FGM/C is not only a women’s rights issue but also a child rights issue.

    The official government stance on the issue has vacillated. That is, while the Women and Child Development Minister initially called for the Dawoodi Bohra community to end the practice voluntarily, or face it being criminalised, the government later reversed its stance and stated that there was no official data on the existence of FGM/C in India.

    Notably, many Islamic scholars around the world have denounced the practice and don’t endorse it, and the practice is not mentioned in Islam’s Holy Book, the Quran, either. Additionally, it is important to note that, several Islamic/Muslim majority countries have banned the practice as well. Furthermore, leaders from within the Dawoodi Bohra community itself have condemned the practice as well. However, Daim al-Islam, a religious text followed by the Dawoodi Bohra community, does endorse the practice.

    Legal Aspects About FGM/C in India

    In May 2017, a petition was filed before the Supreme Court of India seeking a complete ban on the practice of FGM/C and declaration of the practice as illegal and unconstitutional. Subsequently, the matter was referred to a larger constitutional bench, without an interim order being passed, and is still pending.[1]

    The Dawoodi Bohra community, including the Dawoodi Bohra Women’s Association for Religious Freedom (DBWRF), has contested this petition and sought to safeguard the continuance of this practice by arguing that a legal prohibition on FGM/C would violate their fundamental right to freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution of India.

    The right to freedom of religion is guaranteed under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution of India, but it is not a guarantee and is subject to certain exceptions such as public order, morality and health. FGM/C poses a grave threat to the health of women and girls and can cause serious health issues. FGM/C does not merely cause physical injury, but also severely affects the individual’s psychological and emotional health and well-being and thus directly affects the bodily integrity and bodily autonomy of the girl being cut.

    FGM/C also infringes upon a host of fundamental rights, including Article 14, which espouses the right to equality, Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on various grounds such as sex, religion, race and others, and Article 21, which speaks of the right to life and personal liberty.

    Also relevant here is a doctrine devolved by the Indian Supreme Court known as the ‘essential religious practices test,’ which is a test used to determine those parts and practices of a religion that are fundamental to the religion itself. The Dawoodi Bohra community has argued that FGM/C constitutes an essential religious practice and should therefore not be interfered with. However, the argument that FGM/C is essential to the Dawoodi Bohra community’s religion is unlikely to hold.  In 2017, the Supreme Court held that an essential part of religion constitutes the core beliefs upon which a religion is founded. Thus, an essential practice means those practices that are fundamental to follow a religious belie. As referred to previously, many Muslim majority countries have already outlawed the practice, which clearly shows that the practice of FGM/C is not an indispensable element for the practise of Islam, and therefore,  FGM/C cannot be regarded as an essential feature of the religion.

    In conclusion,  the practice cannot be justified by stating that the community’s traditions and culture should not be interfered with, relying upon a cultural relativism argument: FGM/C is an inherently violent and discriminatory practice that harms women.

    International Law and FGM/C

    In 2012, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling for intensifying global efforts for the elimination of FGM/C. The practice of FGM/C is also a violation of numerous international legal instruments, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”), which India has ratified. Under Article 24(3), the CRC places an obligation on the state to take all effective and appropriate measures to abolish traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children. Additionally, FGM/C also violates Article 3 of the CRC that enshrines a principle known as the ‘best interests of the child’, among other provisions.

    As demonstrated, FGM/C severely impacts the human rights of women and girls. It is crucial to shine a light on this practice and not only advocate for its legal prohibition, but also engage with the community to spread awareness and educate people about its ramifications. The Indian government must shift its lackadaisical attitude towards the issue and take proactive steps toward eliminating FGM/C in India.

    [1] An interim order is an order passed by a court during the pendency of the litigation/suit.

     

    Bibliography 

    2 million additional cases of female genital mutilation likely to occur over next decade due to COVID-19, UNICEF, February 5, 2021, https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/2-million-additional-cases-female-genital-mutilation-likely-occur-over-next-decade (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Ending Female Genital Mutilation by 2030, United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/observances/female-genital-mutilation-day (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Female genital mutilation, World Health Organization (WHO), January 21, 2022, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Eliminating Female genital mutilation, An interagency statement, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43839/9789241596442_eng.pdf?sequence=1 (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Female genital mutilation (FGM) frequently asked questions, UNFPA, July 2020, https://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Understanding Female Genital Cutting in the Dawoodi Bohra Community: An Exploratory Survey, Mariya Taher, Sahiyo, February 2017, https://www.28toomany.org/static/media/uploads/Continent%20Research%20and%20Resources/Asia/sahiyo-study_final_12.28.18.pdf (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Female Genital Mutilation Guide To Eliminating The FGM Practice In India, lawyers Collective, https://www.lawyerscollective.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Female-Genital-Mutilation-A-guide-to-eliminating-the-FGM-practice-in-India.pdf (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Govt will end female genital mutilation if Bohras don’t: Maneka Gandhi, Moushumi Das Gupta, Hindustan Times, May 29, 2017, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/practise-of-female-genital-mutilation-should-be-banned-in-india-maneka-gandhi/story-kQhNA4rIYOLQTurkN5zAAM.html (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Modi govt does U-turn on female genital mutilation days after PM meets Dawoodi Bohra head, Sanya Dhingra, The Print, September 26, 2018, https://theprint.in/politics/modi-govt-does-u-turn-on-female-genital-mutilation-days-after-pm-meets-dawoodi-bohra-head/124750/ (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    No official data on the existence of Female Genital Mutilation in India, Centre tells SC, Shalini Nair, The Indian Express, December 28, 2017, https://indianexpress.com/article/india/no-official-data-on-existence-of-female-genital-mutilation-in-india-centre-tells-sc-5001780/ (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Delinking Female Genital Mutilation/ Cutting from Islam, Ibrahim Lethome Asmani and Maryam Sheikh Abdi, 2008, https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/De-linking%20FGM%20from%20Islam%20final%20report.pdf (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Among the Dawoodi Bohra Community in India and Human Rights Law, Shreya Jaipuria, The Journal of Indian Law and Society Blog, December 12, 2020, https://jilsblognujs.wordpress.com/2020/12/12/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-among-the-dawoodi-bohra-community-in-india-and-human-rights-law/ (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Syedna Fakhruddin, a Dawoodi Bohra Sect Leader, Condemns FGM as ‘Un-Islamic’, Sreelatha Menon, The Wire, February 7, 2017, https://thewire.in/culture/fakhruddin-fgm-khafz-dawoodi (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Sunita Tiwari v. Union Of India (W.P. (C) No.286/2017)

    Female genital mutilation petition pending before Supreme Court, Hindustan Times. November 15, 2019, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/female-genital-mutilation-petition-pending-before-supreme-court/story-rsHGOLu0z5eEg3aZjHYEIL.html (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Official Statement about the impleadment application filed by DBWRF, Dawoodi Bohra Women’s Association for Religious Freedom (DBWRF)July 9, 2018, https://dbwrf.org/blog_details/15 (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Article 25, The Constitution of India, 1950

    Article 26, The Constitution of India, 1950

    Article 14, The Constitution of India, 1950

    Article 15, The Constitution of India, 1950

    Article 21, The Constitution of India, 1950

    Shayara Bano v. Union Of India Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016

    Mumbai’s Dawoodi Bohra women to SC: Khatna is essential to our faith, Yesha Kotak, Hindustan Times, July 10, 2018, https://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/mumbai-s-dawoodi-bohra-women-to-sc-khatna-is-essential-to-our-faith/story-0GuHQMSLbFvoEw6TJm1SPM.html (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    UN General Assembly, Intensifying global efforts for the elimination of female genital mutilations, March 5, 2013, A/RES/67/146, https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/RES/67/146 (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Convention on the Rights of the Child, E/CN.4/RES/1990/74, https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Ratification Status for CRC – Convention on the Rights of the Child, UN Treaty Body Database, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?Treaty=CRC&Lang=en (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

    Article 24(3), Convention on the Rights of the Child, E/CN.4/RES/1990/74, https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx (Last accessed: January 24, 2022)

     

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • Legal cases may explain why Rwanda plan is not working, suggests No 10

    As Channel crossings pick up, asylum seekers seem undeterred by plan to deport people to east Africa

    Legal challenges to the policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda could be a reason why the plan has not yet, as intended, started to deter unofficial Channel crossings, Downing Street has said.

    After a period without significant numbers of crossings amid bad weather, several hundred of people made the journey in recent days, bringing the total to more than 7,000 so far this year. It is the first time this has happened since the passing of the nationalities and borders bill, which set out the policy framework.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Twitter takeover: EU warns Elon Musk must comply or face sanctions

    Internal market commissioner raised concerns that hate speech will increase on the platform

    The EU has warned Elon Musk that Twitter must “comply with our rules” or face sanctions that range from fines to a total ban, as concerns were raised that hate speech will increase on the platform under his ownership.

    The world’s richest man has agreed a $44bn (£34bn) deal to buy the social media network, which will hand control of a platform with 217 million users to a self-confessed “free speech absolutist”.

    Continue reading…

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

  • South Korea’s highest court overturns military convictions of two gay soldiers

    Court rules long-criticised military sodomy law shouldn’t apply to consensual sex off base in off-duty hours

    South Korea’s supreme court has thrown out a military court ruling that convicted two gay soldiers for having sex outside their military facilities, saying it stretched the reading of the country’s widely criticised military sodomy law.

    The court’s decision on Thursday to send the case back to the high court for armed forces was welcomed by human rights advocates, who had long protested the country’s 1962 military criminal act’s article 92-6, which prohibits same-sex conduct among soldiers in the country’s predominantly male military.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Boris Johnson takes pre-emptive shot at lawyers over Rwanda scheme

    Analysis: plan to send unauthorised migrants overseas is likely to be very difficult to defend in courts

    Detailing plans to send unauthorised migrants to Rwanda, Boris Johnson managed to blame “politically motivated lawyers” for forcing the government to draw up such a drastic policy, and also for any future failure to implement it.

    By blaming them for Britain being seen as “a soft touch for illegal migration”, continuing a government narrative against “lefty lawyers”, many in the profession believe the prime minister is putting a fig leaf over a policy that is likely to be extremely difficult to defend in the courts and may end up at the European court of human rights.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Decriminalizing Abortion, Protecting Reproductive Rights and Personal Autonomy: Mexican Supreme Court’s Stride on Women’s Rights

    In September 2021, the Mexican Supreme Court [‘Court’] delivered a chorus of judgements establishing a transformative precedent in the state’s absolute respect for women and other individuals concerning reproductive and abortion rights. The rulings have been regarded as a watershed in the history of women’s rights. In this article, I argue that these judgements are the most robust constitutional structure of protection for the right to legal abortion delivered by a Latin-American Constitutional Court. Further, I conclude that these judgements not only enhance the previously existing national principles on sexual and reproductive rights but also initiate a gender-sensitive approach on the issue and strongly reaffirm the feminist’s marea verde movement.

    The Court in its first judgement, unconstitutionality Action 148/2017, unanimously [10/0] ruled that regulations outlawing the absolute criminalisation of abortion were unconstitutional. The verdict came as a conclusion of an unconstitutionality complaint brought in 2017 by the General Prosecutor’s Office, challenging provisions of Coahuila’s Criminal Code [‘Code’] Article 196, along with an instrument that imposed a term of imprisonment for induced abortion. The Court’s task was to determine whether criminalising abortion was a violation of human rights, and consequently a violation of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States Constitution [‘Constitution’], which guarantees the “right to choose.”

    The Court recognised the right to a free and safe abortion throughout the first trimester of pregnancy and  struck down Article 199 of the Code, which prohibited access to abortion treatments to instances of rape, foetal impairment, serious health concerns for the mother, and non-consensual artificial insemination for up to 12 weeks into the pregnancy. Stressing the necessity of considering abortion cases from a “gender perspective,” the Court observed that the judgement would have the retroactive implication and that all individuals arrested under Articles 196 and 199 must be “released immediately.”

    Notwithstanding the notion that the judgement primarily decriminalises abortion in Coahuila, these rulings will have a countrywide significance. Previously, only 4 Mexican states out of 32 had decriminalized abortion in the first trimester; Mexico City in 2007 and Oaxaca, Hidalgo, and Veracruz. However, abortion was still prohibited in the rest of the country, with problematic access to exceptions such as for rape or foetal malformation. The Working Group on Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW and CRC recognized that in states where abortion is prohibited by law or otherwise unavailable, women with limited resources are forced to depend on unsafe practitioners and abortion methods; and safe termination of a pregnancy becomes a prerogative of the privileged.

    The Court in its rulings recognized woman’s constitutional right to decide whether or not to become a parent, as well as their rights to equality and bodily autonomy. Thereby, recognizing for the first time, the access to abortion as a constitutionally guaranteed right, transforming abortion access in Mexico. The ruling also paves the road for the procedure to be legalised across the Latin America,  strengthening women’s reproductive rights and contributing to the feminist movements, the Marea Verde (Green Wave), and Ipas Mexico which have been demanding the decriminalization of abortion in the country.

    After this decision, the Court issued two more abortion-related judgements: first, considering the state of Sinaloa’s Constitution’s “protection of life from conception” and second, considering the conscientious intimation legislation.

    The Court overturned Article 4/1 of Sinaloa’s Political Constitution, which specified that the State protects “the right to life from the time an individual is created.”  The Court declared that Mexico’s states do not have the competence to determine the genesis of human life, the definition of “person,” and who is a custodian of human rights because these concerns are only regulated by the General Constitution. Providing a “person” character to a fetus or embryo was an individual virtuous decision that should not be imposed for everyone via the laws. Individuals being coerced to accept such decisions rules against the essence of any democratic and plural society. Therefore, the Court rejected the notion that a person who is still in the womb has the same constitutional position as someone who’s already been conceived, and ruled the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 4 of the Constitution to be inclusive, encompassing the right to free choice, access to birth control, and the possibility to terminate the pregnancy.

    In its third judgement, the Court held that the manner conscientious objection was enforced under the General Health Law was inappropriate and might constitute an obstruction in abortion services, proposing that parliament introduce laws to clearly articulate restrictions. Justice Zaldvar observed that such restrictions were “a blank authorization to withhold health services, especially in the scenario of abortion, in contravention of other human rights recognized by the constitution.” The Court also referred to General Recommendation No. 35 of the CEDAW, which stipulates that criminalizing abortion and denying or delaying safe abortion or post-abortion care are aspects of gender-based violence that could ultimately lead to torture or cruelty, inhuman, or degrading treatment. This breakthrough is critical, since the relevant clause has become a substantial roadblock to women’s access to safe abortion procedures, and has been systematically misused by medical practitioners to limit abortion access.

    The Marea Verde feminist movement in Latin America has made significant positive changes since 2015, and continues to impose pressure on politicians throughout the region to protect women’s and other individual’s reproductive autonomy and gender equality. All three rulings will further alter the landscape of safe abortion in Mexico. These rulings would also make it convenient for people in Texas to obtain legal abortions, where the recent Texas’s abortion law prohibits physicians from performing abortions if they identify cardiac activity in an embryo, even if it is months before a viable fetus develops, i.e. ‘first detectable heartbeat.’ The ruling also contributes to the eradication of negative social preconceptions and stigmas that surround this essential and contentious issue. Women and other individuals with gestational capability in Mexico can now look forward to a brighter and more liberated future.

    Bibliography

    Article 196, Coahuila Criminal Code. 1971 [hereinafter ‘Code’]

    CEDAW, General Comment No. 34, 4 March 2016.

    CEDAW, General Recommendations No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19, 14 July 2017.

    Constitutions that Protect Life from Conception, The Missing Piece,GIRE, 2018 <https://gire.org.mx/plataforma/constituciones-que-protegen-la-vida-desde-la-concepcion/ > accessed 29 March’ 2022.

    Daina Beth Solomon, ‘Hidalgo becomes third Mexican state to allow abortion’ REUTERS July 1, 2021 <https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/hidalgo-becomes-third-mexican-state-allow-abortion-2021-06-30/ > accessed 29 March’ 2022.

    Daina Beth Solomon, ‘Mexico’s Veracruz state votes to allow abortion, joining three other regions’ REUTERS  21 July, 2021 <https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexicos-veracruz-state-votes-allow-abortion-joining-three-other-regions-2021-07-20/ > accessed 29 March’ 2022.

    David Agren, ‘We have made history’: Mexico’s Oaxaca state decriminalises abortion’ The Guardian,  26 September 2019 <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/26/we-have-made-history-mexicos-oaxaca-state-decriminalises-abortion> accessed 29 March’ 2022.

    Diana Meneses, ‘The ‘Marea Verde’ Demanding Abortion Rights in Mexico’ Girls Globe, 02 Octobe, 2019 <https://www.girlsglobe.org/2019/10/02/the-marea-verde-demanding-abortion-rights-in-mexico/ > accessed 29 March’ 2022.

    Elisabeth Jay Friedman, Constanza Tabbush, ‘#NiUnaMenos: Not One Woman Less, Not One More Death!’ The North American Congress on Latin America, November 1, 2016 <https://nacla.org/news/2016/11/01/niunamenos-not-one-woman-less-not-one-more-death> accessed 29 March’ 2022.

    Mexico City Legalizes Abortion, Human Rights Watch, May 1, 2007 <https://www.hrw.org/news/2007/05/01/mexico-city-legalizes-abortion > accessed 29 March’ 2022.

    Mexico: Landmark Reproductive Rights Rulings, Human Rights Watch, 14 September 2021 <https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/09/14/mexico-landmark-reproductive-rights-rulings > accessed 29 March’ 2022.

    Monserrat Ochoa Martínez, Joy; Niembro Ortega, Roberto: “The right to life does not begin at conception”: Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice and the Fight for Reproductive Freedom, VerfBlog, 13 October, 2021 <https://verfassungsblog.de/the-right-to-life-does-not-begin-at-conception/ >

    Nadia Murray-Ragg, ‘Mexico top court declares criminalizing abortion unconstitutional’, JURIST, 8 SEPTEMBER , 2021 <https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/09/mexico-top-court-declares-criminalizing-abortion-unconstitutional/# > accessed 29 March’ 2022.

    Phoebe Martin, ‘The ‘Pañuelo Verde’ Across Latin America: a Symbol of Transnational and Local Feminist (Re)volution’, Kings College London, 17 September 2020 <https://www.kcl.ac.uk/the-panuelo-verde-across-latin-america > accessed 29 March’ 2022.

    Pia Riggirozzi, Jean Gruge, ‘Argentina’s legalisation of abortion is only the beginning of the battle for reproductive rights in Latin America’ LSE Latin America and Caribbean Blog, 27 January , 2021  <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/latamcaribbean/2021/01/27/argentinas-legalisation-of-abortion-is-only-the-beginning-of-the-battle-for-reproductive-rights-in-latin-america/ > accessed 29 March’ 2022.

    Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, 1917.

    Quotation of the Day: Mexican Court Rules Abortion Is Not a Crime, New York Times,

    Report of the Working Group on the Issue of Discrimination against Women in Law and in Practice, UN  Rights Council, Working Group on Discrimination against Women in Law and in Practice, 2018 <https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1637427?ln=en> accessed 29 March’ 2022.

    Sarthak Gupta, ‘Texas’s Abortion Law: A Nail in the Coffin for Women’s Human and Reproductive Rights’, HumanRightsHere, 26 October 2021 <https://www.humanrightshere.com/post/texas-s-abortion-law-a-nail-in-the-coffin-for-women-s-human-and-reproductive-rights > accessed 29 March’ 2022.

    Tara John, Karol Suarez, ‘Thousands march for abortion rights in several Latin American nations’ CNN, 29 September, 2021  <https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/29/americas/latin-american-abortion-rights-protests-intl/index.html > accessed 29 March’ 2022.

    Ximena Casas, ‘How Latin American Women Can Keep Fighting for Abortion Rights and Win’, HumanRights Watch, November 1, 2021 <https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/11/01/how-latin-american-women-can-keep-fighting-abortion-rights-and-win > accessed 29 March’ 2022.

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • Will Putin face genocide charges over Ukraine atrocities?

    Joe Biden has accused the Russian president of ‘trying to wipe out the idea of even being Ukrainian’

    Joe Biden has upped the ante in his criticisms of Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine by accusing him of genocide, saying the Russian leader is “trying to wipe out the idea of even being Ukrainian”. But how significant is the allegation and how likely is Putin to face genocide charges?

    Genocide is one of four crimes prosecuted by the international criminal court (ICC) and generally considered to be the most grave. The court defines it as being “characterised by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”.

    Continue reading…

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

  • William Nash obituary

    My father, William Nash, who has died aged 72 of a brain tumour, was a campaigning lawyer who relished a fight with the establishment and broke new ground on human rights.

    He was one of those who defended the journalist Crispin Aubrey and the former signals officer John Berry during the controversial ABC trial in 1978, where his clients were accused of breaching the Official Secrets Act. The case was a landmark one regarding journalistic freedom and the ability to question the arcane dealings of the security services. During proceedings, the government labelled William a threat to national security and tried to remove him from court.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Colston Four acquittal to be referred to court of appeal

    Unusual move to seek legal clarification, which cannot reverse verdict, amounts to the ‘politicisation of jury trials’, says defence lawyer

    The attorney general has referred the case of four protesters cleared of the toppling of the statue of the slave trader Edward Colston to the court of appeal for legal direction.

    In a rare move, which cannot reverse the not guilty verdicts, Suella Braverman is to ask appeal judges for clarification on whether defendants can cite their human rights as a defence in a case of criminal damage.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Replacing Human Rights Act will weaken protections, say peers and MPs

    Joint committee on human rights says plans contravene principle that human rights are universal

    Dominic Raab’s proposal to replace the Human Rights Act with a British bill of rights is not evidence-based and will diminish protections for individuals, MPs and peers have said.

    The criticisms by the joint committee on human rights (JCHR) are the latest directed at the planned changes, which the justice secretary has said will counter “wokery and political correctness” and expedite the deportation of foreign criminals.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Protecting the rights of women and trans people | Letters

    Gillian Dalley and Dr Jane Hamlin respond to an article by Zoe Williams, and Jacqueline Darby reacts to a piece by Susanna Rustin. Plus Prof Martin Marshall on the ban on conversion therapy

    Women have fought against prejudice and discrimination on grounds of their sex status for generations. In this country, the equality legislation that exists now is largely a result of that struggle, or has been stimulated by its example. But women’s struggle is not over. They still suffer unfairly on account of their sex status, and the demands that are now being made to soften their struggle by relaxing rights to single-sex spaces are but one example of this injustice.

    Women are still at risk from male strangers, and they constitute the population group most often murdered or coerced by male partners. It is men, in these situations, who are the problem and who, as a population group, should bear the burden of searching for, and living with, the solutions.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Withering of human rights? The heckler’s veto and norm-creation through film censorship in India

    We define censorship as the striking out of free expression from the public record for state security, removing hate speech and other objectionable content. It is also an act of convenience.

    India exercises ‘prior restraint’ on films. The national Censor Board examines films’ suitability before exhibition. The Supreme Court of India once stated that film is a separate class of expression; it registers more emphatically with the audience than, say, a radio broadcast or newspaper editorial. Therefore, if it is likely to incite violence — risking ‘public order’ — it can be censored, following Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. Needless to say, censorship on these grounds has become problematically arbitrary.

    There is a pattern of public-state interaction around allegedly disorder-inciting films: a) a group feels wronged by some films, and threatens/commits violence, b) the State palliates, often completely censoring films. This State behaviour is supposedly premised on maintaining public order. Consequently, it is severely flawed.

    Capability to ban films on grounds of “public order”, a vague term, gives the State near-absolute, unaccountable freedom to censor media, often resulting in a violation of the freedom of expression, and provocatively also of other human rights. Importantly, it conveys that public discourse, including human-rights discourse, can be violently subverted with impunity. In this blogpost, I suggest that censorship due to fear of oppositional violence (called ‘hecklers’ veto’) is a violation of human rights on two counts: a) the violation of the human right to freedom of expression and b) the duty to facilitate the realization of human rights.

    Violation of the right to free expression

    In Freemuse Organization’s independent survey on media censorship, India ranked fourth among 89 countries, reportedly detaining 11 artists in 2019-2020. India’s mottled history with film censorship has seen several bans due to such actual or predicted risks to ‘public order’. Most cases feature groups finding certain films inadequate, ahistorical, or misleading. In the past, small public, yet vocal groups have advocated violence, destroyed sets, and vandalized cinemas. Examples include Jodhaa Akbar (2008), a film about the Mughal emperor (faced protests for allegedly distorting history),  The Da Vinci Code (2006) and Vishwaroopam (2013) (banned due to opposition from religious organizations).

    Recent examples include Final Solution (an enquiry into the 2002 Gujarat riots—severe intercommunal violence in the Indian state), War and Peace (an anti-war documentary that criticized the Indian nuclear program),  and Udta Punjab (depicted drug-abuse problems in Punjab (India) and was censored for fear of heckling). That these films sought to present counterpoints on important public topics is obvious. Final Solution, for instance, explored the state government’s involvement in the violence at Gujarat which saw deaths on a massive scale. It levelled the charge that the State government had not done “enough” to prevent the violence. The film was banned on grounds that it could cause communal tension, but political undertones have been suggested.

    War and Peace broke away from the glorification of nuclear armoury. It elicited strong disapproval for a quoted reference to the nuclear stocks as Hindu bombs, for India, and Muslim bombs, for Pakistan — hinting at nuclear nationalism, and Pakistan’s and the BJP’s apparently religious-nationalist tendencies, which was the ruling party then and was again voted to power in 2014 and 2019. The Board suggested deleting the allegedly incendiary speech, as it might compel the audience to breach public order.  Observations in the court judgment, which reversed the deletion, are universally applicable to films: the Indian Constitution recognizes the importance of contrarian views for the furtherance of society, and, the audience is expected to have autonomy over their reactions to film, and the State shall not infantilize them.

    When violence is directed at films, the State should protect films and not ban them. This is the oft-noted positive obligation of the State, and its active responsibility to protect free speech and expression. The court explicitly mentioned heckler’s veto while chastising the State’s easy submission to opposition, in the form of imminent religious violence in the Da Vinci Code (2006) episode. This obligation has been emphasized in political censorship cases, too. Adherence to the positive obligation protects expression, and maintains public order, by preventing assault on filmmakers and the destruction of sets. It is in consonance with the Constitution as well as the ICCPR. Hence, the State is wrong in resorting to censorship as a stopgap measure to protect public order.

    Pummeling human-rights discourse

    A State banning films solely for ‘maintaining public order’, is in violation of this positive obligation. This feeds the creation of certain norms, which Robert C Post defines as the State choosing which public narrative, and for our purpose, which human-rights narrative, is deemed acceptable.

    For example, banning a film depicting “female desire” sets a precedent laced with misogyny; banning War and Peace tacitly censors critical views on crucial topics like nuclear warfare. Thus, censorship based on a fear of opposition to ‘contrarian’ messages risks another human rights violation: the intercommunity duty to promote human rights by contributing to a democratic, “free and full development” of a person (Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)). Here, it is important to borrow an observation from the Rangarajan judgment: by “continual exposure to films of a similar character” the attitude of a large community could be altered. By censoring contrary voices on topics of human rights, the State tacitly delegitimizes the counterviews, effectively discouraging rights discourse as the State continues to support, irrespective of intention, a particular notion on crucial subjects through active censorship, however harmful or regressive these notions may be. This is visible in the case of films depicting LGBTQ+ interests; many have been banned due to heckling. It is against the EHRC advisory of “talking about human rights positively”. Article 7, Declaration on Human Right Defenders, mentions the right to develop ideas on new human rights, including providing “a conducive environment for defenders’ work”, which is at serious risk in the present climate of convenience-based censorship.

    Films do play a crucial role in creating this human rights-positive environment and perceiving  human-rights crises, as did Schindler’s List (1993) or Bombay (1995) — which depicted the 1992 communal riots in Bombay, and served a reminder that communal strife, rife during India’s partition, was still occurring. It was censored because of the possibility of communal disharmony and violence. It is a case of catch-22 when a film cautioning about flaring religious tension is banned for fear of flaring religious tension. The way out is pursuing the positive obligation, which would protect human-rights messages and conserve public order.

    Other conjectures have been made, such as a State-heckler political nexus with possibilities of enforcing certain norms. Ban on films dealing with religion, such as Bombay (1995) or Vishwaroopam (2013), have received patronage from sundry Indian states, with implications for state-level vote-bank politics.

    These examples essentialize the ailing discourse around human rights, beset by political and ideological motivations under the garb of maintaining order. The Supreme Court of India’s aforementioned observation regarding films’ more impactful nature can very easily be turned on its head (as was done in the War and Peace case):  if a strong depiction of violence is likely to lead viewers to violence, a similarly potent depiction of human rights perspectives can have an equal and opposite effect. In the larger rights-based discourse, this is a crucial link between its theory and practice. If the State fulfils its positive obligation to secure freedom of expression, for which this blog vehemently argues, it would strengthen this link and help the conversation, and consequently policymaking, take a  beneficial turn.

     

     

    Bibliography:

    Gautam Bhatia, Film censorship and the courts, Live Mint, May 7, 2016, https://www.livemint.com/Sundayapp/6ZZM8m9pHkZ2ECPvOee1jN/Film-censorship-and-the-courts.html

    KA Abbas vs The Union of India & Anr., 1971 AIR 481, 1971 SCR (2) 446

    RS Chauhan, Clamping down on creativity, The Hindu, Mar. 30, 2017, https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/clamping-down-on-creativity/article62113427.ece

    Freedom of expression gagged, The Hindu Business Line, Feb. 13, 2013, https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/freedom-of-expression-gagged/article22996184.ece

    Patrick Schmidt, Heckler’s Veto, The First Amendment Encyclopedia, https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/968/heckler-s-veto

    Freemuse, The State of Artistic Freedom Report, 2021, https://freemuse.org/media/ck5fvaze/the-state-of-artistic-freedom-2021.pdf

    Uday Bhatia, 100 years of film censorship in India, The Mint, Jul. 14, 2018, https://lifestyle.livemint.com/how-to-lounge/movies-tv/100-years-of-film-censorship-in-india-111644473960098.html

    Tamil Nadu bans screening of Kamal Haasan’s Vishwaroopam after protests from Muslim organisations, India Today, Jan. 24, 2013, https://www.indiatoday.in/movies/story/kamal-haasan-vishwaroopam-banned-by-tamil-nadu-152383-2013-01-24

    Kerala: Right-wing groups vandalise film set of church, CM says ‘communal forces cannot thrive’, Scroll, May 25, 2020, https://scroll.in/latest/962871/kerala-right-wing-groups-vandalise-church-film-set-cm-says-communal-forces-cannot-thrive

    Zia Mian, Nuclear Nationalism, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, May 5, 1999, https://www.wagingpeace.org/nuclear-nationalism/

    Shri Anand Patwardhan vs The Central Board Of Film, 2003 (5) BomCR 58, 2004 (1) MhLj 856

    1. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 SCR (2) 204, 1989 SCC (2) 574

    Robert C Post, Community and the First Amendment, (inaugural Willard Pedrick Lecture) 29 Arizona State Law Journal 473 1997, https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/1236/Community_and_the_First_Amendment.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

    Abhijnan Rej & Rahul Sagar, The BJP and Indian Grand Strategy, Apr. 4, 2019, https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/04/04/bjp-and-indian-grand-strategy-pub-78686

    Sonia Tascon, Considering Human Rights Films, Representation, and Ethics: Whose Face?, Human Rights Quarterly (2012), https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r29358.pdf

    Julian Garritzmann, Why does public opinion (only) sometimes affect policy-making? The example of education policy, The LSE Social Policy Blog, Apr. 12, 2021, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/socialpolicy/2021/04/12/why-does-public-opinion-only-sometimes-affect-policy-making-the-example-of-education-policy/

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • Australian Human Rights Commission’s status at risk over Coalition’s appointment process

    International rights body has concerns that open and merit-based processes were bypassed in the filling of three key positions

    Australia’s Human Rights Commission risks having its global accreditation downgraded because of the way the Coalition made key appointments.

    It is claimed the government bypassed open merit-based selection processes for the appointment of Lorraine Finlay as human rights commissioner in 2021 and Ben Gauntlett as disability discrimination commissioner in 2019.

    Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning

    Continue reading…

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

  • Liberty threatens to sue government over ‘racist’ joint enterprise law

    Human rights group argues law unfairly attaches gang motives to black and minority-ethnic young men

    The human rights group Liberty is threatening to sue the government and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) over the bitterly contested law of joint enterprise, arguing that it is discredited and racist in the way the authorities pursue it.

    Under the law, people present when a person is killed can be convicted of murder despite not committing any serious violence themselves, if they are found to have “encouraged or assisted” the perpetrator. Liberty is acting for the campaign group Joint Enterprise Not Guilty By Association (Jengba), which supports approximately 1,400 people in prison who believe they have been unjustly convicted of serious crimes perpetrated by somebody else.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Federal police blame ‘oversight’ for delay in Australian review of Sri Lankan war crime allegations

    AFP not aware of ‘administrative oversight’ until letter from justice groups seeking update on 2019 complaint about Jagath Jayasuriya

    Federal police blamed an “administrative oversight” for huge delays in reviewing war crime allegations against a Sri Lankan man as he travelled to and from Australia, documents show.

    In 2019, human rights groups wrote to the Australian federal police warning that Jagath Jayasuriya, a retired Sri Lankan general, “has entered Australia and may still be in the jurisdiction”.

    Continue reading…

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

  • High court overturns acquittal of HS2 protester after appeal by prosecution

    Judges direct conviction of Elliott Cuciurean in what is being seen as blow to right to protest

    The high court has directed that a protester against the HS2 rail line who was originally acquitted of aggravated trespass should be convicted after an appeal by the director of public prosecutions.

    In a decision that will come as a blow to protesters more widely, two judges, including the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett, ordered that the case of Elliott Cuciurean be remitted to the magistrates court with a direction to convict.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Speciesism in Chimerism: The Case of Human-Chimeric Embryos

    On 15th April 2021, a team of scientists from the United States, China and Spain made history by creating world’s first hybrid human-monkey chimeric embryos. A chimera is a single organism generated from two or more individual organisms. It contains two sets of DNA– one which is inherent and conferred genetically during the formation of embryo; and the other, where the second set of DNA is artificially infused into the embryo. Chimeras have the genetic code to generate two separate organisms and are used to create “hybrids”. In the present instance, these hybrids were created by injecting 25 human pluripotent stem cells into each of 132 six-day-old macaque monkey embryos. While the embryos were never implanted into a uterus, they were kept alive in laboratory dishes for 20 days, after which they were terminated. The purpose of this project was to gain a better understanding of human development, disease, and potential methods for producing human organs in animals for transplantation purposes. This article analyses the legality of conservation of hybrid embryos through the lens of speciesism. I argue that human-animal chimeric embryos must be perceived as organisms in their own right and be granted the legal and moral status they have been deprived of.

    Legality of chimeric embryos

    No uniform international code governing embryo research exists, thus, each state has its own set of rules and regulations regarding the legality of human-chimeric embryos. For example, while some states such as the UK, Canada, South Africa, India, China and Spain prohibit any human embryo research after the embryo is 14 days old, other states including Austria, Turkey, Germany, Italy and Russia prohibit all research involving human embryos.

    These laws are backed up by potential judicial pronouncements as well. For instance, in 2016, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights examined the scope and validity of Italian Law No. 40/2004, which restricts research using human embryos in order to safeguard the embryo’s “of life”. Here, the court acknowledged the prohibition of exploiting human embryos for scientific purposes as falling within the scope of Italian law. It stated that human embryos could not be reduced to mere possessions because of what they would eventually become. The Tennessee Supreme Court reached a similar decision in Davis v. Davis, holding that while human embryos are not individuals, they cannot be treated as property either.

    Speciesism in Chimerism

    A common component in laws governing embryo research is that they are only applicable to human embryos. The object of most of the aforementioned laws is to warrant consideration and respect to human embryos due to their potential for human life. Thus, full moral and legal status is preserved for humans solely on basis of the species to which they belong.

    The practice of preserving unconditional moral status to humans and granting non-humans with a conditional status depending upon the will of humans is called speciesism. This term was first defined in 1970 by Richard Ryder as a practice of treating humans as morally superior to non-humans. It was further expanded by Peter Singer who stated that speciesism often percolates into legislative thought and boosts morally dubious actions that result in the suffering of a non-human under the garb of human well-being and development. This legislative bias is apparent in the case of human-chimeric embryos. While it is barred for any human embryo to be treated as property, researchers are free to utilise animal embryos as property for any purpose perceived as beneficial to the human species. Thus, while scientists are prohibited from conducting research on a human embryo post 14 days of its fertilisation, the same prohibition is not extended to animal embryos. This has resulted in scientists doing indirectly what they cannot do directly – that is, creating part-human/part-animal embryos, which are not protected by any legal framework.

    Being “human”: When can an organism be granted a full moral status?

    At this juncture, it is essential to define the term “human” since it determines the moral and legal status of a being under the current legal framework. From a strict perspective of biology, a human is an organism with “human DNA”. However, this definition creates significant ambiguity in the case of human-monkey chimeric embryos, which have the genetic code or DNA of both humans as well as monkeys. In case of such ambiguity, should humans then be defined as organisms which display human behaviour– in terms of usage of language, appearance or problem solving abilities? In light of technological advancements which have blurred the lines between species, a better solution seems to be removing the importance placed upon biological humanness entirely while granting legal rights. In that case, should moral status be granted to organisms on the basis of their moral capacities such as agency, autonomy, rationality and self-awareness? This would be dangerous as human beings who do not exhibit these characteristics (such as embryos, infants, patients laying comatose, or individuals who are intellectually or developmentally disabled) would not be granted a full moral and legal status. I argue that human-animal chimeric embryos should not be seen as part-human, but as organisms in their “own right”. As such, they must be provided with moral and legal status in a similar manner as all other organisms (including humans).

    Conclusion

    The creation of human chimeric embryos raises several questions regarding the rationality of reserving legal and moral status exclusively for biological humans. The most pertinent question raised is – what rights should be guaranteed to a part-human/part-animal embryo considering that, if given a chance to develop, the resultant organism would be partly biologically human? These questions ultimately force us to rethink the importance placed on biological humanness to be granted legal status. If biological humanness is not considered sufficient or necessary to bestow legal rights upon an organism, human chimeric embryos will not be treated as “part-human” or a fallacy of composition but as complete organisms that deserve rights just like other organisms.

     

     

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

     

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • UK’s draft refugee and police laws are ‘human rights vandalism’, says Amnesty

    Rights group’s annual report accuses Britain of setting ‘worrying reverse course’ in bills on refugees, policing, protest and welfare

    The government’s attack on fundamental rights and protections enshrined in UK law is an “act of human rights vandalism” that would curtail the ability of people to hold the state to account, Amnesty International has claimed.

    In its annual report on the state of human rights across the world, Amnesty strongly criticised the British government for its attempts to dismantle the Human Rights Act and a battery of new “draconian” legislation on refugees and policing.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Amnesty hits out at Tory plans to replace Human Rights Act with bill of rights

    Justice secretary Dominic Raab’s proposals will ‘slash away’ at rights of ordinary people to challenge government, group says

    Amnesty International has criticised plans by the justice secretary Dominic Raab to replace Labour’s Human Rights Act with a British bill of rights.

    Raab has argued that the proposal will better protect the press in exposing wrongdoing and said he feared free speech was being “whittled away” by “wokery and political correctness”.

    The deputy prime minister told the Daily Mail that under plans being drawn up, there would be only limited restrictions placed on the protections on free speech with checks to stop people abusing it to promote terrorism.

    Laura Trevelyan, Amnesty’s human rights in the UK campaign manager, hit out at his plan on Saturday.

    “Scrapping the Human Rights Act has long been the intention of Mr Raab and others not because they want to extend any protections, but because they want to slash away at the powers ordinary people have got to challenge the government and its decisions,” she said.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Raab says UK bill of rights will stop free speech being ‘whittled away by wokery’

    Deputy PM says proposals to replace the Human Rights Act will enable principle of free speech to be a legal ‘trump card’

    Dominic Raab has disclosed proposals to replace Labour’s Human Rights Act with a British bill of rights which he believes will enable the principle of free speech to become a legal “trump card”.

    Raab, the deputy prime minister and justice secretary, has argued that the plan will better protect the press in exposing wrongdoing and said he feared free speech was being “whittled away” by “wokery and political correctness”.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Home Office illegally seized phones of 2,000 asylum seekers, court rules

    Secret, blanket policy to take mobiles and extract data from them judged unlawful on several fronts

    The Home Office operated an unlawful, secret, blanket policy to seize almost 2,000 mobile phones from asylum seekers arriving in the UK on small boats and then downloaded data from these phones, the high court has ruled.

    The court found that the policy was unlawful on multiple fronts and breached the asylum seekers’ human rights. The judges ruled that there was no parliamentary authority for seizures and data extractions and that the legal power that Home Office officials thought they could use was the wrong one.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Russian activists sign open letter calling for end to war in Ukraine

    Campaigners write manifesto in broadest anti-war statement by Russian human rights community

    A group of veteran Russian human rights activists plan to publish an open letter calling on Russia to end its war in Ukraine, declaring it “our common duty” to “stop the war [and] protect the lives, rights and freedoms of all people, both Ukrainians and Russians”.

    The “manifesto”, signed by 11 prominent activists including Lev Ponomaryov, Oleg Orlov and Svetlana Gannushkina, announces the creation of a new anti-war council of Russian human rights defenders and is the broadest collective statement against the war by the Russian human rights community to date.

    Continue reading…

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

  • France opens inquiry into alleged torture by Interpol’s Emirati head

    Ahmed Nasser al-Raisi accused of being responsible for the torture of opposition figure in UAE

    French anti-terror prosecutors have opened a preliminary inquiry into torture and acts of barbarism allegedly committed by Emirati general Ahmed Nasser al-Raisi, according to judicial sources.. Raisi in November became president of Interpol.

    The inquiry follows a legal complaint by an NGO that accused Raisi of being responsible in his role as high-ranking official at the United Arab Emirates interior ministry for the torture of an opposition figure.

    Continue reading…

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

  • A smacking ban could have been imposed years ago – and saved children’s lives | Letters

    More than 800 children have been killed since my amendment to the Children’s Act was rejected in 2004, says David Hinchliffe. Plus a letter from Sharman Finlay

    Your editorial commending the Welsh government on its smacking ban (21 March) might have drawn attention to the NSPCC’s estimation that at least one child is killed each week in the UK, usually at the hands of a parent or carer. This appalling level of mortality most likely understates the actual figure but is undoubtedly directly connected to the fact that we have historically afforded children less protection in law.

    My amendment to ensure children had the same legal protection from assault as given to adults was not accepted by the then Labour government when the 2004 Children Act was passed, and I have a vivid recollection of the prime minister, Tony Blair, telling me at the time that the proposal was “a notch too far”. I have often wondered how many of the more than 800 children killed during the near two decades since might just possibly not have lost their lives if we had introduced that very modest and quite simple reform.
    David Hinchliffe
    Labour MP for Wakefield, 1987-2005

    Continue reading…

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

  • ‘It’s a kind of revenge’: Damascus suburb demolished as Assad builds a ‘new Syria’

    Investigation reveals former rebel-held areas are being levelled under the guise of mine clearance to make way for high-end developments – leaving refugees nothing to return to

    The Syrian regime is bulldozing former rebel-held neighbourhoods in Damascus under the guise of mine clearance to make space for a “new Syria” of upmarket new building developments and pristine gardens.

    An investigation by the Guardian, Lighthouse Reports, Syrian Investigative Reporting for Accountability Journalism (Siraj) and Rozana Radio has analysed the almost wholesale demolition of Qaboun, a Damascus suburb, one of many neighbourhoods in the capital that is being cleared and redeveloped beyond recognition after former residents have either been displaced by fighting or become refugees abroad.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Abortion Laws in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan: to what extent do social policies cater to human rights?

    Abortion has been regarded as a human right for women, based on every individual’s right to their body. However, the legalization of abortion remains a contentious and polarizing issue in many societies today. Extreme policies relating to abortion in countries like Pakistan, as this article will examine, are not always aligned with global human rights definitions, revealing a complex relationship between policies and human rights.

    Abortion can be defined as the termination of the foetus and its removal from a pregnant woman’s womb. Reasons for an abortion are both varied and distinctive, these might include physical, mental, and emotional health, as well as socio-economic reasons (United Nations, 2014). Abortion is also opted by parents when the life of an expected baby is at the risk of any unwanted health-related circumstances. The United Nations (UN) along with the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), stated that women have the right to go for abortion whenever needed. Declaring abortion as a matter of human rights, the UN has set 7 conditions under which abortion should be permitted and legalized (United Nations, 2014):

    1. Abortion is permitted to save the life of the pregnant woman
    2. Abortion is permitted to preserve a woman’s physical health
    3. Abortion is permitted to preserve a woman’s mental health
    4. Abortion is permitted in cases of foetal impairment
    5. Abortion is permitted in cases of incest or rape
    6. Abortion is permitted for social or economic reasons
    7. Abortion is permitted upon request

     

    Nevertheless, reports published by the UN suggest that only a handful number of countries allow legal abortion under all the above-mentioned circumstances. Whereas a vast number of countries allow abortion only when a mother’s life or physical health is at stake (United Nations, 2014, p. 18-27). Many Muslim Jurists think of abortion as the murder of an unborn child and therefore, forbidden. The perception is based on Quranic teachings that encourage procreation within matrimony (Albar, 2001). For example, in Surah Al Maiydah , verse 32 states: “We decreed upon the children of Israel that whosoever kills a soul for other than manslaughter or corruption in the land; it shall be as if he killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he saved the life of mankind” (Albar, 2001). Similarly, Surah Al Isra 17, verse 31 states: “Kill not your children for fear of want. We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin” (Albar, 2001). Such Islamic teachings have been interpreted and applied to the issue of abortion, resulting in many Muslim states such as Pakistan to criminalise the termination of pregnancy.

    Abortion is referred to as ‘Isqat-e-Haml’ and ‘Isqat-e-Janin’ in Pakistan’s Penal code under articles 338, 338A, 338B, and 338C. Isqat-e-haml is the termination of pregnancy when organs of the child have not been formed yet. In turn, Isqat-e-Janin is the termination of pregnancy when some of the child’s limbs and organs have been formed. According to articles 338 and 338(B), termination of a pregnancy is a punishable crime, unless it is caused under ‘good faith’, or to save the life of the woman through the ‘necessary treatment’ to her. In any cases otherwise, abortion can lead to imprisonment for three or more years, dependent upon whether it was caused with or without the consent of the woman.

    Analysis of abortion laws in Pakistan reveals that there is very little compatibility between abortion policies in Pakistan – member of the United Nations since 1947- and abortion rights proposed by the UN. As previously mentioned, the UN has undoubtedly stated abortion and the legalization of abortion as a human right for women. However, policies in Pakistan are inclined towards its illegality, except for cases that involve ‘good faith; or ‘necessary treatment’. Additionally, state laws are ambiguous and do not define terms like ‘good faith’ and ‘necessary treatment’. This raises the question as to what is ‘good faith’ and how is ‘necessary treatment’ defined? Do these terms refer to the protection of a woman’s physical health or mental health? Or both? Do these terms consider the socioeconomic conditions of parents or not? The ambiguity in relation to the definition of these terms leaves many questions unanswered and thus the scope for whether an abortion is to be legal in certain circumstances is vague. Undefined terms like ‘good faith’ and ‘necessary treatment’ in these laws, therefore, persist unclarity.

    Abortion laws within Pakistan’s Penal Code are part of the pre-partition laws that were created in 1990 to adhere better with the Islamic teachings that were predominant at the time.  (Azmat, Mohsina, Babar, Mustafa, and Hameed, 2011). It therefore would seem that terms like ‘good faith’ and ‘necessary treatment’ will always remain influenced by the view of Muslim Jurists. As Ilyas, Alam, Ahmad and Ghafoor (2009) pointed, seeking abortion for no ‘good’ reason at all, and indicating that the parents just do not want the baby – is inhumane and thus, not in good faith in the view of Muslim jurists. Furthermore, ‘good faith’ includes cases when abortion is intended to save a woman’s life, or when the foetus has not developed organs. However, diversity of opinions amongst Muslim jurists regarding the development of a fetus’s organs further complicates the matter. Some jurists think abortion is permissible before 120 days of pregnancy. Whereas some think it is permissible only in the first 40 days of pregnancy (Ilyas, Alam, Ahmad and Ghafoor, 2009, p. 57). Thus, lack of unanimity amongst jurists and vagueness around abortion laws, in turn affects the lives of many women. A vast majority in Pakistan think that abortion is completely illegal and forbidden in Islam. As a result, women in the country often opt for hidden and unsafe abortion options commonly available from back-alley providers. This exposes those women to greater health risks, physical and mental trauma, and even death in some cases (Ilyas, Alam, Ahmad and Ghafoor, 2009).

    Moreover, discussion on abortion amongst Muslim jurists lack clarity on abortion in cases of rape and incest. In rare cases when a woman is allowed to have an abortion due to pregnancy caused by rape or incest, it is only to prevent mental and physiological harm to the mother. However, in determining whether pregnancy will result in mental or psychological harm, Muslim jurists rely on physicians to decide instead of giving a woman the agency to decide for herself. Thus, even in such cases women do not have the right to their bodies as suggested by the UN. The procedure unveils the incapability of laws to accommodate the UN’s list of abortion rights.

    Even a surface-level analysis of abortion laws in Pakistan reveals that although abortion has been regarded as a human right, religious interpretations problematize the legalization of abortion. Muslim jurists perceive abortion as a murder of the unborn baby, whose ‘right to life cannot be taken away merely because of the mother’s choice. The question, however, remains; can the preborn or unborn also have any ‘right to life? Is there any life before being born? These are the questions that remain at the heart of the ethical and legal debates around abortion and need further attention.

    As it has been analyzed through the case of abortion in Pakistan, state laws do not necessarily accommodate international human rights, and in many countries, laws and policies often derive from subjective interpretations driven by religious forces. These do not necessarily align with the universal women’s rights norms, and thus, for further research and comprehension, abortion laws should not solely be seen as a matter of law and human rights. Rather, it is important to understand how different social realities like religion or ethical contexts come together to perceive and make policies around controversial subjects like abortion.

     

     

     

    “Abortion Policies and Reproductive Health around the World.” Statistical Papers – United Nations (Ser. A), Population and Vital Statistics Report, 2014. https://doi.org/10.18356/3fc03b26-en.

    Albar, M A. “Induced abortion from an islamic perspective: is it criminal or just elective?.” Journal of family & community medicine vol. 8,3 (2001): 25-35.

    Azmat, Syed Khurram, Mohsina Bilgrami, Babar T. Shaikh, Ghulam Mustafa, and Waqas Hameed. “Perceptions, Interpretations and Implications of Abortions: A Qualitative Enquiry among the Legal Community of Pakistan.” The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care 17, no. 2 (2011): 155–63. https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2011.637585.

    Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36, Article 6 on right to life, CCPR/C/GC/36, 2-3, October 30, 2018

    Ilyas, Muhammad, Mukhtar Alam, Habib Ahmad, and Sajidul Ghafoor. “Abortion and Protection of the Human Fetus: Religious and Legal Problems in Pakistan.” Human Reproduction & Genetic Ethics 15, no. 2 (2009): 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1558/hrge.v15i2.55.

    The Pakistan Penal code, 1860 (XLV of 1860): as modified upto the 3rd February 1980, (1980).

    The Pakistan Penal code, 1860 (XLV of 1860): as modified upto the 3rd February 1980, (1980).

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.