Category: Law

  • European court of human rights: Moscow responsible for murder of civilians, and looting and burning of homes

    Russia committed a series of human rights violations during its war with Georgia in 2008, the European court of human rights ruled on Thursday, saying Moscow was responsible for the murder of Georgian civilians, and the looting and burning of their homes.

    In a landmark judgment, the court said the Kremlin was guilty of unlawfully rounding up ethnic Georgians and their subsequent “inhuman and degrading treatment”. This included the torture of Georgian prisoners of war and the expulsion of Georgian villagers from their homes in South Ossetia.

    Related: Even in a Moscow jail, Alexei Navalny is dangerous to Putin

    Continue reading…

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

  • British barrister was called ‘mercenary’ by UK foreign secretary for taking on case against pro-democracy figures

    The British QC hired to run the prosecution of senior Hong Kong activists, including the media mogul Jimmy Lai, has pulled out of the case after widespread pressure, the territory’s government has said.

    David Perry QC had been instructed by the Hong Kong justice department to prosecute 76-year-old Lai and eight others including the democracy figure Martin Lee and the veteran activist Lee Cheuk-yan. The group are charged with public order offences for organising and taking part in an unauthorised assembly. Lai, who is in jail on remand, is facing multiple separate charges including under the national security law.

    Related: Dominic Raab calls QC acting for Hong Kong government ‘mercenary’

    Continue reading…

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

  • Defeated measure aimed to give high court more power to protect minorities such as China’s Uighurs

    The government has narrowly defeated a move requiring the government to reconsider any trade deal with a country found by the high court to be committing genocide.

    The measure, backed by religious groups and a powerful cross-party alliance of MPs, was defeated by 319 to 308.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Nations question delay in raising age of criminal responsibility to 14 and response to Uluru statement

    The Australian government is to be challenged over the country’s lack of progress in reducing rates of Indigenous incarceration at a UN hearing this week.

    Sweden and Uruguay have submitted questions in advance about the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australian prisons, while Germany wants to know why Australia has delayed a push to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14 years.

    Related: Australia’s anguish: the Indigenous kids trapped behind bars

    Related: ‘Hell scared’: how a terrified homeless boy found himself locked up alone in the ‘hole’

    Continue reading…

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

  • UK court would determine whether China is committing genocide against Uighurs if measure passed

    The government is struggling to contain a potential backbench rebellion over its China policy after the Conservative Muslim Forum, the International Bar Association (IBA), and the prime minister’s former envoy on freedom of religious belief backed a move to give the UK courts a say in determining whether countries are committing genocide.

    The measure is due in the Commons on Tuesday when the trade bill returns from the Lords where a genocide amendment has been inserted. The amendment has been devised specifically in relation to allegations that China is committing genocide against Uighur people in Xinjiang province, a charge Beijing has repeatedly denied.

    Related: China in darkest period for human rights since Tiananmen, says rights group

    Continue reading…

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

  • UK-based security firm faces calls to repay charges made by recruitment agents for jobs in Gulf states and conflict zones

    Migrant workers working for the British security company G4S in the United Arab Emirates have collectively been forced to pay millions of pounds in illegal fees to recruitment agents to secure their jobs, the Guardian can reveal.

    An investigation into G4S’s recruitment practices has found that workers from south Asia and east Africa have been made to pay up to £1,775 to recruitment agents working for the British company in order to get jobs as security guards for G4S in the UAE.

    Forcing workers to pay recruitment fees is a widespread practice, but one that is illegal in the UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The practice allows companies to pass on the costs of recruitment to workers from some of the poorest countries in the world, leaving many deep in debt and vulnerable to modern forms of slavery, such as debt bondage.

    Related: ‘We’re poor people’: Middle East’s migrant workers look for way home amid pandemic

    Continue reading…

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

  • Call for world leaders to act in wake of French extradition case that turned on environmental concerns

    Air pollution does not respect national boundaries and environmental degradation will lead to mass migration in the future, said a leading barrister in the wake of a landmark migration ruling, as experts warned that government action must be taken as a matter of urgency.

    Sailesh Mehta, a barrister specialising in environmental cases, said: “The link between migration and environmental degradation is clear. As global warming makes parts of our planet uninhabitable, mass migration will become the norm. Air and water pollution do not respect national boundaries. We can stop a humanitarian and political crisis from becoming an existential one. But our leaders must act now.”

    In recent years, Bangladesh has become one of the worst countries in the world for air pollution. According to the World Health Organization, Bangladesh is in the top 10 countries for concentrations of PM2.5, the harmful pollution particles in the air.

    Continue reading…

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

  • The federal execution of a woman who was mentally ill was the act of a morally bankrupt administration

    In the early hours of Wednesday morning, Lisa Montgomery became the first woman to be put to death by the United States government for almost seven decades. At the Indiana penitentiary where she was executed by lethal injection, there are no facilities for female prisoners. So during prolonged legal wrangling over her fate, Montgomery was cruelly placed in a holding cell in the execution-chamber building itself.

    Her crime was horrific. In 2004, Montgomery strangled a young woman, Bobbie Jo Stinnett, who was eight months pregnant. She then cut a baby girl from her womb, and attempted to pass her off as her own. The pain and suffering of Ms Stinnett’s family can barely be imagined. But the political context of this week’s execution, and overwhelming evidence of Montgomery’s longstanding mental illness, suggests a gross miscarriage of justice has taken place.

    Continue reading…

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

  • UK politicians challenge David Perry’s decision to act against group accused of illegal assembly

    A British barrister has agreed to act for the Hong Kong government next month in its efforts to convict Jimmy Lai and eight other pro-democracy activists accused of taking part in an illegal assembly in 2019.

    David Perry’s decision has been challenged by the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, Tom Tugendhat, and by the Labour peer Lord Adonis.

    Continue reading…

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

  • In our latest report for the 2020 Guardian and Observer appeal, we talk to Child Poverty Action Group and those it has helped

    • Please donate to our appeal here

    When Trudi and Gavin Scott moved back to the UK from New Zealand with their severely disabled son, Theo, in December 2016, it was the start of a “horrendous” few years of financial struggle triggered by the family being refused disability living allowance.

    At one point, when Gavin had to give up work to look after Theo while Trudi was recovering from a major operation, they had to scrape by on child benefit, tax credit cash and food bank vouchers, causing them to fall behind with bills.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Analysis: ruling appears to extend the scope of British Official Secrets Act on classified information

    Julian Assange may have won the first round of his extradition battle against the US but lawyers and the National Union of Journalists have warned his victory had little to do with the protection of journalism and free speech.

    A study of the ruling from the district judge Vanessa Baraitser – which said the WikiLeaks founder should not be extradited on mental health grounds – appears to extend the scope of the British Official Secrets Act, which governs the leaking and handling of classified government information.

    Related: Julian Assange extradition ruling: what happens now?

    Continue reading…

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

  • Ministers under pressure to say why attacks involving civilian casualties have been excluded from log of alleged humanitarian breaches

    The government is under pressure to explain why a series of air strikes in Yemen, many involving civilian casualties, have not been recorded in its confidential log of alleged breaches of international humanitarian law (IHL).

    The existence of the database, which has been kept by the Ministry of Defence since 2015, emerged only when the government became embroiled in a legal challenge over its decision to grant UK arms manufacturers export licences to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen. The challenge came amid claims the weapons were being used in breach of IHL.

    Related: Yemen airstrikes kill 31 civilians after Saudi jet crash

    Continue reading…

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

  • Exclusive: More than 70 Harvard student organisations sign open letter urging US state department to take stronger action over Ekpar Asat

    The US government must do more to demand China release a Uighur man who was jailed for 15 years after participating in a state department exchange program, a coalition of Harvard University schools and student groups has said.

    Ekpar Asat, a young entrepreneur from Xinjiang, disappeared in 2016 after returning from the US where he had been on the exchange program and visited his sister Rayhan, a Harvard law student. He had promised to come back to the US in a few months with their parents to watch her become Harvard’s first ever Uighur graduate.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Rights experts say pardon of four contractors over Iraq killings undermine humanitarian law

    Donald Trump’s pardon of four American men convicted of killing Iraqi civilians while working as contractors in 2007 violated US obligations under international law, United Nations human rights experts have said.

    Nicholas Slatten was convicted of first-degree murder and Paul Slough, Evan Liberty and Dustin Heard were convicted of voluntary and attempted manslaughter over an incident in which US contractors opened fire in busy traffic in a Baghdad square and killed 14 unarmed Iraqi civilians.

    Related: ‘Our blood is cheaper than water’: anger in Iraq over Trump pardons

    Continue reading…

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

  • Ankara has long welcomed Uighur and Turkic Muslims fleeing China but rights groups fear the treaty will endanger them

    Beijing has ratified an extradition treaty with Turkey that human rights groups warn could endanger Uighur families and activists fleeing persecution by Chinese authorities if it is adopted by Ankara.

    The treaty, signed in 2017, was formalised at the weekend at the National People’s Congress, with state media saying it would be used for counter-terrorism purposes. Facing strong opposition within its parliament, Turkey’s government has not yet ratified the deal, and critics have urged the government to abandon it and prevent the treaty from “becoming an instrument of persecution”.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Students among those who could face long sentences under sweeping lese-majesty law

    Thailand’s authorities must stop targeting pro-democracy protesters with draconian legal action and instead enter into dialogue, according to the UN’s special rapporteur for freedom of assembly, who warned the country risks sliding into violence.

    Clément Voule said he had written to the Thai government to express alarm at the use of the fierce lese-majesty law against dozens of protesters, including students as young as 16.

    Parit Chiwarak, 22, also known as Penguin. He faces 12 lese-majesty charges, which could lead to up to 180 years in jail. These relate to protest speeches and an open letter written to king Maha Vajiralongkorn calling for reform of the monarchy.

    Jatuporn Sae Ung, 24. She faces one charge, after she wore Thai traditional dress at a catwalk-themed protest, which was considered an attempt to parody the queen.

    A 16-year-old protester. The teenager is facing one charge. They are accused of attending a protest wearing a crop top with the words: “My father’s name is Mana. Not Vajiralongkorn” written on their back. The king has been photographed wearing crop tops abroad.

    Inthira Charoenpura, 40, also know as Sai, a prominent actor who has donated food to protesters. She faces one lese-majesty charge for allegedly mocking the king in a Facebook post which included the words “very brave”. The monarch recently praised as “very brave” a man who held up a royal portrait at an anti-establishment rally.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Human rights organisation says allegations that Nicholas Opiyo acquired over $300,000 in funds are ‘frivolous’ and ‘fabricated’

    Nicholas Opiyo, one of Uganda’s most prominent human rights lawyers, has been charged with money laundering.

    Opiyo, known for representing LGBTQ+ people, appeared before magistrates in Kampala on Thursday and was remanded in custody until 28 December.

    Related: Uganda detains leading lawyer for LGBT rights on money-laundering charges

    Continue reading…

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

  • Country’s expected ascension to human rights council presidency is being challenged by a China-backed bid by Bahrain

    For a small country in the South Pacific that joined the UN’s powerful human rights council for the first time in 2019, Fiji has made giant strides within the organisation: right to the very top … almost.

    By consensus, Fiji’s chief diplomat in Geneva, ambassador Nazhat Shameem Khan, was set to assume the presidency of the council for 2021, a historic first not only for Fiji, but for a Pacific region consistently under-represented on the global stage.

    Related: Fiji death in custody reignites debate over police brutality

    Related: Human progress at stake in post-Covid choices, says UN report

    Continue reading…

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

  • In a last-ditch effort to stay alive, Dustin Higgs, a federal death row prisoner set to be put to death next month as part of the Trump administration’s flurry of executions in its final days in office, has petitioned the president for clemency.

    Related: Trump administration has executed more Americans than all states combined, report finds

    Continue reading…

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

  • (image: Breitbart, 9/4/20)

    This week on CounterSpin: “This is a sickness that cannot be allowed to continue. Please report any sightings so we can quickly extinguish!” Donald Trump’s disturbing September 5 tweet paired with his claim that “teaching this horrible doctrine to our children is a form of child abuse in the truest sense of those words.”

    What is the sickness, the doctrine that Trump says is “being deployed to rip apart friends, neighbors and families”? It’s Critical Race Theory, or really any of a whole group of interrelated social justice ideas, like structural racism, implicit bias or privilege—tools for talking about and addressing persistent inequities in US society.

    Trump’s September executive order on “combating race and sex stereotyping” banned any training addressing racial or gender diversity for federal employees, government contractors and the US military. The effects were immediate and chilling—not just the end of workplace diversity trainings, but academics forced to cancel lectures, research projects suspended, curricula scrubbed for fear of running afoul of what’s being called the Equity Gag Order. And yet this obviously suppressive effort has been largely shrugged off by media that ought to be sounding the alarm. Oh, McCarthyism—how can we miss you if you won’t go away?

    Resisting the effort to silence necessary conversations about racism is Kimberle Crenshaw. A pioneer in critical race theory, she’s a professor of law at UCLA and Columbia Law Schools, and executive director of the African American Policy Forum and the Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies. We talk with her about Trump’s order and the Truth Be Told campaign that’s pushing back on it, and the ideas behind it.

    MP3 Link

    Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look at coverage of President-elect Joe Biden’s cabinet picks.

    MP3 Link

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Whether it’s catcalling, lewd staring, inappropriate comments, unwanted touching, or harassment in the workplace, there are few parts of the world where sexual harassment is not treated as a serious problem.

    The MeToo hashtag (#MeToo) which first went viral on Twitter three years ago, is evidence of the enormity of the above issue. Although the social movement of the same name existed beforehand, the hashtag was popularized in October 2017, when actress Alyssa Milano urged victims of sexual abuse to share their stories on Twitter. The movement gained enormous traction in the following years with the UN CEDAW Committee hailing it as a tipping point for women’s rights.[1]

    Even in India, sexual harassment remains a threat to women’s physical and emotional safety. In a study conducted by Project Monma[2], female participants were questioned about places where sexual harassment occurs. Most of the participants spoke of sexual harassment as taking place in public places. Interestingly, more than a few referred to schools and the household as places where harassment occurs while one participant strikingly responded: “Anyplace except the temple”. This example highlights the severity of harassment in India.

    Though the MeToo movement took off slightly later in India, it has since become a tool frequently used by women from across backgrounds to call out alleged assaulters on social media. However, one of the direct ramifications of such public allegations is the risk of finding oneself at the centre of a defamation suit. This has to a large extent, stymied accusers of sexual harassment from naming and shaming their attackers online.

    The conspicuous absence of social media in the Indian law governing sexual harassment

    A case which created quite a stir in India were the accusations against notable artist Subodh Gupta in December of 2018. Several survivors voiced their experiences on the anonymous Instagram account Scene and Herd (@Herdsceneand), which has outed several male artists in India.[3] In the following weeks, Gupta went on to sue Scene and Herd for civil defamation and demand Rs 50 million in damages. But the single concern that arose out of the case was when the Delhi High Court ordered Facebook to unmask the anonymous people behind the Instagram page[4] by November 18, 2019.

    It is interesting that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, the primary Indian legislation in this regard, is silent on the role played by social media in both instances of harassment as well as subsequently, accusations of harassment. While the Information Technology Act, 2000 does penalise online harassment through the posting  of defamatory or obscene material online,[5] the Indian law is virtually silent when it comes to accusations of sexual harassment published on social media platforms.

    Should social media accusations be protected from defamation suits?

    She said, He Sued

    An increase in allegations of sexual harassment has seen another development. In response to being accused, alleged assailants file defamation suits against their accusers to protect their reputations.[6] The possibility of such retaliation[7] discourages victims from reporting their sexual assaults.[8] The primary question that crosses one’s mind here is whether defamation suits should at all be permitted against alleged victims of sexual harassment. To answer this question, we must first understand why women have started to turn to social media.

    Some of the victims find social media a safe space as they want to avoid reporting assaults to the police or an organization’s internal complaints committee out of fear or mistrust of the system.[9] Lack of legal and financial resources are often key barriers against formally lodging a case in court.[10] In stark contrast, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter often offer a sense of security and sisterhood to many women who intend to speak up. Survivors often use these platforms to warn others about their alleged attackers or find vindication and healing.

    Having said that, one cannot ignore the fact that the inherent nature of online spaces leaves a lot to be desired. Women have consistently been the targets of trolls and threats for speaking up on gender issues.[11] A 2015 OECD Development Report highlighted online harassment and the consequent silencing of female activists as a crucial barrier to achieving women’s political agency.[12] This is indicative of the disciplining tendency of the internet where female voices are involved. Defamation suits filed in the aftermath of a sexual harassment claim are simply one of the many manifestations of the above phenomenon. This constraint has been recognized in the 2018 UNGA Resolution on Sexual Harassment which focuses on the digital context in harassment concerns.[13] Further, Article 5 of CEDAW obligates states to take measures “To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices…”.[14]

    This brings us to the burning question of whether such posts should be protected from defamation suits under Indian law.

    If one were to compare the Indian framework with that in the United States’ (while acknowledging the dissimilar legal contexts in the two countries), the relationship between sexual harassment and defamation has been better drawn out in the latter. The above kinds of defamation suits filed after a sexual harassment allegation are classified as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), which are designed to prevent people from speaking out about matters of public interest. It is such a widespread strategy that 30 US states have anti-SLAPP laws that protect defendants from these punitive suits.[15] In 2018, California passed a law[16] protecting employees from being sued for defamation for reporting sexual harassment to their employers. The same year, Louisiana enacted a law[17] allowing defamation lawsuits against accusers to be frozen until all related criminal, civil, or administrative hearings are “complete and final.”

    The way forward

    In the author’s opinion, defamation suits by rape-accused should be discouraged on the grounds that such suits can have a chilling effect on women and thus, should be considered as SLAPP suits.

    Therefore, the author proposes an amendment to Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code which deals with prosecution for defamation. A sub-clause can be inserted that bars taking cognizance of any defamation offence alleged in the context of sexual harassment until the complaint has been heard and all the investigation in the matter has concluded.

    One must keep in mind that this solution only serves to not discourage women from lodging formal complaints after their social media accusations. In the past, quite a few corporations have taken note of sexual harassment accusations by employees online and treated them as formal complaints. In such cases, an amendment to the law would serve in support of victimised women. On the other hand, women who seek to use social media simply as a platform to share their experience without any intent to file a complaint could face legal consequences. While this is not the ideal scenario, we have to consider the possibility of these platforms being misused and the reputation of individuals being tarnished. The Indian legal framework should not hinder any discussion or discourse on sexual harassment. Neither should it dissuade women from calling out their assaulters. In fact, allowing victimised women to be subject to such suits is in itself an indirect form of violation of human rights as it restrains them from speaking out against their assaulters and re-enforces sceptical responses to women’s accounts (contravening Article 5 of the CEDAW).  However, in any robust legal system, it is crucial that allegations of any sort are adjudicated by impartial courts of the land and not on social media platforms. The above-proposed solution attempts to partially tackle this issue.

     

    References

    [1] Confronting sexual violence, demanding equality, International Women’s Day Statement by United Nations Women’s Human Rights Experts, Tuesday, 6 March 2018, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22759&LangID=E.

    [2] Project Monma is a charity organisation that aims to raise awareness about violence and discrimination against women and girls around the world.

    [3] #MeToo: After activists’ letter, Subodh Gupta’s defamation suit condemned by JNU students in a statement, Firstpost, October 5, 2019, https://www.firstpost.com/india/metoo-after-activists-letter-subodh-guptas-defamation-suit-condemned-by-jnu-students-in-a-statement-7444341.html.

    [4] Ibid.

    [5] Section 67, Information Technology Act, 2000.

    [6] Daniel Jackson, Sex-Assault Accusers Turn to Defamation Lawsuits in #MeToo Era, COURTHOUSE NEWS SERV. (Jan. 25, 2018), https://www.courthousenews.com/sex-assaultaccusers-turn-to-defamation-lawsuits-in-metoo-era].

    [7] Leah M. Slyder, Note, Rape in the Civil and Administrative Contexts: Proposed Solutions to Problems in Tort Cases Brought by Rape Survivors, 68 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 543, 552 (2017).

    [8] RACHEL E. MORGAN & GRACE KENA, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, NCJ 252121, CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION, 2016: REVISED 7 (2018), https:// www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv16re.pdf .

    [9] Barriers to reporting sexual assault for women and men: Perspectives of college students,  Journal of American Health, Vol. 55, No. 3, http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/240971/authentic/sable_article.pdf.

    [10] Ibid.

    [11] Kirsti K. Cole, “It’s Like She’s Eager to be Verbally Abused”: Twitter, Trolls, and (En)Gendering Disciplinary Rhetoric, Feminist Media Studies, Vol. 15, 2015.

    [12] Can social media effectively include women’s voices in decision-making processes?, OECD Development Centre, March 2015, https://www.oecd.org/dev/development-gender/DEV_socialmedia-issuespaper-March2015.pdf.

    [13] United Nations General Assembly, Intensification of efforts to prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls: sexual harassment, A/C.3/73/L.21/Rev.1, 14 November 2018.

    [14] UN General Assembly, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 18 December 1979, A/RES/34/180, Article 5.

    [15] How libel law is being turned against MeToo accusers, Mother Jones, March 2020, https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2020/02/metoo-me-too-defamation-libel-accuser-sexual-assault/.

    [16] AB-2770 Privileged communications: communications by former employer: sexual harassment, September 7, 2018, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2770.

    [17] Bill aims to shield rape victims from retaliatory lawsuits, The Advocate, May 14, 2018,  https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_49af80a2-57de-11e8-bb29-17dc6413159b.html.

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • The recent killing of George Floyd, an African American, at the hands of a white police officer in Minneapolis has sparked mass protests across the globe. Floyd was asphyxiated to death as the officer, without shame or reluctance, knelt on his neck for nine long minutes. His crime? Counterfeiting a $20 note. While this incident unveiled the systemically-rooted remnants of racism that continue to exist in the 21st century, it also highlighted the dehumanisation faced by Black people at the hands of law enforcement personnel in the United States (US), ironically the world’s most vehement proponent of freedom and democracy. Indeed, mass incarceration statistics in the US indicate an over-representation of marginalised communities, and the startling fact that 1 out of 35 African Americans is behind bars (Social Justice, 2000) is no coincidence. People of colour are brutalised within both justice and prison systems, and the state capitalises on their incarceration. It is no exaggeration to call the US prison system an ‘ethnoracial ghetto’ since, today, there are more African Americans in prison than in college (Mallory, 2015). The present incarceration policies strongly reflect legacies of slavery that have long plagued the social and moral fabric of the country. Marginalised communities continue to suffer at the hands of a justice system that paradoxically metes out injustice. Transformative change, through movements such as Black Lives Matter, is therefore sorely needed.

    The Prison-Industrial Complex

    The last few decades have witnessed a steep rise in incarceration in the United States. State and federal incarceration rose by over 200% between 1980 and 1996 (Blumstein and Beck, 1999). Today, the US comprises 5% of the world’s population but nearly 25% of its incarcerated population (Cullen, 2017), and the highest per capita imprisonment rate in the world, of nearly 1 out of 100 people (Wagner and Bertram, 2020). A closer look indicates a symbiotic relationship between private corporations, political parties, and the government, which has been termed a Prison-Industrial Complex (PIC). The term was first coined by Angela Davis and Eric Schlosser in 1998, to define the underlying interest of the government and private corporations in putting people behind bars. Private companies involved with prison facilities extensively profit from a spike in inmate population and mobilise gains from ‘tough on crime’ legislative policies (Aviram, 2015), by extracting labour from prisoners at wages considerably lower than the federal minimum wage set by the Fair Labour Standards. Wages are often set as low as 16-93 cents an hour and in some states, not paid at all (Bozelko, 2017; McGrew and Hanks, 2017). Private prisons are run by companies such as CoreCivic and GEO Group, both of which each donated $250,000 to President Trump’s inaugural committee in 2016 (Ahmed, 2019). Tellingly, political affiliations keep these organisations thriving despite blatant human rights violations within their facilities.

    Where prisons are run by the government, private organisations provide services at extremely high rates, thereby capitalising on the high number of inmates. For instance, telecom companies such as Securus charge as much as $25 for a 15-minute phone call, profiting $1.3bn annually (Worth Rises, 2019). Likewise, food service giant Aramark provides low-quality meals at sky-high prices in a number of correctional facilities. In this sense, the prison system has translated itself into a money minting business that serves the interest of private organisations and the government alike. The PIC clearly allows those in power to further oppress and maintain firm control over the oppressed.

    Race, incarceration and  the war on drugs

    African Americans, the first victims of mass incarceration programmes, are continually subjugated by way of racist policies and stereotypes that brand them as ‘problematic’ citizens. Although the Civil War marked the end of slavery in the US, ‘through the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution (which permits forced labour in prison) and various other legal practices, the current prison system has manifested itself into an institution of forced labour, comprising of people of colour’ (Raza, 2011, p.159). Immediately after the passing of the Amendment, post-abolition laws emerged as a means to further discriminate against the Black population, for example through the introduction of segregation laws that heavily criminalized previously benign actions such as ‘loitering’. President Nixon’s War on Drugs in 1971 similarly led to the enactment of draconian legislation that mandated harsh prison sentences for drug abuse and peddling. Under President Reagan, Congress passed the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act that laid down mandatory minimum prison sentences for different kinds of drug offences. Within this Act, longer sentences for ‘crack’ possession – a drug mostly consumed in Black communities – were implemented, while ‘coke’ consumption – another form of cocaine usually circulating in white circles – received little attention (Palamar, 2015).  Thus, one could possess 100 times more ‘coke’ than ‘crack’ to merit the same minimum prison sentence. These laws have been direct perpetrators of masked discrimination, resulting in the disproportionately high incarceration of Black people to this day.

    Human Rights Watch reported in 2000 that ‘Blacks constitute 13 percent of all drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of those convicted, and 74 percent of those sent to prison’(Deborah Small, 2001). While this disparity was somewhat alleviated by the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, much remains to be done to undo the harm suffered by Black communities across centuries. (Carlsen, 2010). In fact, racial profiling fuelled by stereotypes that Black people are more prone to drug use has also played against the African American population, who have been relentlessly stopped and searched by police and, too often, wounded or killed in the process. Black male adults are about five times more likely to be unfairly stopped and three times more likely to be searched by the police as compared to their white counterparts (Desilver, Lipka and Fahmy, 2020). While the abolition of slavery more than 150 years ago elevated people of colour to equal footing under the law on paper, law enforcement agencies, working hand in hand with the justice system, continue to subjugate them to date.

    Dehumanising treatment and wrongful convictions

    Within the US prison system, various forms of cruel and degrading treatment have been justified through arguments of self-defence and the premise that there is no harm in meting out such treatment to ‘criminals’. The phrase ‘you do the crime, you do the time’ illustrates the prevailing sentiment within the prison system that all prisoners have broken the law and have presumably gotten what they deserve, despite only 5% of total arrests being for serious offences (Breen, 2008; Sawyer, 2020). Race, again, has a strong bearing on convictions, wherein a large number of African Americans and Latinos are wrongfully convicted for crimes, even when prima facie evidence suggests otherwise. In a case that later came to be known as the ‘Central Park Five’, five young Black men were wrongfully convicted in 1989 for a rape they never committed through forced confessions. Only in 2002, when the lives of the men had been ruined and defamed by national outrage, did another murderer confess to having committed the rape (Duru, 2004). This injustice is also quantifiable: an innocent Black person is seven times more likely to be convicted for murder as compared to an innocent white person (Gross, Possley and Stephens, 2017).

    Such dehumanising treatment and violence contribute to higher rates of recidivism. Even after being released from jail, 1 out of 4 people are arrested again within the same year (Jones and Sawyer, 2019). These are usually people whose problems such as substance abuse and mental illness have been exacerbated during and after incarceration. The system stunts and sabotages the growth of prisoners instead of rehabilitating them; and because Blacks are so highly incarcerated, this affects the entirety of the African American community. The prison abolition movement argues for a different approach to crime, one that frees itself ‘from the assumption that punishment must be a necessary response to all violations of the law’ (Davis and Rodriguez, 2000) and instead envisions reformative justice achieved through other methods of rehabilitation. When the ‘police continue to serve their historical political function that includes disproportionate killing of black males’, it is time to rethink and abolish these institutions of oppression (Grabiner, 2016). Police abolition movements, such as #DefundThePolice have recently gained considerable traction, seeking to dismantle the false perception that a society without police forces means a society of horror and crime. Cutting down on police personnel and reducing the budget for police departments would go a long way in reducing their excesses (Kaba, 2020). Where such remaining money is used for steering positive development in sectors of education and healthcare, this may serve as a long-term solution to transform conditions of marginalisation and trauma into trust, safety and peace.

    Conclusion

    The Black Lives Matter movement today stands as a loud and unstoppable roar against the silencing, policing and imprisonment of African Americans and Black people around the globe. George Floyd’s last words – ‘I can’t breathe’ – bear an uncanny resemblance to those of Eric Garner in 2014. Garner repeated these words 11 times, as bystanders continued to film his cold-blooded murder at the hands of police officers, who pinned him down and continued to choke him, while his cries for mercy fell on deaf ears. These words seem to illustrate the lived experiences of African Americans, whose voices have continuously been muffled and identities stifled through centuries of oppression and stigmatisation. Racial profiling and racist justice have resulted in the brutal deaths of hundreds of people of colour for petty offences and led to the mass incarceration of Black men, whose futures are ruined from the moment they are put into prison by a justice system built on their discrimination.

    Since a society’s criminal justice system is no more than a product of its beliefs, American and Western values must be reformed to address past discrimination and future reparation for Black people. This can only happen through mass movements like this one, which recognise the past and present harm done to the Black community and seek transformative change. In the words of Fred Hampton, one may succeed in jailing the revolutionaries, but one cannot jail the revolution itself.

     

    References

    (2000) ‘Overview: Critical Resistance to the Prison-Industrial Complex.’ Social Justice. 27(3) (81), pp. 1-5.

    Ahmed, H., 2019. How Private Prisons Are Profiting Under The Trump Administration – Center For American Progress. [online] Center for American Progress. Available at: <https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2019/08/30/473966/private-prisons-profiting-trump-administration/> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Bozelko, C., 2017. Prison Labor: Laws & Wages Make It Close to Slavery, Give Working Prisoners Dignity and Decent Wages. [online] Nationalreview.com. Available at: <https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/01/prison-labor-laws-wages/> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Breen, Jessica. (2008) ‘Prisoners’ Families and the Ripple Effects of Imprisonment.’ Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, 97(385), pp. 59–71.

    Davis, Angela Y., and Dylan Rodriguez. (2000) ‘The Challenge of Prison Abolition: A Conversation.’ Social Justice, 27 (3) (81), pp. 212–218.

    Desilver, D., Lipka, M. and Fahmy, D. (2020.) 10 Things We Know About Race and Policing In The U.S. [online] Pew Research Center. Available at: <https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/03/10-things-we-know-about-race-and-policing-in-the-u-s/> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Duru, N. Jeremi, (2004) ‘The Central Park Five, the Scottsboro Boys, and the Myth of the Bestial Black Man’. Cardozo Law Review 25, p. 1315.

    Eisenhour, A., 2019. Missing The (Ara)Mark on Divestment. [online] The Princetonian. Available at: <https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2019/04/missing-the-aramark-on-divestment> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Equal Justice Initiative. 2020. Criminal Justice Reform, Equal Justice Initiative. [online] Available at: <https://eji.org/criminal-justice-reform/> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Grabiner, Gene. (2016) ‘Who Polices the Police?’ Social Justice, 43(2) (144), pp. 58–79.

    Gross, S., Possley, M. and Stephens, K., 2017. Race and Wrongful Convictions in The United States, National Registry of Exonerations, [online] Law.umich.edu. Available at: <http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Hadar Aviram. (2015) ‘Are Private Prisons to Blame for Mass Incarceration and Its Evils? Prison Conditions, Neoliberalism, and Public Choice’, Fordham Urban Law Journal 39, p.6.

    Flexon, J., D’Alessio S., Stolzenberg L. and Greenleaf R. (2019).  ‘Interracial encounters with the police: findings from the NCVS police-public contact survey’, Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 17(4), pp. 299-320.

    Kaba, Mariame. (2020). Yes, We Literally Mean Abolish The Police. [online] The New York Times. Available at: <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html>. [Accessed 5 July 2020].

    Mallory, Jason L. (2015) ‘Denying Pell Grants to Prisoners: Race, Class, and the Philosophy of Mass Incarceration.’ International Social Science Review, 90(1), pp. 1–27.

    Mason, C., 2012. Too Good to Be True- Private Prisons In America. [online] Sentencingproject.org. Available at: <https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Too-Good-to-be-True-Private-Prisons-in-America.pdf> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    McCarthy, Niall. 2018. The World’s Most Overcrowded Prison Systems. [online] Forbes. Available at: <https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/01/26/the-worlds-most-overcrowded-prison-systems-infographic/#15b42a6b1372> [Accessed 5 July 2020].

    McGrew, A. and Hanks, A., 2017. It’s Time to Stop Using Inmates for Free Labor. [online] Talk Poverty. Available at: <https://talkpoverty.org/2017/10/20/want-prison-feel-less-like-slavery-pay-inmates-work/> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Michelle S. Jacobs, (2017). ‘The Violent State: Black Women’s Invisible Struggle Against Police Violence’, & Mary J. Women & L. 24(1), pp.39-100.

    Palamar, Joseph J et al. (2015). ‘Powder Cocaine and Crack Use in the United States: An Examination of Risk for Arrest and Socio-Economic Disparities in Use.’ Drug and Alcohol Dependence 149, pp.108-116.

    Peyton, N. and Moloney, A., 2020. George Floyd: America’s Racial Inequality in Numbers, Thomson Reuters Foundation [online] news.trust.org. Available at: <https://news.trust.org/item/20200601213023-p1dkx/?source=gep> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Raza, A. E. (2011). ‘Legacies of the Racialization of Incarceration: From Convict-Lease to the Prison Industrial Complex.’ Journal of the Institute of Justice & International Studies 11, pp. 159-170.

    Ryan Carlsen. (2010). ‘The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010: How Fair Is It?’ Pub. Interest L. Rptr. 16 (1), pp.17-26.

    Sainato, M., 2020. Why Are So Many People Dying in US Prisons And Jails. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/26/us-prisons-jails-inmate-deaths> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Sawyer, W. and Wagner, P., 2020. Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2020. [online] Prisonpolicy.org. Available at: <https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Sawyer, W., 2020. Ten Key Facts About Policing: Highlights from Our Work. [online] Prisonpolicy.org. Available at: <https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policingfacts/> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Small, Deborah. (2001). ‘The War on Drugs Is a War on Racial Justice.’ Social Research, 68(3), pp. 896–903.

    Wagner, P. and Bertram, W., 2020. “What Percent of The U.S. Is Incarcerated?” (And Other Ways to Measure Mass Incarceration). [online] Prisonpolicy.org. Available at: <https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/01/16/percent-incarcerated/> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Weitzer R., Brunson R. (2015). ‘Policing Different Racial Groups in the United States’, CPS, 2(35) pp. 129-145.

    West, C. and Johnson, K., 2013. Sexual Violence in The Lives of African American Women. [online] Vawnet.org. Available at: <https://vawnet.org/sites/default/files/materials/files/2016-09/AR_SVAAWomenRevised.pdf> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    Worth Rises, (2019).  Report on the Prisoner’s Industrial Complex: Mapping the Private Sector Players, Available at: <https://worthrises.org/picreport2019> [Accessed 23 June 2020].

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is an exercise by the Indian government to recognise and expel illegal immigrants pursuant to Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 read with the Foreigners Act, 1946. The government implemented the NRC in the north-eastern state of Assam, bordering Bangladesh. The recently-published UN World Migration Report 2020 has identified this border as one of the most vulnerable migrant corridors in Asia, given the historical fluidity of its boundaries. In Assam, international borders are young and divide ethnically similar societies owing to the long history of territory exchange agreements between India and Bangladesh and the legal migration of refugees in the aftermath of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Therefore, the porosity of established migrant categories must be acknowledged and preserved by the State. Instead, in 2018, the government screened 32.9 million people and 65 million documents, costing the taxpayer $178 million and labeled 40,70,707 people as illegal residents. In 2019, the government revised and released the final list of the NRC, excluding nearly 2 million people – approximately 6% of Assam’s population – effectively rendering them stateless.

    According to Section 2 of the Foreigners Act: “A foreigner means a person who is not a citizen of India”. And according to Section 9, the burden of proof lies with the person suspected to be a foreigner, to provide documentary evidence proving their citizenship. Those excluded must appeal to the Foreigners Tribunals, implying that the State already treats them as non-citizens. “Foreigners” are required to prove their citizenship by providing legacy documents proving permanent Indian residency, failing which they will be stateless.

    In the absence of domestic legislation on the legal status of refugees, India’s internal refugee management system is fraught with serious issues — principally because essential conventions such as the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 1954 and the Convention on the  Reduction of Statelessness, 1961 have not been used as reference points for the methodical detection, reduction and prevention of statelessness — as made evident by the inhuman fallout of the NRC. Therefore, India suffers from a pernicious commitment deficit to international law.

    NRC: Institutionalising Exclusion

    The very idea of the NRC, with its fundamental premise rooted in the insider-outsider binary has led to the institutionalization of exclusion. The NRC in all its arbitrariness and unfairness has imposed a palpable anxiousness on the entire region. Contrary to the principles of natural justice, the categorization of citizenship status considers every resident of Assam guilty until proven innocent. To prove their citizenship, some had to sell personal property such as livestock to cover great distances in order to file their papers with the authorities located at far off registration offices. Reports suggest that Foreigners Tribunals in the state of Assam have been denying people their citizenship arbitrarily and suffer from a perilous shortage of qualified judicial officers, some of whom are recruited on a temporary basis and trained for only four days. The apprehension and trauma of exclusion suffered by the entirety of the Assamese population of 32.9 million, amounts to the persecution of genuine Indian citizens.

    The Gendered Impact

    While the NRC has adversely affected the lives of marginalised populations in Assam, the demographics of exclusion suggest that women and children across the state of Assam, have suffered disproportionately due to India’s commitment deficit to international law. This becomes starkly evident in cases where children have been excluded from the NRC, but their parents admitted. These children live under a blanket of suspicion and stigmatisation.

    The NRC affects women disproportionately for two interrelated reasons. First, the evidentiary value of proof of citizenship is tilted highly in favour of patrilineal documents, therefore women who trace their identity matrilineally are invariably excluded. Secondly, in a region like Assam where underage marriage and polygamy are common, the documents often only have the  husbands’ names on them. The identities of most women are entwined with that of their husbands, and they thus end up as appendages to male citizens rather than citizens themselves. The NRC process has also separated thousands of women from their families. These include daughters, sisters and wives who have been arbitrarily left out of the list due to trivial reasons such as typographical errors. Women in the region rarely enjoy financial independence and are dependent on their families for survival; the fragmentation of families has therefore resulted in widely uncertain futures for them.

    Article 326 of the Constitution states  that voting rights are available only to citizens. Those excluded from the list shall be categorised as ‘D’ (doubtful) voters, stripping them of their right to vote. Therefore, the NRC is creating a nation of disenfranchised women, lacking the most basic of human rights that emanate from the right to citizenship. Indeed, the recognition of women as legitimate citizens with lawful rights is only the first step on the long road towards gender equality.

    All democratic states must grant women equal rights to acquire, change or retain their nationality. The Indian state, in its handling of the NRC process, has been oblivious to certain inalienable rights guaranteed by fundamental international instruments. For example, Articles 1 and 2 of The Convention on Nationality of Married Women along with Article 9 of CEDAW, encourage states to provide equality between men and women in matters of citizenship and the right to pass on nationality to children. These conventions are a cornerstone in preventing statelessness as a direct result of gender-based discrimination in the bestowal of nationality, but were disregarded in the government’s implementation of the NRC.

    The Perpetuation of Statelessness

    The UNHCR guidelines state that children are often stateless if their parents are stateless; such perpetuation can be curbed if a country in which a child is born grants its citizenship to this child, even if their parent(s) may be stateless. Contrary to incorporating the spirit of jus soli, Section 3(1)(c) of the 1955 Citizenship Act denies or confers citizenship to the child based on the citizenship of the parent; children born in India thus cannot secure Indian citizenship if at least one of their parents is not an Indian citizen. Given the exclusionary pattern of the NRC, this prerequisite has the potential to create statelessness in Assam by the mere operation of law.

    Children are the most vulnerable to this exclusion, since the denial of nationality from birth subjects them to a cycle of extreme poverty without basic human rights or opportunities. The UDHR sets a common standard of achievement for all people of all nations, wherein Article 15 creates a negative duty on the state not to create statelessness. Article 24 of the ICCPR states categorically that every child has the right to acquire a nationality. This is supplemented by Article 8 of the CRC, that obliges the state parties to accord the right to every child to acquire nationality in his or her country of birth. Moreover, the determination of citizenship through lineage is inherently exclusionary in a country where, according to UNICEF, about 40% of urban births and 65% of rural births are unregistered, despite an obligation under Article 7 of the CRC to register all births.

    Beyond subjecting children to a cycle of statelessness, the NRC has also deprived them of essential parental care. Children have been forcefully separated from their parents who are held in detention centres, in violation of Article 9 of the CRC. There is no statutory limitation on the period of detention under Section 3 of the Foreigners Act and most of these centres are in derelict conditions and provide no opportunity for the child to establish any personal contact with their parent(s), as mandated under Article 9. Although the law provides for non-custodial alternatives, the Government of Assam in a white paper expressed its predilection toward the use of detention as the preferred means. This has resulted in the dehumanisation of the millions excluded from the NRC.

    Conclusion

    Hannah Arendt has aptly described the plight  of refugees, being transformed from homeless to stateless and ultimately, right-less. This rings particularly true in the context of the NRC, through which all Assam residents have been deemed illegal citizens and burdened with the obligation to prove their nationality beyond reasonable doubt. Persecution of genuine Indian citizens, who suffer the trauma of exclusion, is a direct breach of the rule of law. If states remain unwilling to honour their international commitments, the judiciary must display exemplary constitutional courage in reviving India’s civilizational heritage of inclusiveness and uphold the country’s obligation to foster respect for international law under Article 51(c) of its Constitution (36), thereby remedying its catastrophic ‘commitment deficit’ to the established and unalienable principles of international law.

     

    References

    The Citizenship Act, 1955. Available at: https://indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1522/1/a1955-57.pdf

    The Foreigners Act, 1946. Available at: https://indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2259/3/A1946-31.pdf>

    U.N. World Migration Report, 2020. Available at: https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/wmr_2020.pdf

    Ministry of External Affairs, India and Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement. Available at: https://mea.gov.in/Uploads/PublicationDocs/24529_LBA_MEA_Booklet_final.pdf

    UNHCR, The State of World’s Refugees, 2000. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/pubs/sowr2000/ch03.pdf

    Is India Creating its Own Rohingya, New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/opinion/india-citizenship-assam-modi-rohingyas.html

    4 Million Indian Citizens Could Be Made Stateless Tomorrow. Here’s What to Know, TIME. Available at: https://time.com/5665262/india-national-register-of-citizens-stateless-assam/

    In a corner of India, 2 million risk becoming stateless after release of final citizenship list, The Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/two-million-risk-becoming-stateless-after-indian-state-releases-final-list-of-citizens/2019/08/31/539d8d34-cb28-11e9-9615-8f1a32962e04_story.html

    Assam NRC: What next for 1.9 million ‘stateless’ Indians?, BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-49520593

    Determination of Citizenship through Lineage in the Assam NRC Is Inherently Exclusionary, Economic and Political Weekly Engage. Available at: https://www.epw.in/engage/article/determination-citizenship-through-lineage-assam-nrc-exclusionary

    The Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 1954. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/ibelong/wp-content/uploads/1954-Convention-relating-to-the-Status-of-Stateless-Persons_ENG.pdf

    Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 1961. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/ibelong/wp-content/uploads/1961-Convention-on-the-reduction-of-Statelessness_ENG.pdf

    The Citizenship Question Should Also Interrogate the Insider-Outsider Binary, Economic and Political Weekly Engage. Available at: https://www.epw.in/engage/article/citizenship-question-should-also-interrogate

    How the National Citizenship Registration in Assam is shaping a new national identity in India, The Conversation. Available at :https://theconversation.com/how-the-national-citizenship-registration-in-assam-is-shaping-a-new-national-identity-in-india-121152

    Assam and NRC — the struggle to belong where you belong, The Hindu. Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/thread/politics-and-policy/assam-and-nrc-the-struggle-to-belong-where-you-belong/article29702277.ece

     Assam Citizenship Issue: Supreme Court acted inconsistent with International Law, Counterview.org. Available at: https://counterview.org/2019/12/02/assam-citizenship-issue-supreme-court-acted-inconsistent-with-international-law/

    Designed to Exclude: How India’s Courts are allowing Foreigners Tribunals to Render people Stateless in Assam, Amnesty International. Available at: https://amnesty.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Assam-Foreigners-Tribunals-Report-1.pdf

    Children out, parents in: The real challenge begins now that final Assam NRC is here, The Print. Available at: https://theprint.in/opinion/children-out-parents-in-the-real-challenge-begins-now-that-final-assam-nrc-is-here/284862/

    Women ‘Worst Victims’ of NRC: Gender and Discriminatory Nature of the Register Revealed, The Citizen. Available at: https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/NewsDetail/index/7/17924/Women-Worst-Victims-of-NRC-Gendered-and-Discriminatory-Nature-of-the-Register-Revealed

    NRC process is especially discriminatory towards women, National Herald. Available at: https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/nrc-process-is-especially-discriminatory-towards-women

    Uncounted in Assam NRC final draft: School teacher, one of twins, MLA, B.Ed. student, social worker in Delhi, The Indian Express. Available at:https://indianexpress.com/article/north-east-india/assam/assam-citizenship-nrc-final-draft-names-missing-rajnath-singh-sarbananda-sonowal-5285568/

    Ghosh, S. (2019). “Everything Must Match” : Detection, Deception and Migrant Illegality in the India-Bangladesh Borderlands. In: American Anthropologist Volume 121, Issue 4. Available at: https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aman.13313

    Article 326, The Constitution of India. Available at: https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_of_india/elections/articles/Article%20326

    Who is a “D” voter?, The Office of the State Coordinator of National Registration (NRC) Assam. Available at: http://www.nrcassam.nic.in/faq09.html

    The Convention on Nationality of Married Women. Available at:https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVI-2&chapter=16&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=_en

    Convention on Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cedaw.aspx

    Guidelines on Statelessness No.4, United Nations Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/50d460c72.html

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Available at: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx

    Convention on Rights of the Child. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

    Every Child’s Birth Right : Inequities and trends in Birth Registration, UNICEF. Available at: https://data.unicef.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/12/Birth_Registration_lores_final_24.pdf

    Don’t treat children as NRC ‘collateral damage’: Assam NGO, The Hindu. Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/dont-treat-children-as-nrc-collateral-damage-assam-ngo/article29286915.ece

    Inside Assam’s Detention Camps: How the Current Citizenship Crisis Disenfranchises Indians, Economic and Political Weekly Engage. Available at: https://www.epw.in/engage/article/inside-assams-detention-camps-how-current

    Government of Assam, White Paper on Foreigners Issue, 2015. Available at: http://onlineedistrict.amtron.in/web/home-and-political-department/white-paper

    Ardent, H. (2004). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Available at: https://www.azioniparallele.it/images/materiali/Totalitarianism.pdf

    Article 51 (c), The Constitution of India. Available at: https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_of_india/directive_principles_of_state_policy/articles/Article%2051

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) has been marked by widespread public protests for the past year, starting in June 2019 with a march against the extradition bill and closely followed by protests against the National Anthem Bill in January 2020. On May 28, the National People’s Congress (NPC) of the People’s Republic of China (China) approved a draft for a new national security legislation (NSL) for HKSAR, which sparked renewed protests. The NSL drew instant criticism from the International Commission of Jurists. It was also condemned in a joint statement issued by Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States, which described the NSL as a violation of the liberties of HKSAR residents undermining the “one country, two systems” policy (Instrument 9 to the Basic Law of HKSAR). Given this new reality, what are the implications of this new policy? Was such a law a necessity in the current circumstances or only a measure to tighten the leash on the semi-autonomous region?

    Legal background: Hong Kong-China relations

    The relationship between China and the HKSAR is based on the 1997 Joint Declaration of the governments of the United Kingdom and China. Paragraph 3 of this declaration states that “HKSAR shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy, except in foreign and defence affairs” and that “the maintenance of the public order in HKSAR shall be the responsibility of HKSAR”. However, paragraph 1 states that China shall exercise sovereignty and direct authority over Hong Kong, thus creating a relationship of “one country and two systems”.

    Article 23 of the Basic Law of the HKSAR requires the Hong Kong government to pass laws against acts of treason, secession, sedition or subversion. However, the HKSAR Legislative Council (LegCo) has been unable to pass any comprehensive legislation, as its attempt in 2003 failed due to lack of political support within the LegCo after public protests in July. On account of this alleged legislative vacuum, China has approved the NSL, thus bypassing HKSAR’s autonomy. However, the increased Chinese control over Hong Kong is nothing new – in fact, since 2019, China has attempted to implement new legislation in Hong Kong on several occasions.

    The planned 2019 extradition bill tried to implement extradition provisions for prosecution of Hong Kong residents in mainland China. However, the HKSAR government withdrew the bill due to the widespread demonstrations that ensued. Unlike the extradition bill, the LegCo passed the controversial National Anthem Bill in June 2020, amid public outcry. The law criminalizes disrespect of the Chinese national anthem, perceived as a symbol of Chinese occupation and oppression by many in Hong Kong. The enactment thus also bans Hong Kong’s unofficial national anthem (March of the Volunteers), previously used as a sign of resistance against Chinese governance. Despite protests over the past year, it seems that China is only increasing its legal authority and control over the semi-autonomous region, through the recent NSL and potentially future legislation to come.

    The Final Nail in the Coffin?

    On 30 June, the NPC passed the NSL thereby imposing a sweeping law to curb revolutionary activities in Hong Kong. The statement of the Chief Executive highlighted that the law targets “acts of secession, subverting state power, terrorist activities and activities interfering with the HKSAR’s internal affairs by external forces”. The law also enables China’s national security institutions to set up intelligence agencies in HKSAR allegedly to safeguard national security. Following its implementation, the law was sharply criticised by the international community. The UN Human Rights Council warned that its vague and broad terminology might allow for arbitrary interpretations and condone human rights violations. Amnesty International categorised the law as a “weapon of repression”, while the EU described it as “seriously undermining the high degree of autonomy of Hong Kong”. Despite this, China and the HKSAR government appear to be standing their ground.

    No legislative vacuum

    According to China, there is no security legislation under Hong Kong’s Basic Law. However, this is far from the truth. In April 2020, HKSAR’s Secretary of Security admitted that the regional government does have a series of laws covering issues of national security, including the Public Order Ordinance 1967 (PO Ordinance), the Crimes Ordinance 1971, and the 1999 Emergency Regulations Ordinance. This legislation already implements the objectives of the NSL, indicating that the aim of this new legislation may instead be to suppress pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong and ensure the future integration of the region into China. In that sense, the NSL appears to be little more than a strategic attempt at policing political expression, part of a wider strategy by the Chinese government that may go far beyond national security itself.

    Chilling effect on freedoms

    In targeting the acts of subversion, secession and terrorism, the NSL infringes upon freedoms expression and peaceful assembly. The use of broad terminology without clear legal application will undoubtedly serve to curtail freedoms, as has already happened in mainland China. Indeed, the crimes outlined in the new legislation may include peaceful protests and marches as acts of subversion. Moreover, the NSL makes no distinction between inciting subversion and direct acts against the government, thus broadening the scope of its application and creating further room for misuse. The NSL (Art. 29) also criminalizes sharing state secrets or intelligence with foreign organizations, citing connections with foreign entities as interference into internal political affairs. If this rule is to be implemented, this would effectively cut-off Hong Kong from the international community and thus put its residents behind China’s so-called “iron curtain”.

    Finally, the NSL encroaches upon the democratic separation of powers. Indeed, the prosecution of crimes relating to national security will be overseen by a panel of judges appointed by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Office for Safeguarding National Security of Central People’s Government in Hong Kong (Office for Safeguarding National Security of CPG in HKSAR), a body supervised by and accountable to the Chinese government. Prosecutions may even be conducted by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, a Chinese investigation agency. Law enforcement has also been given exceptional powers of search and seizure and may now carry out ‘covert surveillance’ of suspects.

    Direct control through intelligence agencies

    The new legislation also allows Chinese intelligence agencies to carry out direct surveillance and information-gathering within Hong Kong. While Hong Kong’s Basic Law (Art. 22) states that no department of China’s government shall interfere with its internal affairs, Chinese officials have refused to characterize the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Offices (HKMAO) as “departments”. Through this manipulation, Chinese intelligence agencies may now administer security and surveillance operations in Hong Kong.

    Indeed, Article 17 of the NSL allows for the creation of a special department within the Hong Kong government to collect and analyse security-related intelligence. As with the NSL’s judicial body, the head of this department is to be appointed by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Office for Safeguarding National Security of CPG in HKSAR. The Office is listed as beyond Hong Kong jurisdiction, thereby placing it outside the reach of judicial review. Through the NSL, the Chinese government may now effectively set up a de facto surveillance system in Hong Kong, thus expanding China’s Big Brother-like society.

    Conclusion

    The EU Parliament is currently considering taking China to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the grounds of its breach of the ICCPR and the Joint Declaration, and governments including the U.S., UK, Canada and Australia have imposed economic and diplomatic sanctions against the country. Unless China bows down to these international pressures, its strategic security legislation will further undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy and severely threaten the liberties of its residents in the process. The contents of the legislation clearly indicate an irreversible shift in Chinese policy towards increased control over Hong Kong, through the expansion and imposition of its legislative, executive and judicial powers over the region. Recently, the Hong Kong government postponed the highly awaited LegCo elections, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext; however, for the opposition and many outside observers, this moves appears to be a step to prevent the possible downfall of the pro-Beijing government which has fallen out of favour with Hong Kong residents. The NSL appears to be the death of the pro-democracy voices in Hong Kong that had risen in the last year, as its recent implementation has already led to crackdowns against activists and protests. Prominent activists have swiftly left the region and started plans for a parliament in exile. The “one country, two systems” arrangement is supposed to last for 27 more years as per the Joint Declaration; as things currently stand, the end of Hong Kong’s autonomy appears much closer.

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • In the United States and Europe, abortion as a regulated practice was not legal until the mid-1970s. Yet, in the year 1971, India passed the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, regulating the process of abortion in the country. Consequently, in March 2020, in what may be termed as a significant development, the Indian parliament passed the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Amendment. Interestingly, the word ‘abortion’ is not mentioned anywhere in the bill. Moreover, the amendment does not appear to grant women full autonomy over the abortion process. In that sense, was this amendment truly a step in the right direction?

    The concept of abortion has always been contentious. Indeed, there is a stark clash of ideals between the two ethically distinct concepts, pro-life and pro-choice. The essential components of a person’s reproductive rights, (in the instant case, abortion) are autonomy and dignity. Autonomy and abortion can be viewed as interconnected, yet conflicting terms. The principle of autonomy follows that an individual must have the right to take the final decision, after being provided complete information regarding the act. It implies that the individual has the right and the capacity to deal with matters concerning their health, and would do so according to their own moral understanding of the same. This concept of autonomy, developed in contemporary bio-ethics, play an important role in abortion law practices. Abortion may be seen as an issue that concerns the autonomy of pregnant women, by recognizing her right to choose. Therein lies the connection between the concepts of autonomy and abortion.  Therefore, for the case in point, the practice of regulating the choice of abortion, interfering with the woman’s autonomy, is problematic. The final decision must rest with the mother and only the mother.

    The present amendment has its merits. In fact, it has raised the upper limit for abortion from 20 to 24 weeks, a practice adopted by several countries around the world. It also recognises the right to abort in the case of rape. Finally, the use of the term “partner” as opposed to “husband” may draw the conclusion that women outside of marriage may also avail abortion without constraints.

    However, abortion itself is treated as a taboo in India. Even though married women in India have the legal right to abortion, they face challenges. According to traditional schools of thought, abortion is a transgression against divine laws and this engenders shame and stigma associated with pre-marital sex and abortion in society. This stigma is rooted in the concept of inherent gender discrimination, where a woman’s worth is measured by her role as wife and mother. As written by Simone de Beauvoir, “Women has ovaries and a uterus; such are the particular conditions that lock her in her subjectivity.” She goes on to quote Michelet, “humanity is male, and man defines woman, not in herself, but in relation to himself; she is not considered an autonomous being“.

    In this light, the omission of the word “abortion” in the amendment is no surprise. Rarely is the woman seen as an independent being, unimpeded from making choices regarding her reproductive health. However, governing the latter was seemingly never the intention of the MTP act. In fact, a provision of the act begins with a precondition, “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code…”. Consequently, we may understand that the MTP act is seen less as a procedure aiming to protect women’s health, but rather as means of ensuring the protection of medical practitioner from any penal provisions in the Indian Penal Code. The bill does not, in any manner, focus on women’s rights, failing to mention provisions regarding safe abortions.

    Article 3-(2) of the bill states that the doctor will allow an abortion only if there is substantial risk to the physical and mental wellbeing of the woman. In all situations, consent of the medical practitioner is necessary. Where the pregnancy is more than 20 weeks, but less than 24 weeks, consent of two medical practitioners is compulsory. Although abortion is allowed in situations of rape, foetal abnormalities and failure of contraceptive devices, it also means that the final decision to go ahead with the abortion lies with the medical practitioner, and not with the mother. Where, a situation may arise that a woman does not fall into the above categories, but still does not wish to carry the child to term, the medical practitioner may deny the abortion for any number of reasons; yet there is no provision keeping a check on this. To that end, women become secondary decision makers with matters concerning their own bodies. If a woman does not have complete control over her reproductive health, are we not diminishing the principle of autonomy as we know it?

    Astonishingly, even though the Supreme Court in India recognised the women’s right to make reproductive choices, a facet of their personal liberty as determined in Mrs. X v. Union of India 2017, the current bill simply fails to recognise it. Additionally, in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 2017, autonomy over reproductive health was recognised as a fundamental right deriving from the right to privacy. The Amendment Act contradicts the Apex court’s recognition regarding matters concerning a woman’s body and does not uphold the fundamental right that has been recognised in the above cases.

    The clash of opinions on whether abortion is morally right will seemingly remain in the foreseeable future of contemporary society. Nonetheless, should women choose to go ahead with an abortion, regardless of the reason, they must be adequately protected by the law in doing so. Hence, women must have complete control over that decision, to bring or not bring a child into this world. This and only this would be a true recognition of female autonomy and uphold gender equality in society.

    In conclusion, the role of the law and the state, in cases concerning reproductive health, must be limited to providing quality care, rather than protecting medical practitioners or regulating the decisions of women in question. Overall, the bill is a step in the direction of broadening women’s rights – but is it good enough?

     

    References

    (2000). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Erlanger Medical Ethics Orientation Manual, [online]. Available at: https://www.utcomchatt.org/docs/biomedethics.pdf [Accessed: 26 Jun. 2020].

    Agrawal, S. (2017). 56% abortions in India unsafe despite being legal; kill 10 women every day. Business Standard, [online]. Available at: https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/56-abortions-in-india-unsafe-despite-being-legal-kill-10-women-every-day-117112200168_1.html [Accessed: 26 Jun. 2020].

    Centre for Reproductive Rights, (1992-2020). The World’s Abortion Laws. [online] Available at: https://reproductiverights.org/worldabortionlaws [Accessed 20 Jul. 2020].

    De Beauvoir, S. (2011). The Second Sex. [ebook] New York: Vintage Books, pp.25-26. Available at: http://file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/The%20second%20sex.pdf [Accessed 14 Jul. 2020].

    Iyer, M. (2017). 1.6 crore abortions a year in India, 81% at home: Study. The Times of India, [online]. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/1-6-crore-abortions-a-year-in-india-81-at-home-study/articleshow/62030066.cms [Accessed: 26 Jun. 2020].

    K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. [2017] SCC 10 (Supreme Court of India); 1.

    Kedia, S., Banerjee, P., Nandy, A., Vincent, A., Sabarwal, P., & Kato-Wallace, J. (2018). Exploring Male Engagement In Premarital Abortion. [pdf] New Delhi, India: ICRW & Promundo-US, p.19. Available at: https://www.icrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Abortion-Study-14_Nov_2018-FINAL-web.pdf [Accessed 14 Jul. 2020].

    Kumar, S. (2020). Why India’s Law on Abortion Does Not Use the Word ‘Abortion’. Vidhi: Centre for Legal Policy, [online]. Available at: https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/2020/05/15/why-indias-law-on-abortion-does-not-use-the-word-abortion/ [Accessed: 26 Jun. 2020].

    Loc.gov, (2015). Abortion Legislation In Europe. [online] Available at: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/abortion-legislation/europe.php [Accessed 14 Jul. 2020].

    Makleff, S., Wilkins, R., Wachsmann, H., Gupta, D., Wachira, M., Bunde, W., Radhakrishnan, U., Cislaghi, B. and E Baum, S. (2019). Exploring Stigma And Social Norms In Women’s Abortion Experiences And Their Expectations Of Care. [ebook] UK: Taylor & Francis Group, pp.50-64. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26410397.2019.1661753 [Accessed 14 Jul. 2020].

     Mrs. X And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors. [2017] (Supreme Court of India).

    Parliament, (1971). The Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act. India: Government of India (Act No. 34 of 1971), p.1.

    Parliament, (2020). The Medical Termination Of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill. India: Government of India (Bill No. 55-C of 2020), p.1.

    Paul, S. (2020). India’s Liberal Abortion Law, Nullified By Social Stigma. Inter Press Service News Agency, [online]. Available at: http://www.ipsnews.net/2020/04/india-liberal-abortion-law-nullified-social-stigma/ [Accessed 14 Jul. 2020].

    PRS Legislative Research, (2020). The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2020. [online]. Available at: https://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/medical-termination-pregnancy-amendment-bill-2020 [Accessed: 26 Jun. 2020].

     Roe v. Wade. [1973] U.S 410 (Supreme Court of the United States);133.

    Stanford University. What Are The Basic Principles Of Medical Ethics?. [online] Available at: https://web.stanford.edu/class/siw198q/websites/reprotech/New%20Ways%20of%20Making%20Babies/EthicVoc.htm#:~:text=Bioethicists%20often%20refer%20to%20the,beneficence%2C%20and%20non%2Dmaleficence. [Accessed 14 Jul. 2020].

    Suresh, H. and Kurian, S. (2018). How Stigma And Restricted Access Stop Indian Women From Seeking Safe Abortions. The NEWS minute, [online]. Available at: https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/how-stigma-and-restricted-access-stop-indian-women-seeking-safe-abortions-92505 [Accessed 14 Jul. 2020].

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • The COVID-19 crisis has raised many challenges to the protection of human rights. There has been much criticism about whether the state has fulfilled its positive duty to protect our health and wellbeing. More controversy, however, seems to lie in the restrictions posed by the state on rights, in particular, human rights. Both lockdown and post lockdown measures, including detention, sweeping surveillance and monitoring, could pose a substantial risk of being used in serious human rights violation. The state actions and omissions in this global health emergency have led to a real clash between liberty and state control.

    The COVID-19 crisis has pushed us to rethink the nature of human rights and the ways in which we may mitigate the tensions between liberty and state actions. Much debate, however, has attended to a two-part, or binary, relationship between the individual and the state, leaving out important discussions of the desires and needs of society. My research project on Harold Laski and China funded by the British Academy Mid-Career Fellowship has given me the opportunity to uncover the legacy of Harold Laski in rethinking the nature of human rights and their relationship with the individual, society and the state amid COVID-19.

    Harold Laski (1893-1950) was one of the most important twentieth century public intellectuals. He was Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics, a centre for socialist thinking founded by the Fabians, from 1926 to 1950. He was one of the major theorists of democratic socialism. Yet, both academics and lay audiences seem to have forgotten the importance of Laski’s works. Ralph Miliband (1995, p.240) pointed it out that ‘it is now fashionable to believe that Laski’s writings are mostly irrelevant to the problems we ourselves now confront. I believe this to be a mistaken view’. This short article concurs with Miliband’s view, and argues that Laski’s conception of rights is important for us to rethink the nature of human rights and the relationship between the individual, society and the state amid COVID-19.

    Laski was a prolific writer, and throughout his life he maintained a close and substantial link with the legal profession. Laski favoured political pluralism during the period between 1914-1920. From the early 1920s till 1931, the Webbs and their Fabian socialism exerted more influence on Laski. Under the Fabian influence, Laski sought more statist solutions to social problems. After 1930, Laski’s thinking underwent major transformations largely due to a series of significant events, domestic and international, which led him to become a Marxist (Kramnick and Sheerman, 1993, p.3). These events include the Labour Party’s collapse in Great Britain, unemployment, the worldwide economic depression, and the rise of fascism in Spain and Germany. Laski, however, maintained his liberal commitment to civil liberties all his life.

    The writings of Laski’s Fabian period culminated in the publication of A Grammar of Politics in 1925. Although A Grammar of Politics marked a major shift towards statist solutions to social problems, Laski’s pluralism and his defence of the rights of individuals persisted. A synthesis between liberty and social life is exemplified in Laski’s definition of rights as ‘conditions of social life without which no man can seek, in general, to be himself at his best’ (Laski, 1930 [1925], p.91) For Laski, rights are essentially a social concept, and individual rights are closely related to social life. In this sense the rights of the individual and state power cannot be separated from each other, as the state has the primary responsibility for helping the individual develop their best self. The state does not create rights. Rather, the state plays an important role in realising and protecting rights.

    Lord Wedderburn (1995, p.25) once said that ‘few scholars had the lasting effect that Harold Laski had on his students’.  Laski’s work has been elaborated and developed by his students. Laski’s conception of rights, for example, had a great influence on his Chinese disciples in Republican China (1911-1949). Laski’s disciples include Luo Longji (1898-1965), founder of the China Democratic League and advocate for human rights. In 1922 Luo arrived in the United States to pursue further studies and received a master’s degree at the University of Wisconsin in 1925. He then came to England and studied at the London School of Economics for one year writing up his thesis on Parliamentary elections in England. He returned to the United States and completed a PhD at Columbia University in 1928. Both his master’s and PhD thesis were about Parliamentary elections in England. Laski helped Luo make connections with different party organisations in conducting his fieldwork.

    In 1929 Luo Longji published an essay ‘On Human Rights’ (Lun renquan) in the Crescent (xinyue) Magazine, which stood out as the most theoretically sophisticated discussion of the meaning and nature of human rights among the numerous articles published during the human rights debate (1929-1930) in Republican China.

    In elaborating the meaning of human rights, Luo Longji often quoted Laski’s A Grammar of Politics. Luo Longji argued: ‘Human rights, simply put, are the rights that [are needed] to be a person (zuo ren). Human rights are those conditions necessary for one to be a person’ (Luo, 1929, English translation in Angle, 1999, p. 80). Those conditions necessary for one to be a person include: first, the rights of clothing, food and shelter, as well as the protection of bodily safety; second, the rights for developing one’s nature and personality in order to become the best possible person one can be; finally, as an individual is also a member of society, an individual has an obligation to allow the great majority to enjoy the greatest possible well-being (Luo 1999[1929], pp. 81-82). For both Laski and Luo, the test of human rights was social function.

    Laski’s conception of rights, elaborated by Luo, helps us rethink the nature of human rights and the kinds of human rights we currently desire during the COVID-19 crisis. Our human rights can be grouped into three broad categories: those for preserving life; those for developing individual personality and nature; and those for attaining the goal of the greatest well-being for the vast majority of humanity.

    The state’s function is to protect human rights, that is, the conditions necessary to be human. Therefore, the state should protect an adequate standard of living so that the individual can have food, clothing, shelter and health care during this global health emergency. The state also needs to protect mental health during both the crisis and recovery periods (this is why protecting access to green spaces while maintaining social distancing is important during the lockdown). To protect the third group of human rights is the most challenging: the state really needs to balance the protection of individual rights and the rights of society, bearing in mind that individuals bear the burden of justifying the restrictions on individual rights unequally (people live with or without a garden for example).

    Laski seems almost forgotten today. Yet this essay shows that his ideas have much relevance to contemporary issues we are dealing with in our own time. Laski’s conception of rights challenges the dichotomy of the individual versus the state in dealing with the human rights issues arising from the COVID-19 crisis, bringing in a thinking of the needs and desires of society. It also provokes a rethinking of possibilities to balance those tensions between individualism and social control and between liberty and collective responsibilities during this extremely challenging and uncertain time. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of solidarity and cooperation for tackling the crisis.

     

    References

    Kramnick, Isaac and Barry Sheerman. 1993, Harold Laski. A Life on the Left. London: Hamish Hamilton.

    Laski, Harold. 1930, Fourth Impression; first published 1925. A Grammar of Politics London: George Allen & Unwin LTD.

    Luo Longji. 1929. ‘On Human Rights [Lun Renquan]’, Volume 2, Number 5, the Crescent; English translation in Longji Luo, trans. Stephen C. Angle, Contemporary Chinese Thought, 31, no. 1 (1999 [1929]): 78–83.

    Miliband, Ralph. 1995. ‘Harold Laski’s Socialism’, The Socialist Register, 239–63.

    Lord Wedderburn. 1995. ‘Laski’s Law Behind the Law: 1906 to European Labour Law’, in Law, Society and Economy: Centenary Essays for the London School of Economics and Political Science, ed. R Rawlings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 25–61.

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • Last year’s unprecedented fires in the world’s most biodiverse rainforest, the Amazon, made headlines not only because it was a major climate crisis but also because Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro fallaciously accused Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) of setting the forest on fire, stating that they intended to create public outrage and harm his government’s image. According to him, their motive was to protest the cutting down of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) funding. This offensive and disparaging statement was made without any evidence. This irresponsible attitude towards civil society has also been exhibited by other world leaders, misusing their influential positions to publicly humiliate NGOs. Similar derogatory remarks have been made by Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison. In 2019, he called these organisations ‘anarchists and vowed to outlaw civil society groups campaigning against Australian businesses. In 2016, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi claimed to be a victim of NGOs, frantically stating that ’NGOs conspire from morning to night on how do we finish Modi, how do we remove his government, how do we embarrass Modi?’. Hostile attitudes towards these organisations are reflected not only in their words but actions too. For instance, in 2018 the Pakistani Government ordered as many as 21 NGOs to renew their registration, but denied the renewal of these licenses without sufficient reason after they submitted the new applications. Furthermore, Russian President Vladimir Putin enacted a law in 2012 under which NGOs were to be declared  foreign agents’ if they received any funding from abroad to which Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed her dissent and said that Russia must rather encourage civil societies.

    These statements are problematic because  global leaders have an  international obligation to respect and promote the works of these organisations under the United Nation’s Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In the resolution adopted by Human Rights Council (United Nations General Assembly) on 9th October 2013, 3rd October 2014, and 1st July, 2016, they urged that States should acknowledge publicly the important and legitimate role of civil society in the promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law’. It was also emphasized that civil societies play an important role at not only local but also national, regional, and international levels. While leaders are busy issuing belittling statements, the UN’s Special Rapporteur suggested that the very first step to reduce such threats and risks is an issuance of public statements by States already recognising the civil society’s status and role, thereby strengthening the legitimacy of their work. States are required to adopt measures to endorse the campaigns organised by NGOs and by pay tribute to the contributions made by them. In one of the reports submitted by the special rapporteur, it has also been proposed that not only state but non-state actors and international communities too should acknowledge, respect, and support their activities through public recognition of their role as well as through technical or financial assistance. For instance, when attempts are made to defame NGOs by wrongly accusing them of being ‘terrorists, criminals or against the State’, the media could counter these attempts by promptly challenging them.

    The resolutions also call for a proper legal framework, via comprehensive and transversal policy by Governments, to establish an enabling environment where their work is respected. Since domestic legal and administrative provisions are misused in a manner to hinder their work, the need for reviewing and amending national legislation and policies is highlighted – a check-and-balance mechanism for the promotion and protection of these organisations, remaining consistent with international law, international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Countries like Germany, India and the United Kingdom voted in favour but tellingly China and Russia were against these resolutions. The Council of Europe and the European Union  have also called for states to take effective measures to ensure that their activities are respected.

    Here, it is pertinent to note that when world leaders blatantly abuse and disrespect CSOs and NGOs, they not only breach international obligations, but the creation of this kind of hostile environment ultimately has ramifications for the work of the organisations. For instance, Uganda’s 2016 NGO Act restricts organisations from advocating for the LGBTQ+ community, sex workers, and women’s sexual and reproductive health rights including access to safe abortions. By cancelling the  Greenpeace’s FCRA licence, the Indian Government also took a backward step in the  fight against climate change and limited the dissemination of information on environmental issues. However, the move was stayed by the High Court of India. These cases are the tip of the iceberg. Painted as threats to security, development, and traditional values, members of these organisations risk human rights violations including assassination, forced disappearances, smear campaigns, harassment, intimidation, assaults, and violent threats. As these statements further ingrain harmful ‘us versus them’ narratives, genuine efforts by organisations are delegitimised and the blame for social and political grievances are put on them.

    Moreover, these States’ reliance upon civil society since the outbreak of COVID-19 further highlights the hypocrisy of their claims. The Indian Government is now appealing to over 92,000 NGOs/CSOs to assist them in identifying hotspots, appointing volunteers and care givers to vulnerable groups to raise awareness about prevention, social distancing, and combating stigma, to provide shelter to homeless, daily wage workers, and urban poor families and set up community kitchens for migrants. NGOs are clearly at the forefront in this time of crisis, despite being openly labelled as foreign agents, terrorists, anti-nationals, criminals, undesirables, and defenders of demons.

    While firmly acknowledging the need to critique contentions surrounding the practices of CSOs themselves, particularly of International NGOs, their efforts have made and continue to make tangible progress for the establishment of human rights and social justice. Thus, there is a necessity for state and non-state actors to come together and condemn state leaders for their non-compliance to the resolutions, and explicitly recognize the legitimacy of these organisations, publicly support their work, and acknowledge their contribution to the advancement of human rights.

     

    References

    Amnesty International (2017), Human Rights Defenders under Threat – A Shrinking Space for Civil Society, 16 May [Online], Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5a7db6494.html

    BBC News. (2013), Angela Merkel tells Vladimir Putin – Russia needs NGOs, 8 April [Online], Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22060993

    BBC News (2019), Russia to label individuals as ‘foreign agents’ under new law, 3 December [Online], Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50643705

    CNBC (2019), Igniting global outrage, Brazil’s Bolsonaro baselessly blames NGOs for Amazon fires, 22 August [Online], Available at https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/22/brazil-jair-bolsonaro-baselessly-blames-ngos-for-amazon-fires.html

    Declaration of the Committee of Ministers  on Council of Europe action to improve the protection of human rights defenders and promote their activities , 6 February 2008, Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Defenders/DeclarationHRDCoECommitteeMinisters.pdf

    Ensuring protection – European Union Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, available at https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/european_union_guidelines_on_human_rights_defenders.pdf

    The Economics Times (2016), PM Narendra Modi says he is victim of NGOs’ conspiracy,  21 February [Online], Available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/pm-narendra-modi-says-he-is-victim-of-ngos-conspiracy/articleshow/51081446.cms?from=mdr

    The Economics Times (2020), Covid-19 NITI Aayog CEO writes to NGOs for assistance in relief measure,  5 April [Online], Available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/covid-19-niti-aayog-ceo-writes-to-ngos-for-assistance-in-relief-measures/articleshow/74994183.cms?from=mdr

    Greenpeace (2015), MHA blocks receipt of Indian funds to Greenpeace in an attempt to shut it down, April 14 [Online], Available at: https://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/press/2296/mha-blocks-receipt-of-indian-funds-to-greenpeace-in-an-attempt-to-shut-it-down/

    NITI Aayog (2020), Leveraging CSR To Complement India’s Covid-19 Mitigation Strategy, 21 April [2020], Available at https://niti.gov.in/leveraging-csr-complement-indias-covid-19-mitigation-strategy

    OHCHR,  Human Rights Defenders: Protecting: The Right To Defend Human Rights, Fact Sheet No. 29, Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet29en.pdf

    The Guardian (2019), Scott Morrison threatens crackdown on protesters who would ‘deny liberty’, 1 November [Online], Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/01/scott-morrison-threatens-crackdown-on-secondary-boycotts-of-mining-companies

    The New York Times (2018), Why Imran Khan Must Bat for Civil Society in Pakistan,  2 September [Online], Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/02/opinion/pakistan-imran-khan-ngo-crackdown-reform-poverty-economy.html

    UN Human Rights Council, Civil Society Space : Creating and maintaining, in law and in practice, a safe and enabling environment : resolution / adopted by the Human Rights Council, 9 October 2013, A/HRC/RES/24/21, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/53bd102d4.html

    UN Human Rights Council, Civil Society Space : Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council, 20 July 2016, A/HRC/RES/32/31, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/57e3ceac4.html

    UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders, 30 July 2015, A/70/217, available at https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/70/217

    UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of Human Rights Defenders Margaret Sekaggya, 23 December 2013, A/HRC/25/55, available at https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/HRC/25/55

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • SERENE JONES: There are few in our community that demonstrate all that Union stands for more than Judith and Bill Moyers. Ten years ago, I remember it very well, Bill Moyers started this lecture series in honor of Judith’s 75th … Continue reading

    The post Transcript: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Conversation with Bill Moyers appeared first on BillMoyers.com.

    This post was originally published on BillMoyers.com.

  • Bill Moyers sit down with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to discuss the most pressing global issues faced by present-day women leaders. Continue reading

    The post Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Conversation with Bill Moyers appeared first on BillMoyers.com.

    This post was originally published on BillMoyers.com.

  • Just bring an informed skepticism to whatever evidence each side brings to the question. And if one side is not willing to bring you any evidence at all, that should tell you something. Continue reading

    The post Bill Moyers and Steve Harper on Lawyers, Liars and Trump on Trial appeared first on BillMoyers.com.

    This post was originally published on BillMoyers.com.