International Human Rights News: Weekly Roundup

by Pauline Canham and Lauren Ng

COVID-19 Update – Stories from around the world…

Contact-tracing apps challenge the right to privacy

Countries, like the UK, looking to introduce a track-and-trace app to tackle the spread of coronavirus, would do well to learn the lessons from already-introduced schemes.  There is widespread concern about rights to privacy, freedom of movement and a slide towards totalitarian-style surveillance becoming a permanent fixture.  The Gulf state of Qatar has now introduced a contact-tracing app called EHTERAZ, which, since last Friday, is compulsory to download and use when leaving home.  Those not doing so face a fine of $55,000 or up to 3 years in prison.  Unfortunately, the security vulnerabilities of the app were not ironed out before its release, exposing those who had downloaded it to being easily hacked for extremely sensitive personal data such as name, health status and exact GPS location.  Amnesty International alerted Qatari authorities and have been assured that the issues were dealt with immediately and security fixes released within 24 hours.  Claudio Guarnieri, Head of Amnesty International’s Security Lab, said:  “If technology is to play an effective role in tackling the virus, people need to have confidence that contact-tracing apps will protect their privacy and other human rights.”

 

Community transmission underway in Cox’s Bazaar refugee camps

15,000 Rohingya have been quarantined in one area of the huge refugee camps of Cox’s Bazaar, Bangladesh.  Despite strict limitations on movement which have delayed the onset of the virus, it is now beginning to spread, prompting concern from Chief Health official, Mahbubur Rahman. “We are very worried because the Rohingya camps are very densely populated. We suspect community transmission (of the virus) has already begun,”   Overcrowding makes social distancing impossible and there is a lack of awareness of the virus, because the refugees are not permitted access to information, which adds to the difficulties of preventing the spread of infection.  Another concern is the impact on women of lockdown, with gender-based violence on the increase.

 

The humanitarian implications of COVID-19 in Yemen

With humanitarian aid reduced, funding pledges not being met and hospitals hit by air strikes, the victims of the war on Yemen, especially those living in displacement camps are at increased risk of contracting COVID-19.  Epidemiologists have estimated that coronavirus could infect 55 percent of Yemen’s population, some 16 million people.   Yemen’s health service was already collapsing under the weight of 5 years of intense war, famine, lack of fuel and overwhelming disease such as the annual cholera epidemic.  The UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reports that that people are being “turned away due to a lack of oxygen, they do not have enough Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)”.  In a statement on May 14, Save the Children said nearly 400 people in Aden were reported to have died of coronavirus-like symptoms in just one week.

 

COVID-19 Protestors attacked by police in Ecuador

Protestors were beaten with clubs by police in Ecuador as they peacefully protested against the government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.  40 protestors were met with force by 15 police, with several protestors being injured, journalists attacked and 4 human rights advocates detained, though they were released the following day after a judicial hearing found them not guilty of any crime.

 

Human Rights part of COVID-19 planning in East Africa

Africa Day was marked this week on 25th May, under the theme ‘Silencing the Guns in the context of COVID-19’, to commemorate the founding of forerunner to the African Union, the Organisation of African Unity in 1963, in Addis Ababa.  In that same city, UN workers are fighting to keep human rights front and central of the plans to tackle coronavirus.   Ensuring healthcare access, while protecting against discrimination is vital, and the office has also organised webinars to support human rights defenders, particularly women’s rights campaigners.  The other important element of their work is to monitor violations and limitations of rights, brought about through exceptional policies during a state of emergency, such as freedom of movement, freedom of speech and association and the right to education and health. Nwanneakolam Vwede-Obahor, Head of the UN Human Rights East Africa Regional Office said the pandemic had “exacerbated all of the issues we had pointed out before it began, such as poverty, the lack of access to quality education and the lack of access to health services.”

 

Other stories in focus…

International Criminal Court’s investigations into the situation in Palestine

Earlier this week, Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, released a statement condemning the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) pursuit on the war crimes committed on Palestinian territory.  Pompeo threatened that the US administration will “exact consequences” if the ICC continues with its investigations.

The ICC judges have yet to confirm their decision as to whether it maintains jurisdiction in Palestine.  Both Israeli and Palestinian authorities have failed to adequately investigate the crimes committed throughout the conflict.  It has been argued that should the ICC be permitted to carry out an impartial examination of these crimes, it would allow measures of accountability to be upheld, ensuring victims are given appropriate recourse to the rights and dignity they deserve.

 

Spotlight on Biodiversity Day 2020

In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, the link between health and its interaction within the global ecological system has been highlighted, reminding us of the importance in conserving sustainable resources.

May 22 is recognised as International Day for Biological Diversity. Released on this day, State of The World’s Forests report underscored that nearly 420 million hectares of forests have been lost due to ongoing land expansion, contributing to the destruction of biodiversity.  This deforestation has predominantly been attributed to large-scale agriculture expansion carried out by commercial entities, namely cattle ranching, soy bean cultivation and palm oil.

 

 

Other stories making the news around the world

International

• Can Covid-19 Help Ease the Climate Crisis? (Human Rights Watch)
• COVID-19: New women-led UN initiative aims to save lives and protect livelihoods (UN News)

 

Africa

• Rwanda genocide: How Félicien Kabuga evaded capture for 26 years (BBC)
• Somalia looks to first full elections in 51 years, despite COVID-19 crisis (UN News)
• Victims of intercommunal violence in South Sudan deserve ‘justice, truth and reparations’: Bachelet (UN News)

 

Middle East

• UN welcomes three-day ceasefire announcement by Afghan government and Taliban during Eid al-Fitr (UN News)
• Coronavirus: Sleepless nights for doctors in a war zone (The Guardian)

 

Asia

• Hong Kong: Beijing Threatens Draconian Security Law (Human Rights Watch)
• Japan lifts coronavirus emergency in all remaining areas (ABC News)
• Doctor who raised concerns over PPE shortage admitted to mental hospital (BBC)
• Myanmar: Imagery Shows 200 Buildings Burned (Human Rights Watch)

 

Europe

• Marie Cau: First transgender mayor elected in France (BBC)
• Malta: Disembark Rescued People (Human Rights Watch)
• Has coronavirus changed the UK justice system forever? (The Guardian)

 

South America

• In pictures: Indigenous nurse on frontline in virus fight (BBC)
• Venezuela: Urgent Aid Needed to Combat Covid-19 (Human Rights Watch)

 

North America

• Trans Mountain pipeline: Protest ban is ‘great time’ to build, says minister (BBC)
• Investigators Say One Man Shot Ahmaud Arbery. Why Are Three Charged With Murder? (New York Times)
• Why Native Americans took Covid-19 seriously: ‘It’s our reality’ (The Guardian)

 

Time for a Rights-Based Welfare State

by Rossella De Falco

Towards a more resilient economy after the COVID-19 global pandemic

The UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights has recently blamed austerity for weakening the resilience of societies in the face of shocks like the COVID-19 pandemic. The newly appointed Olivier De Schutter underlines how individuals are experiencing increased barriers in accessing healthcare as a result of regressive fiscal policies.   Indeed, even relatively robust healthcare systems, such as those of Italy and Spain, have been pushed to the brink after years of budget cuts.

De Schutter’s predecessor, Philip Alston, also denounced spiralling levels of hardship and material deprivation in the UK in the aftermath of the 2008’s global financial crisis. During his country visit, Alston depicted the lives of individuals depending on food banks and charities for their next meals, disabled people who were being told to go back to work against their doctors’ orders, as well as children growing up in poverty. Notwithstanding such appalling evidence, George Osborne, the main architect of fiscal retrenchment in the UK, is already calling for another period of belt-tightening to deal with the fiscal damage wrought by the coronavirus lock-down. However, is cutting social spending the only fiscal option available to governments at times of economic crisis?

The answer is no. Restructuring sovereign debt can, and must, be achieved in line with international human rights law. Technically, what is usually labelled as austerity is a pro-cyclical fiscal measure, which means reducing a state’s deficit by either raising revenues (increasing taxes) or decreasing spending (cutting public budgets) during a negative fluctuation in the business cycle. This explains the term pro-cyclical: as GDP growth turns negative, pro-cyclical politicians depress the economy even further by cutting the debt maturated during periods of prosperity.

Typical austerity measures implemented by governments around the world have encompassed eliminating subsidies on fuel, food or agriculture, rationalizing and narrow-targeting social safety nets, large-scale privatisation, tax increases on basic goods and services purchased by low or middle-income groups (instead of wealth and capital) as well as labour, healthcare and pension reforms. An exceptionally bleak example of these measures was Greece. The Southern European nation accepted the Troika’s international bailout programme, whose economic conditionalities included draconian budget cuts, with concerning implications for the rights to health, social security and work. As a result, Greece faced a public health emergency, with malaria outbreaks, peaks in suicides and mood disorders, an HIV epidemic, widened health inequalities and a severe deterioration in the underlying determinants of physical and mental health.

While implemented at immense human cost, austerity did not even achieve its aims. Nobel-winning economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman had tried to stop governments from applying austerity, calling it an “utter disaster”, a “suicide pact” and “a delusion”. Indeed, the International Labour Organization (ILO) calculated that spending cuts at times of crisis, far from stabilising the economy, generated more unemployment and depressed output in the long-term. Even the main supporter of austerity, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), recognized that fiscal consolidation was associated with lower growth than expected, due to an overestimation of fiscal multipliers, with the IMF’s former director, Christine Lagarde, declaring that the Fund misjudged the capacity of societies worldwide to absorb such ‘tough, frontal treatments’. Hence, the enactment of austerity worldwide after the 2008’s recession remains a conundrum. However, many suggest that austerity policies were nothing more than a by-product of neoliberal economic thinking, embodying a deliberate assault on universalism that prioritise free-markets over human rights. This is bewildering, as the crisis precisely resulted from the long-term shortcomings of unregulated financial markets, including mismanagement, corruption, as well as lack of transparency and accountability.

A rights-based approach to economic recovery can prevent another global backsliding in human rights, saving lives and placing people at the centre. Instead of austerity, governments can apply stimulus, embracing a counter-cyclical approach to fiscal policy. This has already happened, and it worked, in Iceland. According to The Economist, Iceland’s banking collapse was the hugest, relative to the size of an economy, that any country had ever suffered. Indeed, Iceland was particularly vulnerable to financial shocks after it reinvented itself as an offshore tax heaven for the world’s ultra-rich in the mid-1990s. Thus, Iceland considered IMF’s offer to apply an international bailout programme, absorbing private debt and cutting social spending. However, this galvanised public outrage and prompted several riots. As a result, in March 2010, a country-wide referendum was held, and Icelanders said “Nei!” – no in Icelandic – to austerity.

After rejecting the bailout, Iceland implemented a modern-day equivalent of the New Deal, boosting labour market programmes. This allowed the unemployed to get back to work and generate new income, which, in turn, stimulated aggregate demand. In the meanwhile, social spending rose from 21% to 25% of GDP over 2007-9, preserving pensions, social safety nets and universal healthcare. To shelter the most vulnerable groups, the Icelandic government also implemented debt relief programmes. As a result, the country achieved swift economic recovery and kept its position among the happiest nations in the world. None of the nightmares predicted by the staunchest austerity hawks came true. Bearing this lesson in mind, we can now turn to the upcoming crisis, with its own peculiarities.

Luckily, many in current global policy-making circles are supporting government intervention and spending to fight the virus slump. A rights-based approach to fiscal policy, matured after a long normative evolution, can now be brought to fruition. In addition to fiscal stimulus, debt restructuring and debt forgiveness should be carried out where needed, with the IMF and World Bank-proposed debt moratorium for the poorest countries being the first step. By the same token, the Costa Rican government has asked the World Health Organization (WHO) to create an intellectual property pool for sharing patents as to develop coronavirus vaccines and diagnostics. Furthermore, governments can invest in high-return public investment, build fairer progressive taxation systems, lift levies on wealth and capital, as well as combat corruption, tax evasion and illicit financial flows.

Even more ambitiously, states can reduce military spending and decrease corporate welfare. Before any reform, ex-ante human rights impact assessments (HRIAs) should evaluate the effects of policies on relevant stakeholders. In line with the recent UN Guiding Principles on Human Rights Impact Assessments of Economic Reforms (2019), a recovery policy that results in human rights backsliding can be pursued only after all other alternatives have been exhausted, and it must be temporary, legitimate, reasonable, necessary, proportionate, non-discriminatory and protective of minimum essential levels of need. Noteworthily, although human rights law does not dictate which economic system states should take, it demands strong procedural requirements on democratic participation, as to guarantee human rights in all policies.

A rights-based approach to public policy, however, cannot focus only on economic dips. The COVID-19 crisis is showing how universal healthcare and social protection floors save lives and make economies resilient. Therefore, socioeconomic systems that fulfil human rights are not only in line with international law; they are also economically feasible, sustainable and resistant to shocks. Neoliberalism is not the only economic theory: feminist, ecological, neo-Keynesian, innovation and public value economics are only some of the alternative views on how to arrange societies. Indeed, the traditional Manichean opposition between human rights and economics can be overcome through economic pluralism and democratic participation in policymaking. It is time to attain a  rights-based welfare state, placing people’s interests at the centre.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Rossella De Falco is a social scientist interested in advancing human rights.  She holds an LL.M. in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights from the University of Essex and an M.A. in International Affairs from the Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).  She is currently a Ph.D. Candidate in ‘Human Rights, Society and Multi-Level Governance’ at the University of Padova, Human Rights Centre ‘A. Papisca’.  Her thesis investigates the relationship between fiscal policies and the right to health in Europe after the 2008 global recession.

 

Resisting the ‘Master’: How Memory can Advance Accountability for Sri Lanka’s Disappeared

By Stephanie Nicolle

In January 2020, newly elected President Gotabaya Rajapaksa claimed that Sri Lanka’s disappeared were ‘dead’.   Thereafter, the instructions communicated by the country’s highest office were brief.  ‘Death certificates’ would be issued to the families after conducting ‘necessary investigations’. The unrelenting finality of this messaging signalled to the families that the state had chosen to move on, and so should they.

Sri Lanka’s disappeared are among the highest in the world, resulting mainly from a nearly 30-year war and two Southern insurrections. Every year, on May 18, Sri Lankans remember the lives lost due to the war and those forcibly taken away. However, the current state’s commitment to deliver genuine accountability draws scepticism from the families of the disappeared.  On the one hand, the ‘investigations’ will be conducted under a president who served as the defence secretary during the final war years and immediately after. During that time, Rajapaksa and the then administration stood accused of committing war crimes. These allegations have cast doubts over the independence of the proposed investigations. On the other, the president’s messaging reinforces a familiar state narrative that has often denied, downplayed or deflected enforced disappearance.

This article presents a case for the role that memory can play in challenging the sense of finality conveyed by the state.  First, it reviews the memory advanced by the state that has dominated Sri Lanka’s post-war years, which can be explained through the concept of a ‘master narrative’. Thereafter, it analyses an instance where individual memories were able to resist the master narrative to a certain extent. Finally, it argues for a more ‘public’ form of remembering to effectively resist the state’s narrative and amplify calls for accountability.

 

Unravelling Sri Lanka’s ‘Master’

Prof. Brian F. Havel offers a useful way of understanding the political form and function of a master narrative.  To Havel, a nation’s master narrative comprises official memory.  It is an effort by the state to prescribe its selective, top-down version of events. Especially in post-conflict societies, the master narrative is perpetuated to reconcile citizens with the state.  Its ideological function often manifests through state-authored memorialisation projects, which help entrench it.

Sri Lanka’s post-war state advanced a specific master narrative.  This narrative framed the war as a ‘humanitarian’ effort and valorised state officials as ‘war heroes’. Such language disallowed the space for any recollection beyond the parameters of this narrative, including enforced disappearances.  State-authored memorialisation projects, promoting military triumph, indicate this erasure of alternative memories.

Individual memories that contested Sri Lanka’s master narrative were often dealt with through various strategies: (1) refutation, (2) reframing such memories as ‘exaggerated’ or a ‘betrayal of the war heroes’, and (3) reconciling such memories with the master narrative.

 

Resisting the ‘Master’

Given the dominance of the master narrative, we may then ask, ‘Can the master narrative be effectively resisted?’

Certain instances in Sri Lanka’s post-war years suggest the possibility of limited yet effective resistance. One such instance is the ‘Memory Wall’ erected by the Office on Missing Persons (OMP) in 2019, where families of the disappeared were invited to commemorate their loved ones. Commemorating the disappeared at the OMP—a government body—was, arguably, a significant moment for resistance campaigns led by the families.

‘Memory Wall at the Office of Missing Persons (OMP) in Sri Lanka’. Image by Saliya Pieris

 

At the outset, the Memory Wall, albeit a temporary structure, stood as a site of resistance. It was a testament to the years of individual memories and struggles to resist the state’s pervasive master narrative.  Concurrently, it indicated a slight change in the post-war state’s response to enforced disappearance—from years of denying and discrediting to an extent of respect and recognition.

The Memory Wall, which held personal photos and penned messages, also opened an avenue for broader conversations on memorialisation.  It gave families the freedom to decide the memories they were comfortable with displaying.  The memories were, therefore, theirs to keep or share. This way, the Memory Wall stood as a marked contrast to other post-war memorials that served to legitimise the state-authored master narrative.

However, the social impact generated by the Memory Wall was short-lived.  Its significance was, to a great extent, limited to an intimate, private realm comprising the families.  This limitation likely curbed its potential to create momentum around resistance campaigns.

 

Broadening the Resistance

To effectively resist the master narrative, individual memories need to transcend the private realm and penetrate the social realm of remembrance.  They need to become part of public memory. One approach resistance campaigns can use to draw public support is memorialisation.

Memorialisations draw various responses.  For some Sri Lankan families of the disappeared, they convey ‘an end’ to the hope of meeting their loved ones. However, transitional justice practitioners continue to highlight the value of memorialisations.

Memorialisations tend to have significant restorative potential.  For the victims of past abuses, they provide a kind of reparation by publicly calling out perpetrators and recognising victims’ memories.  For the community, they urge reflection and foster empathy.  To this end, they remind us of the importance of collectively ensuring non-recurrence.

Memorialisations also attract myriad voices that are beneficial for resistance campaigns. One benefit relates to overcoming barriers to resistance. To date, state-led intimidation and surveillance attempts to silence traumatic truths from becoming public.  A larger collective can help build solidarity and create a safe space for individuals to speak.  The second benefit relates to overcoming a drawback of individual memory.

Often, the significance of individual memory, which comprises lived experience, ceases to exist when the holder of this significance is no more. In Sri Lanka, at least 70 relatives of the disappeared have passed away without receiving answers. By appealing to public consciousness, resistance campaigns allow for individual memories and campaigns to become ‘public’ and live on, despite the death of an individual.

‘A family member holds a photo of a disappeared loved one’. Image by Human Rights Watch

Part of memorialising Sri Lanka’s past atrocities relating to enforced disappearance is confronting the legitimacy struggles over memory.  That is, the right to determine whose memories are publicly acknowledged and how.  To facilitate an inclusive form of public memory, memorialisations must balance the need to respect individual memories with the need to create collective resistance.  Here, Sri Lanka may learn from countries like Argentina and Chile, which have and continue to engage in these conversations.  Both Argentina’s Parque De La Memoria and Chile’s Museum of Memory and Human Rights grappled with highlighting victim-centred accounts, the extent of state involvement, and creating a public push for accountability.

Sri Lanka’s chapter on enforced disappearance risks being closed by a state advancing a sanitised narrative of the past.  By broadening the resistance, Sri Lanka finds itself as having an avenue to keep the space for accountability open.  In the pursuit of justice, this avenue is worth considering to firmly resist the ‘master’.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephanie Nicolle works as a researcher in Sri Lanka. Her research interests mainly include ethno-religious conflict, memory studies, media ghettoisation and postcolonial discourse. She graduated from the University of Colombo with a BA (Hons.) in English and minors in International Relations and Sociology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

International Human Rights News: Weekly Roundup

By Lauren Ng and Alana Meier

COVID-19 Update – The jury is out on Sweden’s approach

“You’re pushing your cases and deaths into the future – they are not disappearing.”  While lockdown measures have been implemented throughout the globe, Sweden has taken a different approach to the coronavirus.  Similarly to the UK’s initial strategy, the Nordic country refrained from employing a nation-wide lockdown and alternatively, opted to pursue the public health measure of herd immunity and social distancing.

Herd immunity is a form of protection which is achieved when the majority of a population becomes immune to a virus, either through a vaccine or exposure to the infection; thus, preventing further spread to the non-infected members of a group and stopping its lethality.  Part of Sweden’s model involves similar strategies to that of many countries, including banning gatherings with more than 50 people, advising citizens to social distance, closing educational institutions for individuals over-16 and isolating the vulnerable, for example prohibiting visits to nursing homes.  Yet, schools for children under 16 remain open, along with shops, factories and restaurants.

Sweden has pursued this policy on grounds that “draconian measures” were viewed as unsustainable for its economy, whereas voluntary restrictions would encourage compliance for a longer period and allow its citizens to preserve their right to liberty, preventing further stress on the safety and wellbeing of its population.  While measures promoting the protection of the economy could be argued as a violation of the right to health, Swedish leaders have urged countries to consider the wider implications of their policies using a “life versus life” approach – where the economy, security and social unrest are considered as much as part of the consequences to that of physical health.  However, more recently, analysts have predicted that Sweden is unlikely to emerge unscathed by the crisis, and is expected to find itself in a similar situation to that of most countries near the end of the pandemic, although its economy is currently less affected.

Furthermore, Sweden’s death rates per million are higher compared to its neighbours.  Still, their figures are notably lower than other countries where strict lockdowns have been enforced, for instance the UK and Italy.  Additionally, the deaths in Sweden have predominantly been attributed to the government’s delayed response in restricting care home visits, which accounted for a large proportion of its mortality rates.  Compared to its counterparts who currently sit at lower levels of immunity, such as France (4.4%) or the UK (5%), it is expected that Sweden will reach herd immunity by June.

Nevertheless, to achieve herd immunity, experts predict that at least 50% to 70% of the population would need to be exposed to the virus.  In countries with greater populations, the feasibility and moral dent of this strategy is less guaranteed, with opponents arguing that the healthcare system would rapidly be overburdened and at a significantly higher cost to the health of its citizens.  In addition, it is uncertain to what extent our immunity to coronavirus lasts.  Moreover, as with any population, Sweden’s demographic is unique.  First, many of its citizens live in single-occupancy households and normally keep a physical distance in their day-to-day activities in any case; thus, reducing the chance of infection spread.  Second, its government is not ministerial, meaning its constitution does not allow the government to easily dictate what its respective administrative agencies can do.  Therefore, the government is constrained in its ability to legally implement a more stringent approach.  Finally, the Swedish population has traditionally maintained a distinguished level of trust in its institution. 70% of Sweden’s general public support its policy.  Even in the absence of a lockdown mandate, its citizens principally upheld their collective obligations and adhered to their government’s recommendations.

As to whether this method remains the right one to have pursued, the verdict remains unclear.  Although countries with strict lockdowns will likely be more susceptible in the event of a second wave, if an effective vaccine is discovered soon enough, it will provide the same level of immunity to the population at a radically lower cost to peoples’ lives.  Thus far, the first human trials of a vaccine in the US have produced positive results in its first eight patients, with the UK taskforce not far behind in its progress.  While researchers are confident a vaccine will be ready within 18 months, the Chief Scientific Advisor has warned that, as with any new vaccines, these developments are long shots and the process “will take time”, with only some attempts resulting in success.

 

Spotlight on LGBTQ+ Rights in Honour of IDAHOBIT

In 1990 the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders recognising it as a natural variant of human sexuality. This landmark decision is honoured every May 17 with International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia (IDAHOBIT).  Alongside celebrations of gender and sexual diversity taking place around the world such as the UN Free and Equal Campaign Video Release, this day offers a moment to reflect on both advances made and challenges remaining in LGBTQ+ rights.

 

With this year’s theme of “Breaking the Silence” Human Rights Watch presented a global report card on the status of LGBTQ+ rights. Yet, simply looking at this past week shows that while some countries make progress, others continue taking steps back. Ninety-six human rights and LGBT organizations signed and sent a letter to Japan’s prime minister demanding a law protecting against sexual and gender-based discrimination. Hungary passed new legislation banning the legal recognition of transgender and intersex people. Despite lawmakers around the world banning ‘conversion therapy,’ there is still concern over the success of purely punitive approaches. Protecting the advances made in human rights, is more important than ever amidst the COVID-19 crisis which has disproportionately impacted the rights of LGBTQ+ people.

 

Other stories making the news around the world

 

International

• Call to Action to Help Vulnerable Artisanal & Small-Scale Mining Communities (Human Rights Watch)

 

Africa

• SADC Leaders Meet to Discuss Urgent Opportunity to Assist Mozambique Civilians at Risk (Human Rights Watch)
• Arrest of Félicien Kabuga as Major Victory for Victims and Survivors of Rwandan Genocide (Al Jazeera)

 

Asia

• Nepal Laws Fail to Prevent Women and Girls from Growing Problem of Online Gender-Based-Violence (Human Rights Watch)
• Hong Kong Releases misleading IPCC report into Protests (Amnesty International)
• 25 Years After Tibetan Panchen Lama ‘Disappeared’ and China Battle for Religious Control Continues (Human Rights Watch)

 

South and South-east Asia

• Blogger Held over Land Dispute Report Raises Questions about Freedom of Speech in Indonesia (Human Rights Watch)
• Alarming Public Health Situation: Cambodia’s ‘War on Drugs’ Fuels Rising Human Rights Violations (Amnesty International)

 

Europe

• Open Letter Issued Urging France to End Discriminatory Police Stops and Fines (Human Rights Watch)
• France: Acquittal of Farmer who Helped Asylum Seekers Shows Acts of Solidarity should Not be Criminalized (Amnesty International)
• Must not Forget Vital Human Rights Issues in UK beyond the Pandemic (Human Rights Watch)

 

Middle East

• Families Protest Relatives gone Missing in Yemen’s Five-Year War (Al Jazeera)
• Kurdish Authorities in Iraq Suppress Protests over Unpaid Salaries (Human Rights Watch)

 

North America

• Memorandum of Understanding between Wet’suwet’en and Canada Marks Path Towards Negotiations on Aboriginal Title (Al Jazeera)
• Lawsuit Filed Against ‘Remain in Mexico’ Program seeking Answers about US Migrant Protection Protocols (Human Rights Watch)

 

Latin America

• Demonstrators in Chile Demanding Food and Medical Aid Clash with Police (Al Jazeera)

 

 

Spotlight on Sami Al Haj

By Pauline Canham

Each month, the HRC Blog will feature a significant figure, or team from the Human Rights community to go under the Spotlight, answering questions put by students from Essex University.  This month, we feature Sami Al Haj.

Image courtesy of Al Jazeera Media Network

About Sami

Sami Al Haj is the Director of the Centre for Public Liberties & Human Rights at the Al Jazeera Media Network (AJMN) in Doha, Qatar.  He was born in Sudan and started working for Al Jazeera as a cameraman in 2001.  Shortly after the events of 9/11, he was sent to cover the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, an assignment that would change his life forever.  After two months, while crossing from Kandahar across the border into Pakistan, Sami was arrested and detained by Pakistani Intelligence on 15^th December 2001 and subsequently handed over to the Americans.  Nothing could have prepared Sami for the horrors that were to come and the course that his life would take as a result.  After some time at the infamous Bagram detention facility, where he experienced harsh and humiliating treatment, he was transferred to a facility in Kandahar and then on to Guantanamo Bay, where he remained as Prisoner 345 for 6 years, without charge.

 

While there, according to Sami’s lawyer and founder of Reprieve, Clive Stafford Smith, “Sami endured horrendous cruelty – sexual abuse and religious persecution”. He was beaten, deprived of sleep and force-fed after going on hunger strike.

On 1^st May 2008, Sami was released without charge.  He said that he was glad to be free but sad that his ‘brothers’ remained in the hands of “people that claim to be champions of peace and protectors of rights and freedoms.  But a true just peace doesn’t come from military force or threats to use…bombs or economic sanctions.  Justice comes from lifting oppression and guaranteeing rights and freedoms and respecting the will of the people…”

Shortly after his release, and his long awaited reunion with his wife and son, Sami returned to Al Jazeera, where he created a new team dedicated to the field of human rights and civil liberties.

 

Students’ Questions Answered

Sami was gracious enough to allow the students at Essex an opportunity to send him and his team some questions about his experiences and ongoing work in the field of human rights:

 

Q: It is almost 20 years since 9/11 – What are the biggest changes faced by journalists and humanitarian aid workers operating on the ground in war zones, and have the policies of the war on terror had a ‘chilling effect’ on journalists’ ability to hold truth to power?

A: Regrettably,  journalists are now facing a far worse reality with regard to field coverage. Authorities, militias, and armed groups all endeavour to suppress the voice of truth.   Counter- terrorism policies went to the extent to limit the range of ethical journalism and criminalize journalists.  Press freedom has been compromised all over the world.

 

Q: To what extent do you believe that the CIA Enhance Interrogation Program at Abu Ghraib and other so called ‘black sites’ emboldened repressive regimes in their own torture practices?

A: Tyrants and dictators felt at ease seeing the free world legitimizing water-boarding and torture, we can see that in the Middle East and elsewhere.

 

Q: After your experiences at Guantanamo, do you believe in the universality of human rights both as a concept and in practice?

A: Indeed. My personal experience has provided me with a more humane universal vision and understanding.   I believe human rights should be granted to all individuals regardless of their race, religion or nationality.   Human Rights mechanisms and intentions are good.   However, unfortunately, in practice, things are quite different.

 

Q: Were you told why you were being detained in Guantanamo?   And what gave you the strength to endure your detention?

A: My guards told me that I was being brought to Guantanamo and I would never leave alive.   No information was given except that YOU ARE GUILTY, YOU ARE A TERRORIST!!   I endured due to my strong belief in Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.  Throughout my tormenting experience, I believed that I would go out and support my family.

 

Q: To what extent do we see a repetition of the policies of exceptionalism that we saw immediately after 9/11 playing out now in Syria, and how can we ensure a fair judicial process to those accused of involvement with ISIL?

A: Unfortunately, all Middle Eastern regimes  do not believe in an independent judiciary system, and the British and Americans do not want the defendants to stand trial in London nor in Washington DC.

 

Q: How can journalists, humanitarian workers and human rights practitioners maintain their safety in hostile environments?

A: They should adhere to safety guidelines, and subject themselves to strict professional training.   At our Centre at Al Jazeera, for example, we have a Safety Section, and we provide journalists in the Middle East and elsewhere with workshops on the necessity of safety.

 

Q: Can you tell us more about your team and objectives at Al Jazeera?

A: The Public Liberties and Human Rights Centre first started as a specialised desk within the Al Jazeera Arabic newsroom in 2008 and expanded to become a Centre in 2015.  The Centre now has a team of 14, all based at Al Jazeera’s headquarters in Doha, spread between the Arabic and English newsrooms and online, writing articles and doing research.  Our aim is to ensure human rights content across all AJMN platforms, to raise awareness and competence of international humanitarian law with journalists in the field,  and inform the public about human rights issues and legislation.  In addition, we endeavour to build and develop strategic partnerships with international, regional and local organisations to identify human rights violations and contribute to the promotion of freedom of expression and the press.

 

Q: How does Human Rights fit with Al Jazeera’s core business?

A: Human Rights issues are no longer fleeting news, but at the core of what the Al Jazeera Media Network does.  Al Jazeera’s interest in human rights has clearly emerged as a key element during analysis and discussion both in general and more particularly in the area of press freedom and the detention of journalists.

 

Q: What achievements you are most proud of in the work that you have done over the last 12 years?

A: I believe, over the last 12 years, we have done very well with regard to spreading the culture of human rights in the Middle East and North Africa.  We are now an effective partner of UNESCO, specifically with respect to Press Freedom and we work closely with the International Press Institution.   Our editorial section has contributed over 5,000 pieces and 6 full length documentaries and our partnership section has held more than 60 workshops with international experts from the UN and other global institutions benefitting over 1000 journalists from Al Jazeera and other media organisations.  We are also very proud of our Global Solidarity Initiatives, working in partnership with other media organisations in the areas of press freedom, anti-hate speech, protection of journalists and humanitarian workers, safeguarding displaced persons, rights of prisoners and detainees, and consolidation of transitional justice and the rule of law.

 

Q: What do you see as the biggest challenges and the top 3 priorities for human rights advocates around the world?

A: The biggest challenge right now is the rise of the far right all over the globe.  The top 3 priorities are Right to Religion, Right to Health and Press Freedom.

 

Q: What one piece of advice would you give to a human rights student just starting out on their career?

A: Never compromise.

 

My thanks to Sami and his team for engaging so generously with the questions from our students.  The HRC Blog Editorial team will be publishing further Spotlights in the coming weeks and months and welcome suggestions from students, staff and alumni for subjects they’d like to see featured.