Singers wearing hats advocating "No Torture" line up before performing at a Human Rights Day event outside of Mogadishu Central Prison in Somalia on Dec. 10, 2013. Credit: UN Photo/Tobin Jones

By Rose Delaney
ROME, Dec 26 2016 (IPS)

As Human Rights Day approached this Dec. 10, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR) issued a statement urging all governments to join in the fight for universal equality and justice.

The OHCHR emphasised the fundamental importance of the adoption and construction of an international human rights system based upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 68 years ago. The statement described the progressive declaration as “the greatest achievement of the international community since World War II”.

Since its initial implementation, the universal human rights system has relentlessly provided aid and defense to vulnerable communities and individuals under threat the world over.

However, the OHCHR is aware that any significant progress made for universal human rights can be swiftly reversed. Today, the rise of manipulative populist movements has legitimized xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, and other forms of divisive discrimination. Intrusive governments have destabilized and weakened the power of civil society.

Hate speech is on the rise, inciting violence and hostility. “A chill wind is blowing through much of the world and the very notion of human rights is under increasing attack,” the OHCHR report warned.

However, three special procedures mandate holders critiqued the statement issued by the predominantly Western OHCHR “human rights experts,” stating that it was a “far cry from reality”. While mandate-holders acknowledge the importance of “experts” on the issues surrounding sexual minorities, hate speech and homophobia, they believe the statement excluded the views of many other minority groups.

Currently, there are 43 thematic mandates and 14 mandates related to countries and territories, with 80 mandate holders. Special procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

In response to what they considered to be a “selective and imbalanced” text, the dissatisfied mandate holders issued a “complementary opinion” with the sole objective of “putting the issue of human rights in the proper perspective”. The three mandate-holders call for a “full overhaul of the UN Human rights mechanism”.

On Dec. 21, the three special procedures mandate holders released a media statement urging the international community and universal human rights mechanisms to engage in a constructive debate. The mandate holders considered the most pressing concerns to be the right to development, food security, clean water and sanitation, education, and sovereign debt restructuring.

The media statement was signed by the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Alfred de Zayas; the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of human rights by persons with albinism, Ikponwosa Ero; and the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of the unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, Idriss Jazairy.

The authors of the complementary opinion consider it imperative to evaluate and assess the root causes of conflict and inequality, not merely skim the surface by placing the blame on the resultant outcomes of unrest and instability. The mandate-holders consider this essential in the prevention of further human rights violations.

“It is not helpful to condemn ‘populism’ if one is not willing to recognize that populists are merely filling the vacuum left by governments that for decades have been insensitive to the needs of the people, who have continued ‘business as usual’, and not listened,” the complimentary opinion said.

The complimentary statement further condemned the “selective” empathy for victims of social phobias.

“There is need also to reflect on the reasons for those multiple phobias, offering guidance as to how to defuse them in a manner consistent with human rights and human dignity,” the statement continued.

The mandate holders also believe that it is precarious to condemn the rise of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” without clearly defining what they mean. “Interpretation of ‘hate speech’ cannot be left to the discretion of governments and prosecutors, as this would open the door to arbitrariness contrary to the rule of law and tantamount to censorship,” the media statement explained.

The mandate holders asked the international community to recommit to the upholding all human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of Dec. 10, 1948 and in all related Covenants and Treatises. On the occasion of New Year 2017, they urged the world to avoid “privileged selectivity” and consider all rights to be of equal importance.

“As proclaimed in the Vienna Declaration of 25 June 1993 on Human Rights: “The international community must treat human rights globally, in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis,” the statement concludes.

Legislators in Cameroon have voted in a draft law proposing the death sentence for all those guilty of carrying out, abetting or sponsoring acts of terrorism. The draft law, which is now being examined by the Cameroon Senate, call for punishment acts of terrorism committed by citizens, either individually or in complicity, with death.

The draft law also prescribes the death penalty for persons who carry out “any activity which can lead to a general revolt of the population or disturb the normal functioning of the country” and for “anyone who supplies arms, war equipment, bacteria and viruses with the intention of killing.”

The same applies for people guilty of kidnapping with terrorist intent, as well as for “anyone who directly or indirectly finances acts of terrorism” and for “anyone who recruits citizens with the aim of carrying out acts of terrorism.”“This [anti-terrorism] law is manifestly against the fundamental liberties and rights of the Cameroonian people … In the guise of fighting terrorism, the government’s real intent is to stifle political dissent” – Kah Wallah, leader of the Cameroon People’s Party

The draft law also punishes people and companies found guilty of promoting terrorism, as well as people who give false testimony to administrative and judicial authorities in matters of terrorism, with various fines and prison terms.

The anti-terrorism law has sparked a wave of criticism across the political chessboard – from opposition political leaders to civil society, church ministers and trade unions.

“This law is designed to terrorise the people and kill their freedoms,” opposition leader, John Fru Ndi told IPS.

Kah Wallah, the lone female leader of a political party in Cameroon [the Cameroon People’s Party], added that “the government is taking us back to the worst days of the most barbaric dictatorship … This law is manifestly against the fundamental liberties and rights of the Cameroonian people … In the guise of fighting terrorism, the government’s real intent is to stifle political dissent.”

For Maurice Kamto, a former cabinet minister who resigned to form the Movement for the Revival of Cameroon (MRC), President Paul Biya – now in power for 32 years – is afraid of any popular up-rising that could put his stay in power in jeopardy.

“The president has certainly learnt from the lessons coming from Burkina Faso. A similar uprising here will sweep his failed presidency under the carpet,” he said. Facing mounting pressure, President Blaise Compaoré of Burkina Faso was forced to resign on Oct. 31 after 27 years in office.

Various opposition political leaders and civil society exponents have vowed to fight the proposed law to its logical end. “Cameroonians must resist and say no to this other manoeuvre … We will fight this law by every means,” Ndi said, without elaborating.

However, Jean Mark Bikoko,  president of the Public Service Workers’ Trade Union, already has an idea on how to proceed. In a strongly-worded statement released on Dec. 3, Bikoko said that the law “is a veritable declaration of war against the people … The anti-terrorism law has provoked the ire of civil society and we will protest on December 10 – International Human Rights Day.”

But the government has said it will not falter in the fight against terrorism. Justice Minister Laurent Esso told MPs that “Cameroon will never be complicit to those whose only agenda is to cause mayhem and destabilise the normal functioning of the state.”

Counting the costs

In the north of the country, Cameroon’s military are combating cross-border raids by Nigeria’s militant Islamist group Boko Haram. On May 17, President Biya along with other regional leaders and French President François Holland said they were declaring war against Boko Haram.

Cameroon has since deployed thousands of troops in the country’s Far North Region and plans to send still more troops. Defence Minister Edgar Alain Mebe Ngo’o and Delegate General for National Security Martin Mbarga Nguele have announced that some 20,000 defence and security forces will be recruited within the next two years to reinforce the fight against Boko Haram.

However, as the security crisis in the country continues to worsen, Cameroonian authorities have been counting the costs, not only in terms of human loss, but also in terms of the impacts of the crisis on the economy.

During a special parliamentary plenary session on Nov. 27, Ngo’o said that since the crisis escalated eight months ago, Cameroon has so far lost some forty soldiers, but killed about one thousand Boko Haram fighters. “Our defence forces have simply been formidable,” he said.

But the economic costs of the war are heavy. According to the Minister of the Economy, Planning and Regional Development, Emmanuel Nganou Djoumessi, “the most affected sectors have been the tourism, transport, trade, agriculture and livestock sectors.”

He said  that “almost all tourism enterprises have been shut down, the number of tourists visiting attraction parks like the Waza National Park and the Rhumsiki Mountains have gone down drastically, and the hotel occupation rate has dropped from 50 percent before the crisis to just 10 percent today.”

In addition, there has been a sharp drop in customs revenue. Although customs officials have not tallied the losses, they say they are astronomical.

“There was a border custom post in the Far North Region that used to give us a monthly income of CFA 700 million (1.4 million dollars).That customs post has been closed down. Can you imagine what the state is losing yearly in customs revenue? It’s enormous,” said the Director-General of Customs, Lissette Libom Li-Likeng.

Government spokesman and Communication Minister Issa Tchiroma Bakary told journalists in Yaounde that in view of the human, economic and psychological losses that Cameroon has been incurring as a result of Boko Haram, a stringent law is necessary to contain the militant group.

(Edited by Phil Harris)

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon meets with Staff Union representatives from around the world on Oct. 4, 2013. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 7 2013 (IPS)

The United Nations will commemorate Human Rights Day next week amidst charges the world body is unilaterally proposing drastic changes to working conditions and salaries of staffers without due consultation – and in violation of their basic rights.

The Geneva U.N. Staff Union is protesting “the withdrawal of the right to union recognition by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and his refusal to honour negotiating rights for elected representatives of his employees.”

Meanwhile, the United States has proposed an eight-percent pay cut while the UK, on behalf of the largest contributing countries, has asked the secretary-general to further slash costs.

In a letter to colleagues, Ian Richards, president of the Geneva Staff Union, says “discussions on the pension have included a proposal to increase the staff contribution by one percent, reduce the organisation’s contribution by one percent and review the two-track system.”

All this, he said, “is taking place at a time when staff are unable to negotiate on their conditions of work.”

The staff unions of the United Nations have deployed a number of colleagues to New York in order to put their views to the 193 member states and reverse the trend, Richards added.

According to the latest U.N. figures, there are more than 44,000 staffers in the U.N. system, of which over 60 percent are in field locations overseas.

Asked for her comments, Barbara Tavora-Jainchill, president of the U.N. Staff Union in New York, told IPS, “We are absolutely with Geneva on this.”

“U.N. workers are also human beings and should be granted the same rights [as all others]”, she said, even as the United Nations plans to celebrate Human Rights Day on Dec. 10.

The irony of the commemoration is that those participating in an “unofficial event” protesting the violation of rights will include the staff of the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.

On specific union-related matters, Tavora-Jainchill said, “We believe the U.N. can only effectively promote the defence of human rights all over the world if the rights of staff members are effectively protected.”

She recalled that as far back as Nov. 17, 1947, the General Assembly approved resolution 128 (II), titled “Trade Union Rights (Freedom of Association)”, which endorses the principles proclaimed by the International Labour Conference in respect of trade union rights.

That resolution, she said, also includes a sub-section which reads “the effective recognition of the right of collective bargaining… for all human beings irrespective of race, creed or sex.”

On Jun. 14, 2013, Ban and his management team walked out of talks with U.N. staff unions, removing their right to negotiate with management, according to Richards.

“This has left both sides unable to work together to improve conditions of service at a time when U.N. staff are increasingly becoming targets,” he said.

Asked for comment, the United Nations did not respond by press time to staff union charges.

In the last 10 years, 555 staff members have been attacked, with over 200 killed, mostly while serving in various overseas U.N. missions.

After protests from staff unions about the withdrawal of recognition, Ban has set up a working group to discuss a future framework for staff relations.

Human Rights Day has been chosen as a day of protest “in order to mark the fact that while U.N. staff are required to advocate human rights to the rest of the world, the same rights are lacking within the organisation”.

In a protest, the mother of a young pregnant woman murdered in Pernambuco demands Brazilian women’s right to a life free of violence. Credit: Emanuela Castro/IPS

By Fabíola Ortiz
RIO DE JANEIRO, Nov 28 2013 (IPS)

The number of femicides – gender-related murders – in Brazil has reached civil war-like proportions. In just 10 years 40,000 women were killed in this country merely for being women.

Every year, between Nov. 25 and Dec. 10, the international community and women’s rights groups organise 16 days of activism against gender violence.

The idea originated with the Centre for Women’s Global Leadership, which in 1991 urged that the interval between Nov. 25 – International Day Against Violence Against Women – and Dec. 10 – International Human Rights Day – be dedicated to this issue.

In Brazil this year the activities have taken on special importance because on Dec. 3-4 a meeting will be held in the southern city of Porto Alegre to draft the civil society shadow report to be presented to the committee on the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), when it meets in February in Geneva.

The alternative civil society report is aimed at providing support for the CEDAW committee’s assessment of the Brazilian government’s actions to combat trafficking in women and improve women’s health.

“These days of activism give greater visibility to the gender rights agenda,” Ingrid Leão, the coordinator in Brazil of the Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the Defence of Women’s Rights (CLADEM), told IPS. “Violence against women has come out from under the rug, and society now sees it as a reality and not something that people have invented.”

A study by the Avante Brasil Institute found that 40,000 women were murdered in this country of 200 million people between 2001 and 2010. In 2010 alone, a femicide was committed every hour, 57 minutes and 43 seconds, which translates into 4.5 homicides per 100,000 women.

And the projection for this year in Brazil is 4,717 femicides, which are defined as “the killing of females by males because they are female.”

But violence against women is broader than that, noted Leão, who cited other manifestations, such as psychological, economic, sexual or symbolic.

A law stiffening penalties for domestic violence has been in effect in Brazil since 2006.

It is known as the “Maria da Penha Law” for the name of a pharmacist who was beaten by her husband for 14 years. In 1983 he tried to kill her twice, leaving her paraplegic after shooting her in the back while she was sleeping, and then trying to electrocute her in the shower when she returned from the hospital.

With CLADEM’s support, Penha filed a complaint before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). It was the first gender violence case taken up by the regional body which forms part of the Organisation of American State, and led to a 2001 landmark ruling that held the Brazilian state guilty of negligence and failure to take action against domestic violence.

Besides CEDAW, which was adopted by the members of the United Nations in 1979, Brazil signed the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women in 1994.

“How can we still live with this level of violence against women, despite 40 years of denunciations of this problem?” Télia Negrão, an expert with the National Feminist Network for Health and Sexual and Reproductive Rights, remarked to IPS.

She said there is no typical profile of a domestic violence victim, because the problem cuts across all social classes, races and age groups. “All women, just because of their gender, are vulnerable and are objects of violence,” she told IPS.

But Negrão, who is also the head of the Coletivo Femenino Plural, a women’s rights group, stressed that the degree of vulnerability is exacerbated by social inequality, poverty, low educational level, limited labour opportunities, low incomes and living in areas where levels of violence are high.

“These women have few social instruments to resort to. For women without a degree of autonomy it is harder to escape from a violent situation,” she said.

In August 2013, President Dilma Rousseff enacted a law requiring all public hospitals to provide treatment against sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS for rape victims.

The victims must also be given access to emergency contraception, and in case of pregnancy, they have the right to an abortion, which is generally illegal in Brazil.

“Full citizenship means the enforcement of human rights. We have achieved a great deal, but not enough,” argued Negrão, who since 1985 has taken part in monitoring Brazil’s compliance with international conventions.

In the shadow report for the CEDAW committee, “we will include concrete incidents [of discrimination] that the Brazilian state won’t mention, because no government wants to expose itself in the international sphere,” she commented.

In its 2012 meeting the CEDAW committee stressed two points: internal and international trafficking of women, for which it called for concrete measures, and the need for unified legislation regarding women’s health.

In a report released in early October, the Secretariat for Women’s Policies ascribed to the Office of the President underlined that reports of trafficking increased by over 1,500 percent in the first half of the year, from the same period in 2012.

Between January and June, the dedicated 180 hotline for victims received 263 calls, of which 173 referred to cases involving international human trafficking and the rest to cases inside Brazil. In 34 percent of the cases, the victim’s life was considered to be at risk.

“The pace with which measures related to trafficking are being adopted is very slow, and the responses are too. We do not currently have the capacity to assess the magnitude of the problem,” Negrão said.

Estela Scandola, a civil society representative on the National Committee to Fight Human Trafficking, told IPS that Brazil has not managed to put into practice a state policy to address the crime.

“We have a government policy thanks to a decree. We need external pressure. Trafficking in persons highlights flaws in a country’s development process,” she said.

She argued that it is civil society’s role to denounce the Brazilian state’s failure to implement adequate policies to tackle trafficking.

“The impression is that getting anything done takes a long time. The red tape is never-ending,” she complained, referring to the delay in implementing the Second National Plan to Combat Trafficking in Persons and in creating the National Committee against Trafficking, which has been held up by a lack of funds.
Scandola said the civil society report to the CEDAW committee would underscore the lack of adequate policies.

She said the authorities have the means to prevent trafficking and exploitation of women in high-risk areas, such as the big hydropower dams and other infrastructure construction projects around the country, which have attracted large numbers of workers from other regions.