Georgia’s Dangerous Anti-LGBTQI+ Law

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Europe, Featured, Gender Identity, Gender Violence, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, LGBTQ, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Vano Shlamov/AFP via Getty Images

LONDON, Sep 30 2024 (IPS) – Georgia’s ruling party has put LGBTQI+ people firmly in the firing line ahead of next month’s election. On 17 September, parliament gave final approval to a highly discriminatory law that empowers the authorities to censor books and films with LGBTQI+ content, stop discussion of LGBTQI+ issues in schools, ban people from flying rainbow flags and prevent Pride events. The law excludes LGBTQI+ people from adopting children, bans gender affirmation surgery and refuses to recognise same-sex marriages of Georgians conducted abroad.

Latest troubling development

Georgia’s anti-LGBTQI+ law breaches a wide range of international human rights commitments. And it’s a repeat offence: in May, a bill became law designating civil society and media groups that receive at least 20 per cent of funding from international sources as ‘pursuing the interests of a foreign power’. The ‘foreign agents’ law will enable vilification, fuel public suspicion and tie organisations up in lengthy compliance procedures.

President Salome Zourabichvili, who is independent of the ruling Georgian Dream party, vetoed the foreign agents bill, calling it a ‘Russian law’, also the view of the mass protest movement that rose up to oppose it. But presidential powers are weak, and parliament quickly reversed the veto. Zourabichvili – Georgia’s last directly elected president, with future presidents to be picked by parliament after her term ends in October – has also pledged to veto the anti-LGBTQI+ law. But a similar parliamentary override seems certain.

Georgia Dream says its anti-LGBTQI+ law, known as the law on ‘family values and the protection of minors’, is needed to defend ‘traditional moral standards’. It also said its foreign agents law was needed to stop international funders sponsoring ‘LGBT propaganda’ and fomenting revolution.

Both laws are part of a growing climate of state hostility towards civil society, in a country that once stood out as an ex-Soviet state that broadly respected civic freedoms. Last year, the European Union (EU)-Georgia Civil Society Platform – a body established as part of negotiations towards the country potentially joining the EU – criticised a sustained government smear campaign against civil society. Freedom House pointed to growing harassment and violence against journalists.

The anti-LGBTQI+ law reflects a reassertion of influence by the Georgian Orthodox Church, the country’s dominant religion, and a closer alignment with Russia. The foreign agents law imitates one introduced in Russia in 2012, which paved the way for intense repression of civil society, while Georgia’s anti-LGBTQI+ law is also strikingly similar to that passed in Russia in 2013, which has been extensively used to criminalise and silence LGBTQI+ people.

The two laws can only move the country further away from the stated goal of joining the EU. They place Georgia at a fork in the road: the government and the church clearly see it as a socially conservative country that legitimately belongs in Russia’s orbit. But others – the many people, overwhelmingly young, who’ve protested and faced state violence in return – represent a different Georgian identity: one that’s democratic, inclusive and European.

Vilification and violence

Hostility has made it harder for Georgia’s LGBTQI+ people to claim visibility. Last year, violent far-right attacks forced the cancellation of the Tbilisi Pride parade. The authorities have consistently failed to ensure the safety of participants. When people first marched on 17 May 2013, they were attacked by a mob that included members of the clergy. In 2021, extremist groups also attacked journalists covering the event, as the police stood by and did nothing.

In 2014, the year after Pride first mobilised, the Church declared 17 May – the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia – to be Family Purity Day, an event marked with a public holiday. This year, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze joined thousands at the Family Purity Day march in Tbilisi. In contrast, such was the level of hostility that Tbilisi Pride organisers decided to only hold virtual events. LGBTQI+ people were denied the chance to do the very thing Pride events exist for: assert visibility and normalise their public presence.

The new law reverses some recent progress civil society achieved in shifting homophobic social values, with young people particularly showing more tolerant attitudes. But now the law will have the effect similar legislation has had elsewhere: giving the green light to stigmatisation, vilification and violence. Activists have pointed to the recent murder of one of the country’s few high-profile transgender people, model Kesaria Abramidze, as a grim sign of what may come. Extremist groups can only be emboldened, confident the law is on their side when they commit acts of hatred.

The upcoming election

Georgian Dream seeks a fourth consecutive term when the country goes to the polls in October. With the opposition divided, it seems certain to come first again. But its support fell in the last election and opinion polls suggest it’s lost more votes since. Possibly worried about keeping its majority, it’s opted to vilify an already excluded group of people.

Georgian Dream may think hostility towards LGBTQI+ people and civil society groups is safer electoral territory than a more explicitly anti-western, pro-Russian stance. But its recent decisions signal how it will rule if its electoral strategy pays off: not by upholding the rights of all Georgians but by putting the interests of its socially conservative supporters first, and by tailoring policies to please Vladimir Putin.

Georgian Dream still pays lip service to the idea of joining the EU, but the party’s billionaire financier and behind-the-scenes leader Bidzina Ivanishvili recently made his position clear, accusing western countries of being part of a global conspiracy to drag Georgia into a repeat of its ill-fated 2008 war with Russia. Georgian-Russian relations have warmed since Russia launched its all-out war on Ukraine in 2022.

The EU, for its part, reacted to the foreign agents law by suspending financial aid and Georgia’s accession negotiations. It must take a firm line and make clear Georgia won’t be allowed to join until the human rights of all its people are recognised and civil society is respected.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

A longer version of this article is available here.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

  Source

‘We Need Competitive Elections so Only Truly Committed States Are Elected to the UN Human Rights Council’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Conferences, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Sep 26 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the upcoming election of new members of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council with Madeleine Sinclair, New York Office Director and Legal Counsel at the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR).

The Human Rights Council plays a crucial role in addressing global human rights issues and serves as a platform for activists and victims of violations. Its 47 members represent different regional groups. In October, 19 states will stand for 18 seats, with the Asia-Pacific region the only group with more candidates than seats. Many of the candidates have poor human rights records, and one – Saudi Arabia – stands out for its extremely serious rights violations. Civil society calls on UN member states to reject Saudi Arabia’s candidacy and uphold human rights standards when selecting members of the UN’s top human rights body.

Madeleine Sinclair

Why is the election of UN Human Rights Council members important?

As happens every year, the Human Rights Council will soon renew one third of its membership through a secret ballot election. On 9 October, all 193 members of the UN General Assembly will vote for the 18 members who will sit on the UN’s main human rights body from 2025 to 2027.

Elections should provide an opportunity to elect candidates with a strong human rights record. According to the Council’s membership criteria, candidate states should demonstrate a genuine commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights through domestic and international action. They should also demonstrate a willingness to address emerging challenges and crises to ensure the Council’s effectiveness.

How competitive will this year’s election be?

Unfortunately, this election will be nowhere near as competitive as it should be, with only 19 countries standing for 18 seats. These seats are divided among the UN’s five official regional groups, each of which presents its own slate of candidates. But only the Asia-Pacific slate is competitive, with six candidates vying for five seats, while the other four slates are closed, meaning they have as many candidates as seats available. Africa has five candidates for five seats, Latin America and the Caribbean has three for three, Eastern Europe has two for two and Western Europe and Others has two for two.

This election is less competitive than last year’s, when 17 candidates contested 15 seats. Only Latin America and the Caribbean and Eastern Europe had more candidates than seats, resulting in the defeat of Russia. In 2021, all 18 candidates running for 18 seats were elected, receiving between 144 and 189 votes out of a possible 193, despite some having extremely problematic human rights records.

Unfortunately, non-competitive elections are common, with fully closed slates being presented four times since 2008. Other elections have seen only one or two competitive slates. The problem with non-competitive races is they deprive voting states of the opportunity to rigorously evaluate and select candidates based on their records and commitments, potentially compromising the quality of the Council.

But even in closed slates, it’s still possible for unopposed candidates to fail if they don’t receive at least 97 out of 193 votes. In 2023, for example, Burundi and China received the lowest number of votes in their regional groups, sending a message that their candidacies were not fully supported. ISHR encourages voting states to evaluate all candidates carefully and withhold votes from problematic ones, even in closed slates.

Who are the candidates in the October election?

Candidates in this year’s election include Benin, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, The Gambia and Kenya from the African group. In the Asia and Pacific group, Cyprus, South Korea, the Marshall Islands, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Thailand are running. Latin America and the Caribbean is represented by Bolivia, Colombia and Mexico. Iceland, Spain and Switzerland are the candidates from Western Europe and Others, while the Czech Republic and North Macedonia are running for Central and Eastern Europe.

This year, one candidate has a particularly poor human rights record: Saudi Arabia. It has closed civic space and has been repeatedly included in the UN Secretary-General’s reprisals report and accused by UN experts of committing war crimes in Yemen. Due to these serious concerns, we are actively campaigning against its election in the Asia and Pacific group.

What’s the role of civil society in this process?

Civil society, including ISHR, has a crucial role to play in advocating for a more effective and accountable Human Rights Council. One of the key areas where reform is needed is closed slates. Competitive elections are essential to ensure that only states with a genuine commitment to human rights are elected.

ISHR has created scorecards to assess and compare the candidates based on their history of cooperation with human rights mechanisms such as the Universal Periodic Review and their engagement with civil society, UN treaty bodies and special procedures. These criteria provide a solid understanding and clear overview of a country’s human rights record and therefore its suitability to sit on the Council. While we understand no country has a perfect record, these criteria aim to provide valuable insights into each state’s commitment to upholding human rights and its potential role on the Council.

In addition to our scorecards, our annual joint pledging event with Amnesty International provides a platform for states to present their candidacies, make strong, public commitments as potential members and receive direct feedback and critical questions from civil society. If all candidates participated in this event, it would increase the political cost of refusing to participate or failing to submit formal pledges and commitments. Such engagement would make it harder for states with poor human rights records to seek a seat without facing scrutiny.

What should be the Council’s priorities?

The Human Rights Council is vital in amplifying the voices of rights holders, victims and human rights defenders, providing them with a platform to expose violations and demand accountability. To fulfil this role effectively, its priorities must focus on being credible, effective and accessible. It should continue to focus on upholding international law universally, supporting the remote and hybrid participation of civil society and ensuring that demands for accountability are promptly addressed.

A credible and effective Council can only function if its members fully cooperate with its mechanisms and adhere to objective human rights criteria. At a time of increasing conflict and crisis, often rooted in repression and human rights violations, the Council’s role in promoting accountability and justice is more important than ever. States should support the work of human rights defenders, whose efforts to prevent violations, document abuses and provide essential services are essential to crisis resolution.

To address these conflicts, states must apply human rights standards consistently. Selective or inconsistent application of standards undermines the international framework and the credibility of those involved. International human rights law, when applied consistently and in a principled manner, remains the best guide to achieving a more just, peaceful and inclusive world.

Get in touch with ISHR through its website or Facebook page, and follow @ishrglobal on Instagram and @ISHRglobal and @Madeleine_ISHR on Twitter.

 

A UN 2.0 Needs Robust People’s Civil Society Participation

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Conferences, Democracy, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: United Nations

NEW YORK, Sep 13 2024 (IPS) – A cascade of crises endangers our world. Wars conducted without rules, governance devoid of democratic principles, surge in discrimination against women and excluded groups, accelerating climate change, greed-induced environmental degradation and unconscionable economic deprivation in an age of excess are threatening to roll back decades of human progress made by the international community.

This September’s UN Summit of the Future presents a rare opportunity to address these challenges through greater participation in UN decision making. World leaders are convening later this month in New York to agree a Pact for the Future, expected to lay the blueprint for international cooperation in the 21st century.

But civil society’s efforts to ensure an outcome document fit for today’s needs are coming up against diplomatic posturing between powerful states intent on preserving the status quo.

State-centric decisions

The world has changed dramatically since the UN was established in 1945, when a large swathe of humanity was still under colonial yoke. Since then, significant strides have been made to advance democratic governance around the world. Yet decision-making processes at the UN remain stubbornly state-centric, privileging a handful of powerful states that control decisions and key appointments.

Civil society has presented the Pact of the Future’s co-facilitators, the governments of Germany and Namibia, with several innovative proposals to enable meaningful participation and people-centred decision-making at the UN. Proposals include a parliamentary assembly representative of the world’s peoples, a world citizen’s initiative to enable people to bring issues of transnational importance to the UN and the appointment of a civil society or people’s envoy to drive the UN’s outreach to communities around the world. However, these forward-looking proposals have found no traction in various drafts of the Pact, which is being criticised for lacking ambition and specificity.

It’s no surprise that diplomatic negotiations on the Pact between country representatives are being bogged down by arguments over language. As a result of diplomatic wrangling, the draft’s provisions are mostly generic and repetitive.

This is unfortunate, as civil society representatives have spent considerable time and energy over the course of the past year in engaging with Summit of the Future processes. Despite tight deadlines, civil society organisations came together at short notice to submit comprehensive recommendations on the Pact’s successive drafts. Hundreds of civil society delegates participated at considerable expense in the much-anticipated Civil Society Conference in Nairobi, designed to gather inputs to feed into the Summit outcomes.

Overall, the gains made so far have been few. These include broad commitments to reform the UN Security Council and international financial institutions. A significantly positive aspect of the Pact’s draft is a commitment to strengthen the UN’s human rights pillar; many of us in civil society rely on this to raise concerns about egregious violations. However, deep-seated tensions among member states in New York have led to the regrettable removal of references to human rights defenders, who play a crucial role in protecting and promoting human rights. This is evident in the recent Revision 3 draft of the Pact released on 27 August.

Strengthening human rights

Tellingly, the human rights pillar receives roughly five per cent of the UN’s regular budget, forcing any new initiatives to rely on underfunded voluntary contributions. This needs to change. The human rights pillar needs to be strengthened. Doing so would help make each of the three UN’s pillars – the others being peace and security and sustainable development – more strongly connected and mutually reinforcing.

To strengthen the human rights pillar, we outline five priority areas for action.

First, substantial resources should be allocated to the UN’s independent thematic and country-focused human rights experts, who enhance civil society’s impact but are forced to get by on shoestring budgets. Due to limited funding from the UN, the experts are compelled to rely on voluntary contributions to support their vital activities.

Second, an accessible and transparently managed pooled fund should be created to enable better participation by civil society in UN meetings. Many smaller civil society organisations, particularly from the global south, find it extremely challenging to cover the costs of participation in key UN arenas.

Third, accountability measures should be strengthened to ensure follow-up in cases of reprisals against people for engaging with UN human rights mechanisms. The UN’s latest reprisals report shows that reprisals have taken place against over 150 individuals in more than 30 states. This needs to be addressed immediately.

Fourth, the UN’s investigative capacities in relation to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide should be strengthened to ensure justice for victims. The need for this has been made tragically clear by the resurgence of authoritarian rule and military dictatorships around the world, coupled with egregious rights violations in conflicts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Myanmar, Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen and others.

Finally, the human rights pillar can be supported by ensuring implementation of the UN’s guidance note on civic space. This urges the protection of civil society personnel and human rights defenders from intimidation and reprisals, the facilitation of meaningful and safe participation in governance processes and the promotion of laws and policies to support these goals.

The role human rights defenders and civil society activists play in ensuring peaceful resolution of conflicts, addressing gender-based violence and promoting economic justice – among many other vital issues – is crucial. In calling to strengthen the human rights pillar, the Pact’s pen holders recognise the importance of human rights approaches. They must extend this recognition to include people’s and civil society participation. Failing to do so will result in a missed opportunity to create a transformative UN 2.0 that places people and rights at the centre.

Jesselina Rana is UN advisor at CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance. Mandeep Tiwana is chief of evidence and engagement at CIVICUS plus representative to the UN in New York.

 

TOGO: ‘The International Community Must Send a Clear Message That Power Grabs Won’t Be Tolerated’

Posted on by admin

Africa, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Featured, Headlines, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Sep 11 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the crackdown on civil society in Togo with a human rights defender who asked to stay anonymous for security reasons.

Political tensions in Togo have increased following the recent adoption of constitutional changes. Under the new parliamentary system, the president will be elected by parliament rather than popular vote, and a powerful new post of President of the Council of Ministers will be created. Suspicions are that the changes will enable President Faure Gnassingbé to stay in power. Gnassingbé has ruled Togo since 2005, when he took over from his father, who’d seized power in a 1967 coup. The government has banned protests against the changes, disrupted civil society meetings, arbitrarily arrested and detained protesters and suspended and deported journalists for covering the unrest.

What are the main constitutional changes and why have the political opposition and civil society objected to them?

On 25 March, Togo’s National Assembly adopted a new constitution that dramatically changes the country’s governance from a presidential to a parliamentary system. The changes were not put to a referendum, but were decided through opaque legislative procedures. The main changes are the abolition of direct presidential elections and the creation of the powerful role of President of the Council of Ministers. Similar to a prime minister, this president is elected by parliament for a six-year term that can be extended indefinitely if he retains majority support. This removes the two-term limit imposed by the 2019 constitution, which was introduced after massive public protests.

The new constitution sparked widespread controversy and came amid an already tense political climate, with parliamentary and regional elections originally scheduled for 13 April repeatedly postponed while lawmakers debated the constitutional changes. Political parties, civil society organisations (CSOs), the Catholic Church and part of the population see it as an attempt by the ruling family to cling to power, as the amendments would extend the 19-year presidency of Faure Gnassingbé and the 57-year dynastic rule of the Gnassingbé family.

We strongly condemn the adoption of the new constitution and the lack of transparency in the process. This is a constitutional coup that restricts citizens’ political rights, exacerbates political instability and undermines democratic governance.

What reforms are needed to ensure genuine multi-party democracy in Togo?

First, it’s crucial to restore direct presidential elections based on universal suffrage, because the electoral system should truly reflect the will of the people. But a president shouldn’t be allowed to rule indefinitely, so it’s also crucial to reintroduce term limits for the president and other key officials to prevent the concentration of power and promote accountability.

In addition, an independent electoral commission should be established to restore public confidence in a system that’s now perceived to be biased in favour of the ruling party. This commission should oversee all electoral processes and ensure they are free, fair and transparent.

It is also key to ensure equal access to campaign resources for all political parties. Fair media coverage and campaign financing would contribute to a more competitive and representative electoral process. It is equally important to strengthen legal safeguards. All parties should be allowed to operate freely without interference or fear of persecution and violence from state authorities.

We need to increase civic participation. Reforms should facilitate platforms for CSOs to engage in political debate. We must support grassroots movements with resources and training to help them mobilise people and educate them about democratic principles and their rights.

Togolese civil society is already pushing for these changes. Groups such as ‘Touche pas à ma constitution’ (‘Don’t touch my constitution’) are organising protests, raising awareness and holding community meetings to educate people and challenge the new constitution. They have also filed complaints with regional bodies such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), calling for the annulment of the new constitution and the restoration of democratic norms. CSOs and democratic political parties are presenting a united front to demand democratic reforms.

How has the government responded to the protests?

The government has responded to the protests with a heavy-handed approach aimed at silencing dissent. Many opposition leaders and activists have been arrested. On 26 March, law enforcement and security forces banned two press conferences organised by political parties and CSOs on the grounds that the organisers didn’t have proper permits. This was a clear attempt by the government to stifle opposition voices. On 3 April, nine leaders of the political opposition party Dynamique Mgr Kpodzro were also arrested for ‘disturbing public order’. They were released six days later.

The use of violence, a hallmark of the Gnassingbé regime, has created a climate of fear. Anyone who takes part in opposition activities is framed as a criminal who threatens public order and is prosecuted. This has a chilling effect on civil society activism. Many people are afraid of being arrested or violently attacked if they engage in political discourse or take part in protests. This criminalisation undermines our ability to mobilise effectively and advocate for democratic reform.

With our freedoms of expression and assembly severely curtailed, we’ve found it increasingly difficult to organise events, hold press conferences or communicate our messages without interference from security forces. This has increasingly isolated us from the wider public. The crackdown on dissent has undermined public trust in both the government and CSOs, as people become disillusioned with the political process and the weak foundations of democracy.

How can the international community help address the suppression of civic freedoms in Togo?

The international community can play a key role by applying diplomatic pressure and supporting democratic reforms. Public condemnations and resolutions by international bodies such as the United Nations and the African Union can help highlight these issues and push for necessary changes. International bodies and representatives should engage directly with Togolese officials to address concerns.

They should also support local civil society by providing funding, resources and training. This support is essential to strengthen CSOs’ capacity to advocate for democracy and human rights, and to mobilise and empower people.

Independent monitoring and reporting mechanisms are essential to assess the political situation, ensure transparency in the upcoming elections and document human rights violations. If violations continue, the international community should consider sanctioning key officials and making development aid and assistance conditional on respect for democratic principles and human rights. This can serve as an incentive for the government to undertake meaningful reforms.

ECOWAS is also in a position to mediate between the government, the opposition and local civil society to promote a more inclusive and democratic environment. At a time when democracy is in retreat in West Africa, with four countries having suffered military coups since 2020 and 15 leaders having circumvented term limits, ECOWAS must take a firm stand against unconstitutional changes such as those recently seen in Togo and send a clear message that power grabs won’t be tolerated.

Civic space in Togo is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

  Source

INDIA: ‘Civil Society Organisations Are at the Forefront of the Fight Against Gender-based Violence’

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Featured, Gender Violence, Headlines, Health, TerraViva United Nations, Women’s Health

Sep 5 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the recent wave of protests against gender-based violence (GBV) in India with Dr Kavitha Ravi, a member of the Indian Medical Association (IMA).

Protests erupted across India after a 31-year-old female medical trainee was raped and murdered in a Kolkata hospital on 9 August. The IMA called a strike, with protests held in major cities including Kolkata and Mumbai. While the official strike has ended, many doctors, particularly junior doctors, remain on strike and protests continue to demand justice, accountability and safer working conditions for women.

Kavitha Ravi

What triggered the recent protests against GBV in India?

Protests erupted after the tragic rape and murder of a young female doctor at the R G Kar Medical College in Kolkata on 9 August. This horrific incident shocked the nation and sparked widespread outrage. In response, a coalition of doctors, medical associations such as the IMA and various resident and faculty associations joined together in a nationwide strike to demand justice for the victim and better safety measures for health workers, particularly women who face significant risks in the workplace.

Protesters are calling for major reforms, including the adoption of a Hospital Protection Act, which would designate hospitals as safe zones and introduce measures to create a safer environment for health workers. Their demands are part of a larger movement to comprehensively address GBV, prevent similar tragedies in the future and create a safer and more supportive working environment for everyone in the health sector.

What steps have been taken so far to ensure justice and the safety of female health workers?

The judicial system has acted swiftly by transferring the case to a higher authority to ensure a thorough investigation after concerns were raised about the police’s initial inquiry, which was not accepted by the students or the victim’s family. They were sceptical, believing the police might be favouring the college authorities and supporting the accused.

This decision aims to ensure a detailed investigation so justice can be done. The Supreme Court of India is also overseeing the case to monitor its progress, address any issues that may arise and ensure all necessary steps are taken to uphold justice.

In parallel, several initiatives are underway to improve the safety of female health workers. The Ministry of Health has proposed establishing a committee to review and improve safety protocols in health facilities. There are also plans to increase security in hospitals and establish a new national taskforce dedicated to improving safety through better infrastructure, advanced technology and additional security measures. However, despite these efforts, more needs to be done to combat GBV and ensure that these measures effectively protect female health workers.

How have the authorities responded to the protests?

The authorities have taken a mixed approach to the nationwide strike, combining concessions with new measures to address immediate concerns. The Health Ministry has drawn up a detailed plan to increase security in central government hospitals. This includes installing high-resolution CCTV cameras, monitoring access points with identification badges, deploying trained security personnel for constant patrolling and securing duty rooms for female staff. Hospitals are also encouraged to develop and regularly update emergency response plans and conduct mock drills.

In response to these measures, the IMA suspended its strike. However, other doctors’ associations have continued to protest for more substantial reforms. Many people remain dissatisfied, particularly after recent incidents of police violence. While the Supreme Court’s intervention may have temporarily eased the tensions, protesters remain concerned about the new measures’ effectiveness and full implementation.

Why is GBV so prevalent in India, and what’s being done about it?

Deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and legal factors account for the high prevalence of GBV in India. This is a patriarchal country where traditional gender roles and the subjugation of women are deeply entrenched. Women tend to be economically dependent on men, which traps them in abusive relationships that make it difficult for them to seek help or escape. Intergenerational cycles of violence perpetuate the problem, as children who witness or experience abuse may come to see such behaviour as normal.

Low literacy rates, particularly in rural areas, further limit women’s understanding of their rights and the available support. When they do seek justice, the system often fails to protect the victims or hold perpetrators accountable. Systemic failures in law enforcement and justice help perpetuate GBV.

Many initiatives and campaigns have helped highlight and address this issue. But it has not been easy. A lack of consistent political will and weak implementation of policies have hindered substantial change. Feminist and social justice movements often face resistance from conservative parts of society, making it difficult to change these deeply entrenched cultural norms.

To combat GBV effectively, we need a comprehensive approach that includes better education, legal reform, economic empowerment and cultural change. Civil society organisations are at the forefront of this fight, actively advocating for stronger laws, better enforcement and increased public awareness. Continued and robust efforts are essential to address this widespread problem and ensure meaningful change.

Civic space in India is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

Get in touch with the Indian Medical Association through its website or Facebook page, and follow @IMAIndiaOrg on Twitter.

  Source

New Zealand: Māori Rights in the Firing Line

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Economy & Trade, Education, Environment, Featured, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Dave Lintott / AFP via Getty Images

LONDON, Sep 2 2024 (IPS) – A New Zealand bill that would roll back Indigenous rights is unlikely to pass – but it’s emblematic of a growing climate of hostility from governing politicians. A recent survey shows that almost half of New Zealanders believe racial tensions have worsened under the right-wing government in power since December 2023.

The Treaty Principles Bill reinterprets the principles of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. New Zealand’s founding text, this agreement between the British government and Indigenous Māori chiefs established British governorship over the islands in return for recognition of Māori ownership of land and other property.

The treaty was controversial from the start: its English and Māori versions differ in crucial clauses on sovereignty. Māori people lost much of their land, suffering the same marginalisation as Indigenous people in other places settled by Europeans. As a result, Māori people live with higher levels of poverty, unemployment and crime, and lower education and health standards, than the rest of the population.

From the 1950s, Māori people began to organise and demand their treaty rights. This led to the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, which defined a set of principles derived from the treaty and established the Waitangi Tribunal to determine breaches of the principles and recommend remedies.

In recent years, right-wing politicians have criticised the tribunal, claiming it’s overstepping its mandate – most recently because it held a hearing that concluded the bill breaches treaty principles.

Change in direction

The bill resulted from a coalition agreement forged after the 2023 election. The centre-right National party came first and went into government with two parties to its right: the free-market and libertarian Act party and the nationalist and populist NZ First party. Act demanded the bill as a condition of joining the coalition.

The election was unusually toxic by New Zealand standards. Candidates were subjected to racial abuse and physical violence. A group of Māori leaders complained about unusually high levels of racism. Both Act and NZ First targeted Māori rights, promising to reverse Labour’s progressive policies, including experiments in ‘co-governance’: collaborative decision-making between government and Māori representatives. Act and NZ First characterised such arrangements as conferring racial privilege on Māori people, at odds with universal human rights.

NZ First leader Winston Peters – who’s long opposed what he characterises as special treatment for Māori people despite being Māori himself – pledged to remove Māori-language names from government buildings and withdraw New Zealand’s support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He’s compared co-governance to apartheid and Nazi racial theory. He’s now New Zealand’s deputy prime minister.

New Zealand, though far from Europe and North America, has shown it isn’t immune from the same right-wing populist politics that seek to blame a visible minority for all a country’s problems. In the northern hemisphere the main targets are migrants and religious minorities; in New Zealand, it’s Indigenous people.

Bonfire of policies

If the bill did succeed, it would preclude any interpretation of the treaty as a partnership between the state and Māori people. It would impose a rigid understanding that all New Zealanders have the same rights and responsibilities, inhibiting measures to expand Māori rights. And without special attention, the economic, social and political exclusion of Māori people will only worsen.

The problems go beyond the bill. In February, the government abolished the Māori Health Authority, established in 2022 to tackle health inequalities. In July, a government directive ordered Pharmac, the agency that funds medicines, to stop taking treaty principles into account when making funding decisions. This is part of a broader attack on treaty principles, which the government has pledged to remove from most legislation.

Government departments have been ordered to prioritise their English-language names and communicate primarily in English, unless they’re specifically focused on Māori people. The government has pledged to review the school curriculum – revised last year to place more emphasis on Māori people – and university affirmative action programmes. It’s ceased work on He Puapua, its strategy to implement the UN Declaration.

The government has cut funding for most of its initiatives for Māori people. In all, over a dozen changes are planned, including in environmental management, health and housing.

What’s bad for Māori people is also bad for the climate. The intimate role the environment plays in Māori culture often puts them on the frontline of combating climate change. This year a Māori activist won a ruling allowing him to take seven companies to court over their greenhouse gas emissions, based in part on their impact on places of customary, cultural and spiritual significance to Māori people..

But the new government has cut funding for many projects aimed at meeting New Zealand’s Paris Agreement commitments. It plans to double mineral exports and introduce a law to fast-track large development projects, without having to navigate environmental safeguards. The draft law contains no provisions about treaty principles. Māori people will be disproportionately affected by any weakening of environmental standards.

Out in numbers

This is all shaping up to be a huge setback for Māori rights that can only fuel and normalise racism – but campaigners aren’t taking it quietly. The threat to rights has galvanised and united Māori campaigners.

Civil society groups are taking to the courts to try to halt the changes. And people are protesting in numbers. In December, when parliament met for the first time since the election, thousands gathered outside to condemn anti-Māori policies. At the swearing-in ceremony, Te Pāti Māori politicians broke with convention by dedicating their oaths to the Treaty of Waitangi and future generations.

That same month, 12 people were arrested following a protest in which they defaced an exhibition on the treaty at the national museum. Protesters accused the exhibition of lying about the treaty’s English version.

On 6 February, Waitangi Day, over a thousand people marched to the site where the treaty was agreed, calling for the bill to be rejected. At the official ceremony, people heckled Peters and Act leader Peter Seymour when they spoke.

Most recently, Māori people had a chance to show their discontent at a ceremony held in August to commemorate the coronation of the Māori King. Although normally all major party leaders attend, Seymour wasn’t invited, and a Māori leader told Prime Minister Christopher Luxon that the government had ‘turned its back on Māori’. The Māori King also called a rare national meeting in January, and the turnout – 10,000 people – further showed the extent of concern.

Wasted potential

At the same time, the Māori population is growing quickly – it recently passed the million mark – and is youthful. Compared to previous generations, people are more likely to embrace their Māori identity, culture and language. Māori people are showing their resilience, and activism has never been stronger. But this growing momentum has hit a political roadblock that threatens to throttle its potential – all for the sake of short-term political gain.

New Zealand’s positive international reputation is on the line – but it doesn’t have to be this way. The government should start acting like a responsible partner under the Treaty of Waitangi. It must abide by the treaty principles, as developed and elaborated over time, and stop scapegoating Māori people.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

  Source