‘We Continue Working to Make Sure Afghan Girls and Women Are Heard and Not Forgotten’

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Education, Featured, Gender, Headlines, Health, Human Rights, Labour, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Oct 15 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses Afghanistan’s system of gender apartheid with Shaharzad Akbar, Executive Director of Rawadari, a human rights organisation founded by Afghans in exile.


Since regaining power in August 2021, the Taliban have banned women from all education beyond primary school and most jobs. They don’t allow women to travel without a male guardian or be seen in public, with severe penalties for violations. A new law introduced in August 2024 further silenced women by literally banning them from being heard in public. This received widespread international condemnation. Afghan civil society, mostly in exile, continues to document human rights abuses, advocate with international allies and campaign for change.

Shaharzad Akbar

How much space is there for civil society to operate in Afghanistan under the Taliban?

Not much. Although there’s still some civic resistance, mainly led by women, the Taliban have dismantled almost all civic structures. They have disbanded student associations and teachers’ unions and severely restricted the space for civil society to operate.

Long before they took power, the Taliban targeted civil society activists, journalists and religious and tribal leaders who challenged their rules. But when they regained power in August 2021, they used state institutions to further restrict civic space. It was women who resisted: just one day after the Taliban seized Kabul, they took to the streets to demand their rights. Independent media cautiously tried to cover these protests, but journalists were beaten and tortured. By January 2022, the Taliban were arresting women protesters. Cases of arbitrary detention, torture and intimidation and enforced disappearances have only increased since then.

The Taliban repealed laws protecting journalists and civil society, increased censorship and used intimidation to silence independent media. Anyone who criticises their government, even if it’s a social media post questioning electricity cuts, is likely to receive a phone call from the Taliban’s intelligence agency ordering them to delete it and not to raise the issue again.

It’s now impossible to work openly on human rights or freedom of expression in Afghanistan. The Taliban shut down the organisation I headed, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC). Other organisations working on cultural rights, peacebuilding and social issues have either changed their mandates or left.

How have the Taliban responded to women’s resistance?

When they returned to power, the Taliban were surprised to see women take to the streets against them. Given the Taliban’s violent past, many men didn’t dare protest. But women, who the Taliban underestimated because they saw them as weak, stood together and challenged them publicly.

At first they thought the protests would die down, but when this didn’t happen, they responded with increased violence, imprisoning and torturing women activists and targeting their families. They also launched a smear campaign accusing them of not being ‘authentic’ Afghan women. Since then, they’ve tried to impose the idea that Afghan women belong at home, fully covered and without any public aspirations.

Many repressive decrees followed. First, women were segregated from men in universities, then required to cover up even more and finally banned altogether from universities in December 2022. Restrictions on women’s work also increased over time: women were first restricted to the government health and education sectors and they were later banned from working for civil society organisations and the United Nations (UN). The result was a full-blown system of gender apartheid.

But women refused to be erased and found new ways to resist. Some have continued to protest publicly, even at great risk to their lives and those of their families. A notable example is a protester who was detained with her four-year-old son. Others have opted for more subtle forms of resistance, setting up clandestine schools and seeking education delivered via WhatsApp by Afghan diaspora and international educators. Women’s rights activists, both inside and outside Afghanistan, have formed advocacy networks that are very active in international and regional forums.

When was Rawadari founded and what does it do?

Rawadari was publicly launched in December 2022 by a group of exiled former AIHRC staff. We had been documenting human rights abuses for over a decade and were forced into exile when the Taliban came to power. We set up Rawadari because we felt it was important to continue monitoring and documenting the situation, and to counter the disinformation being spread by the Taliban.

Rawadari’s work focuses on three areas. The first is human rights monitoring. To date, we have published nine reports, available in English and Afghanistan’s two main languages, Dari and Pashto. We want to ensure they are accessible to both local and international audiences.

Our second area is advocacy, particularly on accountability and victim-centred justice. We regularly submit reports to the UN and push for the Taliban to be brought before the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court. We also advocate for additional resources for the UN Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan and are exploring other mechanisms, such as the establishment of a people’s tribunal for Afghanistan.

The third focus of our work is to promote a culture of human rights. This is difficult because, being outside Afghanistan, we have to do it through social media campaigns and online discussions and events. But we try to keep the conversation going and build alliances within the human rights community and beyond.

How are you campaigning for women’s rights?

In June this year, it was 1,000 days since the Taliban banned girls from going to school. To raise awareness and keep the issue alive in people’s minds, we launched the Iqra campaign (‘read’ in Arabic). We worked with Musawer, an organisation led by the renowned Afghan poet Shafiqa Khpalwak.

As we couldn’t use video footage for security reasons, we asked girls to record a short audio clip about how the ban on education affected them. This wasn’t easy, because many girls don’t have their own phones and identifying them could put them at risk. But we managed to gather voices from across Afghanistan.

The campaign was a success because it centred the voices of Afghan girls from every corner of the country and brought them to the fore, and because it gained support from men and women. Girls spoke about the dreams they’ve lost, the friendships they miss and the depression and negative thoughts they battle every day. Some said they’d witnessed early marriages among their friends. They all appealed to the international community to support their right to education. Some clips reached thousands of people, and prominent Afghan singers, TV personalities and other celebrities amplified the message and called for the reopening of girls’ schools.

We’ve also recently worked with Femena, a regional organisation, to launch a campaign in response to the recent ban on women’s voices in public spaces. Afghan women, at great risk, began singing as a form of protest. To show solidarity, we asked people around the world to share a song, poem or message of support each week. So we continue working to make sure Afghan girls and women are heard and not forgotten.

What challenges do you face in your work?

One of the main obstacles we face is the complete closure of the physical spaces in which we used to work. We can’t hold programmes in schools, universities or mosques in Afghanistan, nor can we speak openly about human rights issues without putting people at serious risk. This severely limits our ability to have face-to-face conversations, which are crucial for mobilising support and building relationships.

Another major challenge is gathering and verifying information. In the past, when there was a violent attack, we would go to hospitals and other local facilities to get details. Now the Taliban have ordered these facilities not to share sensitive information. Families of victims and survivors are also often afraid to speak out, making it difficult for us to document serious violations such as disappearances. Even when we promise them full and strict confidentiality, families are too afraid to come forward.

It is also a challenge to protect our network in Afghanistan. Something as simple as compensating people for their communication or transportation costs could put them in danger. We can’t organise collective online training sessions because participants could reveal their identities to each other, increasing the risks.

On the advocacy front, our biggest challenge is the lack of political will. Afghanistan has largely fallen off the international agenda and many western countries, particularly the USA, are reluctant to get involved. There’s a general perception that Afghanistan is a failed intervention they want to move on from, which leads to a lack of investment in improving the situation, particularly in this election year. Global attention and resources have also shifted to other crises such as the war in Gaza.

This risks normalising the Taliban regime. Neighbouring countries, including China, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, are gradually developing relations with it. We fear that the Taliban regime, which is not yet officially recognised by any country, may eventually gain the international recognition it seeks despite its policy of gender apartheid.

What international support does Afghan civil society need?

Humanitarian aid is key to meeting immediate needs, but it doesn’t address the underlying problems. There is an urgent need to improve the economy, but the international community must find ways to do this without empowering the Taliban, who don’t really care about the wellbeing of Afghan people.

States must be careful to avoid actions that could be seen as accepting the Taliban’s repressive policies and lead to their normalisation. For example, when they engage diplomatically with the Taliban, they must include women and civil society representatives in their delegations. It’s not about stopping engagement with the Taliban; it’s about ensuring every interaction sends a strong message about the importance of human rights, and specifically women’s rights.

People around the world can also help by urging their governments to take a principled approach in their engagement with the Taliban, prioritise women’s rights, hold the Taliban accountable and support education programmes, scholarships and initiatives for Afghan women and girls. They can also support organisations that campaign for their rights.

Even simple acts of solidarity like singing a song and reading a poem in support of Afghan women, if done collectively, can keep the international spotlight on Afghanistan, give hope to women and girls in Afghanistan and therefore make a difference.

Get in touch with Rawadari through its website or Facebook and Instagram pages, follow @rawadari_org and @ShaharzadAkbar on Twitter, and contact Shaharzad on LinkedIn.

  Source

‘The Focus Should Be on Holding Social Media Companies Accountable, Not Punishing Individual Users’

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Featured, Freedom of Expression, Global, Headlines, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Oct 7 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the recent Twitter/X ban in Brazil with Iná Jost, lawyer and head of research at InternetLab, an independent Brazilian think tank focused on human rights and digital technologies.


Brazil’s Supreme Court recently upheld a ban on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, formerly Twitter, after it repeatedly refused to comply with orders to moderate content. The court ordered tech companies to remove X from app stores and imposed fines for continued access via VPNs in Brazil. This appeared to cause users to switch to alternatives such as Bluesky and Threads. Musk condemned the ban as an attack on free speech, but has since backed down and complied with the court’s orders. Debate continues over the controversy’s implications for democracy and accountability.

Iná Jost

Why did the Brazilian Supreme Court ban X?

The case began on 7 August when a Supreme Court justice, investigating ‘digital malicious activities’, ordered the blocking of seven X profiles for intimidating law enforcement officers and directly threatening the integrity of the court and democracy in Brazil.

X refused to comply with the order, claiming it violated freedom of expression. The judge then imposed a daily fine for non-compliance, which was subsequently raised and ended up amounting to over US$3 million as Musk continued to refuse to comply. At one point, the justice ordered the freezing of X’s financial assets in Brazil, but they weren’t enough to cover the fines.

After more back and forth, tensions escalated when the judge also froze the bank accounts of satellite internet company Starlink, arguing that both companies were part of the same economic group. This caused some controversy, as Starlink operates in a different sphere and its operations aren’t entirely linked to X.

The turning point came when X closed its headquarters in Brazil. Without a legal representative in the country, the court found it difficult to enforce its orders or impose additional penalties. It then gave X 24 hours to appoint a new representative, which it failed to do. As a result, on 30 August, the court ordered the closure of X.

It is important to mention that the court is not super transparent and the whole procedure was carried out under seal. We are unable to grasp the full picture because the process is closed and not all decisions are made public.

What was the legal basis for the decision to close X?

The Court based its decision on Brazil’s 2014 Civil Framework for the Internet. Under this law, platforms can be blocked for failing to comply with Brazilian laws or court orders. Some confusion arose over the notion that the ban was due to X’s lack of a legal representative in Brazil; however, the shutdown resulted from the company’s repeated refusal to comply with court orders.

Civil society raised concerns about some aspects of the decision. Initially, the order included blocking VPN services to prevent access to X, but this part was later reversed due to cybersecurity risks. Blocking VPNs that serve legitimate purposes would have been disproportionate. The order also proposed a US$9,000 fine for users trying to circumvent the ban, which many felt was excessive. We believe the focus should be on holding the company accountable, not punishing individual users.

Is it possible to strike a balance between regulating online platforms and protecting freedoms?

It is. Regulating platforms isn’t necessarily about censorship. In this case, it’s about ensuring a powerful company operates transparently and protects users. Platforms acting solely in their commercial interests can harm the public interest. Regulation can force them to provide clear terms and conditions and fair content moderation policies and respect due process for content removal.

The belief that any form of regulation threatens freedom of expression is misguided. Thoughtful regulation that allows users to express themselves while protecting them from harm such as hate speech or misinformation can balance the scales.

Musk’s stance in this case is deeply problematic. His selective compliance with court orders undermines the rule of law. While platforms like X are crucial to public communication, that doesn’t give them the right to defy the legal system they operate in. Freedom of expression does not absolve platforms of their legal responsibilities, particularly when those laws protect the integrity of democracy.

Musk’s claim that X represents absolute freedom of expression fails to consider the risks of a platform without proper rules. Without moderation, platforms can become havens for extremist groups, hate speech and disinformation. They should be regulated to ensure they remain a space for lawful discourse.

Do you think this case will set a precedent?

I don’t think so. Some people are worried other platforms could be blocked as well, but I don’t think that will happen. This is a unique scenario, and Brazil is a strong democracy. This wasn’t an act of censorship by the judiciary but a necessary measure given the platform owner’s refusal to comply with court orders.

States should develop regulatory mechanisms that allow them to hold platforms accountable and ensure compliance with national laws. This would avoid the need for outright blocking, which ultimately harms the users the most. While the company might incur some financial losses, journalists and citizens are losing access to a vital information and communication tool.

I hope states that are serious about regulating platforms will see this as an example of what shouldn’t happen. We shouldn’t allow things to escalate to this point. And we certainly shouldn’t use this as a leading case for blocking platforms.

Get in touch with InternetLab through its website or its Instagram and Facebook pages, and follow @internetlabbr on Twitte.

  Source

Georgia’s Dangerous Anti-LGBTQI+ Law

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

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

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

Nicaragua, China, India among 55 Nations Restricting Freedom of Movement

Civil Society, Democracy, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Latin America & the Caribbean, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Freedom House

WASHINGTON, Aug 27 2024 (IPS) – At least 55 governments in the past decade have restricted the freedom of movement for people they deem as threats, including journalists, according to a Freedom House report published last Thursday.


Governments control freedom of movement via travel bans, revoking citizenship, document control and denial of consular services, the report found. All the tactics are designed to coerce and punish government critics, according to Jessica White, the report’s London-based co-author.

“This is a type of tactic that really shows the vindictive and punitive nature of some countries,” White said. This form of repression “is an attempt to really stifle peoples’ ability to speak out freely from wherever they are.”

Belarus, China, India, Nicaragua, Russia, Rwanda and Saudi Arabia are among the countries that engage in this form of repression, the report found. Freedom House based its findings in part on interviews with more than 30 people affected by mobility controls.

Travel bans are the most common tactic, according to White, with Freedom House identifying at least 40 governments who prevent citizens leaving or returning to the country.

Revoking citizenship is another strategy, despite being prohibited by international law. The Nicaraguan government in 2023 stripped more than 200 political prisoners of their citizenship shortly after deporting them to the United States.

Among them were Juan Lorenzo Holmann, head of Nicaragua’s oldest newspaper, La Prensa. “It is as if I do not exist anymore. It is another attack on my human rights,” he told VOA after being freed. “But you cannot do away with the person’s personality. In the Nicaraguan constitution, it says that you cannot wipe out a person’s personal records or take away their nationality. I feel Nicaraguan, and they cannot take that away from me.”

Before being expelled from his own country, Lorenzo had spent 545 days in prison, in what was widely viewed as a politically motivated case.

Blocking access to passports and other travel documents is another tactic. In one example, Hong Kong in June canceled the passports of six pro-democracy activists who were living in exile in Britain.

In some cases, governments refuse to issue people passports to trap them in the country. And in cases where the individual is already abroad, embassies deny passport renewals to block the individual from traveling anywhere, including back home.

Myanmar’s embassy in Berlin, for instance, has refused to renew the passport of Ma Thida, a Burmese writer in exile in Germany. Ma Thida told VOA earlier this year she believes the refusal is in retaliation for her writing.

White said Ma Thida’s case was a classic example of mobility restrictions. For now, the German government has issued a passport reserved for people who are unable to obtain a passport from their home country — which White applauded but said is still rare.

“Our ability to freely leave and return to our home country is something that in democratic societies, people often take for granted. It’s one of our fundamental human rights, but it’s one that is being undermined and violated across many parts of the world,” White said.

Mobility restrictions can have devastating consequences, including making it difficult to work, travel and visit family. What makes matters even worse is the emotional toll, according to White.

“There is a huge psychological impact,” White said. “A lot of our interviewees mention especially the pain of being separated from family members and not being able to return to their country.”

In the report, Freedom House called on democratic governments to impose sanctions on actors that engage in mobility controls.

White said that democratic governments should do more to help dissidents, including by providing them with alternative travel documents if they can’t obtain them from their home countries.

https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/FIW_2024_DigitalBooklet.pdf

Source: Voice of America (VOA)

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Killings of Palestinian Journalists Continue –Aided by Uninterrupted Flow of US Arms

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Featured, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Middle East & North Africa, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

The journalists gather in front of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital to commemorate their friends, Al Jazeera reporter Ismail al-Ghoul and cameraman Rami al-Rifi, who lost their lives in Israeli army attack on a moving vehicle in the Al-Shati refugee camp, in Deir al-Balah, Gaza on July 31, 2024. Source: Middle East Monitor. Credit: Ashraf Amra, Anadolu Agency

UNITED NATIONS, Aug 12 2024 (IPS) – The growing number of killings of Palestinian journalists in Gaza has triggered a demand for a cut-off in US arms supplies to Israel.

Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), told IPS despite pleas of the international community to suspend arms to Israel in the face of its unprecedented atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza, including the killing of over 165 Palestinian journalists, it beggars the imagination that Biden is now seeking to sell Israel new weaponry to facilitate even more slaughter.


On August 9, the U.S. State Department officially notified Congress of its intent to proceed with a new authorization for weapons to Israel, including 6,500 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) guidance kits to Israel, despite extensive evidence documenting the Israel Defense Force’s (IDF) use of U.S. weapons to carry out war crimes and crimes against humanity, said DAWN, in a press release Friday.

This “is a slap in the face of humanity and all the values we hold dear,” Whitson said.

According to Cable News Network (CNN) last June, two key congressional Democrats have given their approval to allow the Biden administration to proceed with what is believed to be the biggest ever weapons package for Israel, expected to be worth more than $18 billion and include some 50 F-15 fighter jets.

Blinken also announced his decision not to sanction the IDF’s notorious Netzah Yehuda battalion, despite credible evidence of its systematic and gross human rights violations in the occupied West Bank, in violation of strict U.S. laws requiring the imposition of such sanctions.

“It is mind-boggling that despite the overwhelming evidence of the IDF’s unprecedented crimes in Gaza that has shocked the conscience of the entire world, the Biden administration is greenlighting the transfer of additional lethal weapons to Israel,” said Whitson.

“It is hard to comprehend how the Biden administration can justify rewarding Israel with new weapons, despite Israel’s persistent defiance of every single plea the Biden administration has made urging a modicum of restraint, and despite the very apparent fact that such sales violate black letter U.S. laws prohibiting weapons to gross abusers like Israel,” she pointed out.

Meanwhile, as of August 9, 2024, preliminary investigations by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) showed at least 113 journalists and media workers were among the more than 40,000 killed since the war began, making it the deadliest period for journalists since CPJ began gathering data in 1992.

Journalists in Gaza face particularly high risks as they try to cover the conflict during the Israeli ground assault, including devastating Israeli airstrikes, disrupted communications, supply shortages, and extensive power outages, CPJ said.

This has meant that it is becoming increasingly hard to document the situation, and CPJ is investigating almost 350 additional cases of potential killings, arrests and injuries.

Dr Ramzy Baroud, a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle, told IPS Israel has killed, as of last week, 168 Palestinian journalists, the same way it has killed over 200 aid workers, hundreds of doctors, medics and people from every category and background. None of this is coincidental.

A simple proof that Israel deliberately targets journalists is the fact that it habitually produces and promotes stories that justify their murder, often accusing them of terrorism. Israel is yet to provide a single set of credible evidence against any of the killed journalists, he said.

On October 11, Israeli President Yitzhak Herzog had said “there are no innocent civilians in Gaza”. This disturbing Israeli logic applies to all Palestinians in the Strip, including journalists.

“Israel must be held accountable to its ongoing murder of journalists. But a huge responsibility falls on the shoulders of journalists and media organizations around the world, who often ignore the very murder of their colleagues in Gaza, let alone circulate Israeli’s unfounded accusations often without questioning its credibility or merit,” he said.

The fact that Gazans continue to report on their own genocide by Israel is heroic beyond words. But they must not be disowned, and must not continue to report and die alone without a true international solidarity that could hold their murderers to account, said Dr. Baroud, who is also a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA).

Dr. James Jennings, President, Conscience International, told IPS the heroic martyrs of the free press in Gaza deserve to be honored by all humanity, at the very least with the Nobel Peace Prize. Standing under the bombs, reporting the truth, then paying with your life is a superhuman act of courage.

The job of journalists is simply to journal–to shine a light on the truth by writing down or telling what they see on the battlefield. Killing the messengers is a sign that the perpetrators fear them and their influence, he pointed out.

Deception and lies are major part of war. How else could people slaughter myriads of others and do it with impunity?, he asked.

But truth has two sides–sending and receiving. Refusing to credit honest reporters means that we really don’t want to hear what they are saying anyway. Choosing to believe lies because we want them to be true is what enables wars to continue.

“Even worse than lying to the enemy is lying to yourself. Attempting to cover the plain truth by denying facts or looking the other way is tantamount to insanity. When will Americans stop lying to themselves and start believing their own ideals?”, asked Dr Jennings.

Ibrahim Hooper, National Communication Director at the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, said: “The only thing that can explain the shocking silence of American and international media professionals about the mass killing of their Palestinian colleagues is the decades-long and systematic dehumanization of the Palestinian people, in which the lives of Palestinians have lesser or no value. Journalists worldwide must begin to speak out about these killings and about the Israeli genocide in Gaza.”

In a press release last week, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) said it is monitoring attacks and threats against journalists.

The agency noted that in recent months, multiple journalists covering protests in different parts of the world have been subjected to various forms of attacks, including killings, injuries, arbitrary detentions, and confiscation of their equipment, while exercising their rightful duties as journalists.

UNESCO recalls “that all authorities concerned have the duty and responsibility to ensure the safety of journalists covering protests around the world, in accordance with international norms and human rights obligations”.

In a joint statement, five UN special rapporteurs declared: “We have received disturbing reports that, despite being clearly identifiable in jackets and helmets marked “press” or traveling in well-marked press vehicles, journalists have come under attack, which would seem to indicate that the killings, injury, and detention are a deliberate strategy by Israeli forces to obstruct the media and silence critical reporting.”

Meanwhile, under international law, the intentional targeting of journalists is considered a war crime. While all governments are bound by international law protecting reporters, U.S. domestic law also prohibits the State Department from providing assistance to units of foreign security forces credibly accused of gross violations of human rights. Israel’s well-documented pattern of extrajudicial executions of journalists is a gross violation of human rights.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source