 |
  |
|
View previous stories | |
|
Protecting and Promoting Civil Society Space by Human Rights Watch, FIDH, HRDN, agencies May 2016 Protect civil society to promote peace, security and development: A recipe for States and the UN Human Rights Council. (ISHR) A major new report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spells out the essential ingredients to respect and protect civil society and ‘optimise its transformative potential’ when it comes to peace, security and development. The UN Human Rights Council and States must now respond. The global crackdown on human rights defenders and independent civil society is a threat to international peace and security and undermines sustainable development, International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) said this week. By contrast, as demonstrated by a major new report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, respect for civil society contributes to social cohesion, reduced inequality, accountable government, responsive public policy, a conducive environment for business and investment, and the empowerment of marginalised and disadvantaged groups. ‘Countries where civil society space is protected reap significant dividends,’ says the High Commissioner in the report to be tabled at the forthcoming 32nd session of the UN Human Rights Council in June. ‘Conversely, the closing of civil society space, and threats and reprisals against civil society activists, are early warning signs of instability. Over time, policies that delegitimise, isolate and repress people calling for different approaches or legitimately claiming their rights can exacerbate frustrations and lead to instability or even conflict.’ The High Commissioner’s report, to which ISHR contributed through a major joint submission with eleven national-level NGOs, identifies five ‘essential ingredients’ to ‘optimise civil society’s transformative potential’: ‘A robust legal framework compliant with international standards that safeguards public freedoms and effective access to justice’; ‘A political environment conducive to civil society work’, including accountability for attacks against human rights defenders and protection against reprisals; ‘Access to information’ from both public and private actors; Avenues for civil society participation in decision-making processes at the national and international levels; and ‘long-term support and resources for civil society’. * Access the report via the link below: http://www.ishr.ch/news/protect-civil-society-promote-peace-security-and-development-recipe-states-and-un-hrc http://www.ishr.ch/sites/default/files/article/files/g1607352.pdf February 2016 Report, Protecting and Promoting Civil Society Space. (Human Rights & Democracy Network) This report aims to capture the discussions, analysis and recommendations from the 2015 Human Rights Forum on ‘Promoting and Protecting Civil Society Space’. How can we counter the closing space for civil society and what role should the EU play? These were key questions discussed in Brussels from 3-4 December 2015 with human rights defenders from across the globe. The 17th EU-NGO Human Rights Forum: http://www.hrdn.eu/2016/03/15/report-protecting-promoting-civil-society-space-15-march-2016/ http://www.fidh.org/en/international-advocacy/european-union/human-rights-should-underpin-the-new-eu-global-strategy http://concordeurope.org/2016/04/26/eu-global-strategy-position/ Civil Society Under Threat: Old and new challenges for human and children''s rights advocates in Eurasia. (Child Rights International Network) In recent years, the space afforded to civil society to operate freely has been shrinking dramatically across the world, presenting a serious threat to democracy and human rights. Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) have been especially badly affected by this shrinking political space. The wave of restrictive laws curtailing civil society activity has affected the way NGOs operate by pushing rights advocacy to the background. Attacks on freedom of association have often been coupled with clampdowns on freedom of expression and assembly, including through internet restrictions, laws undermining the right to protest, the closing down of independent media and persecution of human rights activists. The governmental crackdown on NGOs is widely discussed by media outlets all over the world, however the focus rests primarily on the latest legal restrictions, with no attention paid to the causes or other internal and external factors that may have contributed to the situation. They also ignore the “bigger picture” which involves not only governments and NGOs, but also foreign donors, UN agencies, regional human rights mechanisms and other actors. Furthermore, there is still a gap when it comes to examining the issue of crackdowns on civil society in the context of children''s rights. With ‘donor fatigue’ in developed nations, the danger of government repression when NGOs accept foreign funds, as well as the lack of tradition of private support, the sustainability of independent civil society in EECA is in question. Domestic funding for NGOs remains inadequate, and in most countries the allocation of state funds is not transparent and state grants are primarily distributed among governmentorganised NGOs (GONGOs). Very concerning are also the efforts of governments and staterun or progovernment media to create a negative image of NGOs, accusing them of being ‘foreign agents’ or ‘Western spies’. One thing is clear: the government''s attitude toward NGOs will not be favourable in the coming years, therefore civil society leaders must adjust to the new reality. Furthermore, very few donors in the region concentrate on promoting the full spectrum of children''s rights including civil and political rights established by international law. Currently, child welfare programmes attract more donations from donors or governments, however they are covering the immediate needs of children. In the long run the idea of children as people who are in need of protection undermines the concept enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child of children as independent human beings with their own rights. Overall, restrictive measures introduced by governments have longterm effects on civil society groups working on sensitive issues such as human rights advocacy. Stronger national, regional and international standards protecting national human rights defenders and children’s rights advocates are essential in order for them to continue their work. * Access the report via the external link below: www.crin.org/en/library/publications/civil-society-under-threat-old-and-new-challenges-human-and-childrens-rights A law beyond improvement, by Tanya Lokshina. (Human Rights Watch) Defining “political activity” may seem like an academic exercise, but in Russia, it is an existential one. In May 2013, as Russia was craving positive international publicity before the Sochi Olympic Games, the secretary general of the Council of Europe, Thorbjorn Jagland, criticized Russia’s “foreign agents” law for the “chilling effect” it could have on the country’s civil society. After meeting with President Vladimir Putin, Jagland told the media: “I have expressed concerns about this [law], and I think it is very important.. how political activity is being defined.” Vladimir Putin, who had been back in the Kremlin for a year and had already unleashed a vicious campaign against critics of the government, did not disagree that the definition in question could benefit from some improvement. Almost three years later, the saga seems to be drawing to a close, and not in a good way. Defining “political activity” may seem like an academic exercise, but in Russia, it is an existential one. The definition is crucial to the law, which has become the centre piece of the government’s sweeping crackdown on free expression. Non-governmental groups are branded as “foreign agents”, which in Russia is the equivalent of “spy” or “traitor”, if they engage in “political activity” while receiving foreign funding. The 2012 law’s definition of “political activity”, actions aimed at influencing the government or public opinion, was very broad and vague. The wording could cover all aspects of advocacy and human rights work. Putin’s international interlocutors hoped the solution would be to get the Russian authorities to narrow the definition so that it would exclude human rights and other advocacy work. The Kremlin proved generous with promises. Every the time issue came up, Putin and other high level officials kept reassuring their foreign partners that the definition would eventually be fine-tuned. Meanwhile, the Justice Ministry kept designating more of the country’s vibrant independent groups as “foreign agents”, treating any type of government advocacy or public outreach as “political activity.” At the start of 2016, the Russian Justice Ministry’s “register of foreign agents” includes more than 100 non-governmental groups, including leading human rights organisations. Some of the groups on the list did not even have foreign funding, but the authorities argued that their members at some point in the past received foreign funds or were somehow associated with something foreign. Dozens have paid hefty fines for failing to mark all their publications and online materials as “produced by a foreign agent organisation,” as the law requires. Close to 20 civil society groups across the country have stopped working, including St Petersburg''s Anti-Discrimination Center Memorial and the Committee Against Torture. These groups have refused to identify themselves as something they clearly were not. Russia’s international partners have remained hopeful that Russia would develop a new definition of political activities. Just two months ago, I was at a diplomatic dinner in Moscow and heard officials around the table refer to Putin’s repeated promises to clarify the term. “My sources are telling me it’s going to happen first thing next year,” one of them said. And so it did. At the end of January, the Justice Ministry issued a proposed, new definition of “political activity” to include in the “foreign agent” law. This definition is very specific indeed. It says loud and clear that no matter whether you carry out legal or policy analysis, monitor the work of government institutions, do public opinion surveys, engage in research, petition government officials, etc. — as long as those efforts are aimed at somehow influencing the government or public opinion, they constitute political activity. Instead of narrowing the definition, the ministry details the many ways in which it has been enforcing the profoundly flawed law for the past three years. This proposed definition is what Russia’s international interlocutors are getting in return for their long, patient wait. It is as if the government is saying: “You wanted a new, clear definition — we took a long time but finally elaborated one that we find particularly convenient for our purposes.” And there is little doubt by now, that those purposes are first and foremost about paralysing independent civic activity in the country. International organisations and leading democratic governments should realise that it makes no sense to wait for good amendments to be written into this intrinsically bad law. They should not be asking Putin to tinker with it. They should say clearly, in one voice, that the law on “foreign agents” runs contrary to the government’s international human rights obligations and that Russia should do away with it. http://www.hrw.org/news/2016/02/08/law-beyond-improvement http://www.hrw.org/news/2016/03/17/russia-rights-defender-attacked-chechnya Visit the related web page |
|
|
Come take a ride on America''s toxic water slide by Maryam Henein TruthOut, agencies USA Come take a ride on America''s toxic water slide: First stop: Flint, Michigan, where two years later, people are still contending with lead-laced water, which was finally detected by the EPA in February 2015 with the help of resident Lee Anne Walters. Next stop: California, where hundreds of wells have been contaminated with 1,2,3-TCP, a Big Oil-manufactured chemical present in pesticides. Travel to the East to see the significant amounts of 1,4-dioxane, an industry solvent stabilizer that continue to pollute the waters belonging to North Carolina''s Cape Fear River Basin. In New York and Pennsylvania, residents are contending with outbreaks of waterborne Legionnaires'' disease (the bacteria grow easily in water distribution systems and often hide in the biofilm of aging pipes). Meanwhile, in June 2016, kids in Hoosick Falls, New York, protested in the streets with placards around their necks that featured PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic acid, a man-made chemical used in Teflon) levels to denote how much has infiltrated their blood through tainted water. Drop to Houston, Texas, where high levels of hexavalent chromium, the cancer-causing chemical made infamous by Erin Brockovich, are turning up in tap water while thousands of fracking poisons overrun imperiled communities and Indigenous reservations. And, to add to the cesspit, just four days after Trump was sworn in, he sanctioned the $3.8 billion, 1,170-mile Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) that will create underground contamination. Yes, indeed, the story of water in America is dirty and deep. The tale took a toxic turn in the 1930s, during the dawn of the chemical industry, when many horrifying toxins were first being introduced into our landscape. Quality reports on what flows out of American faucets today read like a description for liquid cancer. And the water we do have isn''t enough. Since 2008, nearly every region of the US has experienced a water shortage. And since 2015, at least 40 states have been anticipating local, regional or statewide water shortages within the next 10 years, even under non-drought conditions. "Houston. We. Have. A. Problem," says environmental activist Erin Brockovich in reference to the nation''s water supply. Brockovich should know. She''s been at it for more than 25 years, ever since her investigation uncovered that Pacific Gas & Electric was poisoning the small town of Hinkley, California, by adding the cooling water biocide Chromium 6 Cr(VI) into the water supply for more than 30 years. The adverse health effects associated with Cr(VI) exposure include occupational asthma, eye irritation and damage, perforated eardrums, respiratory irritation, kidney damage, liver damage, pulmonary congestion and edema, upper abdominal pain, nose irritation and respiratory cancer. "It''s not just one Flint. It''s hundreds of Flints," Brockovich, who became a household name in 2000 when Julia Roberts portrayed her in an Oscar-winning film, tells me in an interview. "We''ve already slipped and we''re on the cusp of Third World conditions when it comes to our water supply." According to an Environmental Working Group''s analysis of federal data from nationwide drinking water tests, Chromium 6 alone, which remains unregulated to this day, contaminates the water supplies of more than 200 million Americans in all 50 states. That''s roughly two-thirds of the population. Brockovich learns about water toxins via the thousands of emails she receives from around the country. Just consider her the Dear Abby of Dirty Water. For instance, in January 2015 Melissa Mays, a mother of three alerted Brockovich about Flint, long before mainstream media learned the news. A month later, Brockovich''s partner in crime, environmental investigator Bob Bowcock visited the community. He then wrote a report to the mayor outlining exactly what they needed to do to fix the problem. These days, the correspondence never ceases. At the time of our interview, Brockovich was heading to Hannibal, Missouri, where people are grappling with high levels of lead and the dangerous byproduct chloramine. She has also begun an investigation in Waycross, Georgia, to understand why there''s a high incidence of cancer among the town''s children, and she''ll eventually visit Tyler, Texas, to probe its connection with the cancer-causing disinfectant haloacetic acids (HAA5). It''s come to the point where Brockovich sees the country by chemical, not by state. Give her a poison, and she''ll tell you which state you can find it in. She can easily cite 40 states coping with water contamination from lead and hexavalent chromium, among other substances. Distilling Toxins for Truth Despite the facts, politicians have failed to recognize that clean water should be a national security priority. How close do the dots have to be before they can be connected? "I think everyone is waking up," says Brockovich. "Whatever agency on the Hill they think is keeping tabs ... that''s not really what''s happening." In other words, regardless of the administration, the EPA has protected industry-backed efforts at the expense of our health. "There are well-meaning, intelligent scientists and engineers.. but it''s such a cluster mess. They don''t know where to go. They are held back," Brockovich says. "This is an agency that is overburdened, broke." It doesn''t help that the country doesn''t abide by the "precautionary principle," which would require us to prohibit products or processes with questionable effects from entering into existence without further investigation for sake of protecting the people and planet. According to a March 2005 publication from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the precautionary principle can be summed up in this way: "When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm." Long before Trump, the Overton window -- the range of ideas that the public finds acceptable to consider within the sphere of public discourse -- shifted and we decided toxic chemicals were actually safe unless proven harmful. This normalization of pathology is ever-present in our current world. With a climate denier as president and an EPA leadership that seems intent on dismantling the EPA, the Trump administration has arguably just made it more obvious and official that the almighty dollar rules. The administration is already rolling back Obama-era regulations on coal-burning power plants and climate change. The EPA, is now being run by Scott Pruitt, best known for suing the agency 14 times while he was attorney general of Oklahoma. Pruitt''s suits against the agency even included motions to block regulations on clean water. While he was attorney general, Pruitt''s official biography described him as a "leading advocate against the EPA''s activist agenda." Despite findings by the Government Accountability Office that as many as 15 percent of localities lack the resources to address environmental challenges, the current administration''s budget proposal hopes to cut the EPA''s funding by 31 percent by focusing on killing climate change programs, arguably dismantling the agency''s ability to protect the health of people in the US. "The fundamental issue is lack of funds, particularly in areas where population is declining as America''s demographics change," writes Deborah Seligsohn, who researches environmental governance at the University of California at San Diego. On Tap: The United Corporation of America The extent to which companies control government has never been more blatantly obvious. For decades, toxic-waste sites and irresponsible industries have managed to discharge hundreds of toxic chemicals, pharmaceuticals, disinfection byproducts, plastics and heavy metals into the water supply either without repercussion or with penalties that are too slight to change business practices. Put simply, water today has become a repository for industrial waste, explains water quality specialist Dr. Roy M. Speiser of Clean Water Revival. "People are being misled to believe that drinking water is safe because it meets government standards," Speiser told Truthout. "The notion that the EPA''s allowable concentration levels of toxic contaminants in your drinking water is ''safe'' is a myth. If a certain chemical or heavy metal, such as arsenic, is present in trace amounts, and you drink this water over an extended period, it accumulates in your body, which contributes to a chronic health disorder." Unfortunately, it''s insidiously difficult to track cumulative effects on health unless there is acute exposure, and Western medicine often fails to acknowledge the idea that toxic chemicals accumulate in our blood, fatty tissues and other parts of our bodies, and that this overload of toxins in our bodies can affect our risk for certain diseases. The corporations that create the pesticides, cosmetics, plastics and other products that expose us to these toxins know that they are unlikely to be prosecuted for their effects, since symptoms can take 10 or 20 years to pronounce themselves. "The amount of chemicals in our air, water, waterways and soil is one of the most frustrating things about how EPA regulates chemicals in the environment," says Bowcock, whom Brockovich fondly calls "Bill, the Science Guy." "They don''t take into account all the various pathways you are exposed to -- drinking, cooking, swimming, showering, brushing teeth -- from just one medium: water." According to a study in the National Center for Biotechnology Information, "non-genetic, environmental exposures are involved in causation, in some cases probably by interacting with genetically inherited predispositions. Strong evidence exists that industrial chemicals widely disseminated in the environment are important contributors to what we have called the global, silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity." Regulations Speculations The Safe Drinking Water Act, which was originally enacted into law in 1974, was supposed to focus on ensuring that public drinking water meets appropriate safety standards; in contrast, the 1972 Clean Water Act theoretically regulates pollution in our nation''s lakes, rivers and other bodies of water. But when it comes to water health, the EPA has operated at a glacial pace. The Environmental Working Group''s tests and a petition from environmental groups pushed the EPA to add chromium 6 to the chemicals local utilities must test, under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires the EPA to review each national primary drinking water regulation at least once every six years and revise them, if appropriate. The 1996 amendments, meanwhile, require the EPA to select up to 30 previously unregulated contaminants for testing every five years, according to the Environmental Working Group. Yet, in two decades, the EPA has ordered testing for only 81 contaminants out of thousands, and moved forward on setting a regulation for a mere one: the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate. The implementation of that regulation is two years behind schedule. "For an agency to be unable to adopt a single standard (for water contaminants) in 20 years is inexcusable," Erik Olson, health and environment program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) told the Washington Post. "It''s a combination of a bad law and very bad implementation." According to Brockovich, a lack of regulations isn''t the issue. "Any regulation without enforcement and oversight is moot.. We have a Clean Water Act implemented by none other than the Nixon administration that everyone wants to dodge and not follow, and that''s why we''re in the trouble we''re in. We have some really good laws on the books. Let''s just enforce them and we can begin to make headway," says Brockovich.. Visit the related web page |
|
|
View more stories | |
 |