View previous stories
	Shooting death becomes flashpoint for strained race relations in the US by Reuters, UN News, agencies USA   26 Nov 2014   Calls for calm on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, have gone unheeded with mass riots taking place after a grand jury decided not to indict a white police officer for fatally shooting an unarmed black teen in August.   Police struggled to contain protesters who took to the streets of Ferguson, a suburb of St Louis, smashing shop windows and torching cars and businesses despite the president"s calls for restraint.   St Louis County police chief Jon Belmar said clashes between demonstrators and police resulted in 61 arrests.   Mr Belmar said the rioting was "much worse" than disturbances which erupted in the immediate aftermath of the shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson on August 9.   Protests were also staged in New York, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, Oakland and Washington DC over a case that has highlighted long-standing racial tensions not just in predominantly black Ferguson but across the US.   Angry crowds gathered around the police department in Ferguson after the grand jury found there was no probable cause to charge Mr Wilson with any crime in the shooting.   "That"s how the justice system works - the rich are up there and the poor are down here," said Antonio Burns, 25, who is black and lives in the Ferguson area. He said the police "think they can get away with it".   Earlier, St Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch, told the court the grand jury found no probable cause existed to file any charge against Mr Wilson. The officer could have faced charges ranging from involuntary manslaughter to first-degree murder.   Lawyers for the Brown family said the teen was trying to surrender when he was shot at least six times, while Wilson"s supporters said he feared for his life and opened fire in self-defence.   Brown was alleged to have stolen cigars from a nearby convenience store shortly before the incident. He and a friend had been walking down the middle of the street when the police officer approached them.   The shooting death of 18-year-old Mr Brown, a resident of the predominantly African-American city of Ferguson, sparked days of riots and protests.   President Obama said the decision of the grand jury was always going to be a subject of intense disagreement across the country and called for calm.   "First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law," he said. "And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury"s to make.   "There are Americans who agree with it and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It"s an understandable reaction.   "But I join Michael"s parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully."   Mr Brown"s family were upset by the grand jury"s decision.   "We are profoundly disappointed that the killer of our child will not face the consequence of his actions," they said in a statement.   "While we understand that many others share our pain, we ask that you channel your frustration in ways that will make a positive change."   Before the decision Michael Brown senior said he did not want his son"s death to be in vain.   "I want it to lead to incredible change, positive change, change that makes the St Louis region better for everyone. "We live here together, this is our home. We are stronger united."   The shooting death has become a flashpoint for strained race relations in the US.   The grand jury, with nine white and three black members, had been meeting since late August.   A separate federal probe into the shooting is continuing, and US attorney-general Eric Holder emphasised the justice department investigators had not reached any conclusions.   Mr Obama said the case highlighted "broader challenges" the US faced and asked police officers in Ferguson to work with the community over coming days.   "I also appeal to the law enforcement officials in Ferguson and the region to show care and restraint in managing peaceful protests that may occur," he said.   "As they do their jobs in the coming days, they need to work with the community, not against the community, to distinguish the handful of people who may use the grand jury"s decision as an excuse for violence ... from the vast majority who just want their voices heard around legitimate issues in terms of how communities and law enforcement interact.   "The fact is, in too many parts of this country a deep mistrust exists between communities of colour. "This is tragic because nobody needs good policing more than poor communities with higher crime rates."   25 November 2014   UN rights chief concerned over ‘disproportionate’ killings of African-Americans by US police. (UN News)   The decision by a Grand Jury in Missouri to absolve a police officer for the fatal shooting of an African-American teenager has spotlighted broader concerns about institutionalized discrimination across the United States, the top United Nations human rights official said today.   “I am deeply concerned at the disproportionate number of young African Americans who die in encounters with police officers, as well as the disproportionate number of African Americans in US prisons and the disproportionate number of African Americans on Death Row,” said UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, in a statement issued by his office in Geneva this morning.   “It is clear that, at least among some sectors of the population, there is a deep and festering lack of confidence in the fairness of the justice and law enforcement systems,” Mr. Zeid continued. “I urge the US authorities to conduct in-depth examinations into how race-related issues are affecting law enforcement and the administration of justice, both at the federal and state levels.”   Michael Brown was shot by a white police officer in the US town of Ferguson, in Missouri on 9 August, sparking protests around the country and enflaming the debate surrounding the treatment of African-American men by US law enforcement.   The High Commissioner explained that without knowing the specific details of the evidence laid before the state of Missouri Grand Jury, he remained unable to comment on whether or not the verdict itself conformed to international law. However, he said, continuing reports of deadly encounters between police officers and members of the African-American community had repeatedly prompted concerns among respected national bodies and by UN bodies monitoring the implementation of international human rights treaties.   Mr. Zeid noted that just two weeks ago, Mr. Brown’s parents had addressed the UN Committee against Torture, which is currently reviewing the US application of its obligations under the relevant Convention.   The Grand Jury’s decision last night to not charge the officer, Darren Wilson, comes just three days after another African-American, Tamir Rice, was shot dead by police in Cleveland, in the State of Ohio, because he was holding a non-lethal replica gun. Tamir Rice was 12 years-old.   Mr. Zeid noted that Tamir Rice’s killing not only reiterated the racial disparity in deaths at the hands of US police officers but also placed the issue of gun-related deaths in the US back into focus.   “In many countries, where real guns are not so easily available, police tend to view boys playing with replica guns as precisely what they are, rather than as a danger to be neutralized,” he stated.   Pointing to Article 9 of the UN’s Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, Mr. Zeid confirmed that law enforcement officials were called upon to “not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury.”   “In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life,” the High Commissioner concluded.   http://www.aclu.org/aclu-response-ferguson http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/victimizing-eric-garners-family-all-over-again http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/dec/16/new-york-after-eric-garner/?insrc=hpbl http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4153476.htm http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15404&LangID=E http://www.un.org/en/events/africandescentdecade/index.shtml Visit the related web page
	Safeguarding our democracy by standing with civil society by Hugh de Kretser Human Rights Law Centre Australia   Oct. 2014   Safeguarding our democracy by standing with civil society, by Hugh de Kretser.   When people are free to speak their minds and hold their leaders accountable, governments are more responsive and more effective…If you want strong, successful countries, you need strong, vibrant civil societies: President Obama, remarks at the Clinton Global Initiative 23 September 2014, New York.   Across the globe, civil society advocacy is increasingly being threatened by laws and practices that criminalise protest, prevent association, threaten funding and curtail independence. While the most extreme conduct is occurring in nations like Russia, China and Egypt, the trend isn’t limited to repressive states or transitioning democracies.   In September, Hungarian authorities raided the offices and staff homes of an NGO that distributes Norwegian aid money against the backdrop of government claims of foreign political interference. In Canada, there are fears of politically motivated audits of environmental NGOs, and late last year, the Spanish Government sought to introduce anti-protest laws creating massive fines for minor offences.   Here in Australia, the past two years have seen a range of federal and state laws, policies and statements that signal a clear undemocratic trend towards stifling criticism and protest and restricting NGO advocacy.   Anti-protest laws have been introduced or passed in Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania. The NSW and federal Governments cut funding to Environment Defenders Offices after a campaign by the Minerals Council. Other community legal centres and Aboriginal legal services have had funding cut for law reform and policy advocacy. In 2012, the Queensland Government imposed gag clauses on NGOs.   In this environment, many government-funded NGOs are avoiding or watering down criticism of governments for fear of having their funding cut in retribution (highlighting the importance of non-government funding for organisations like ours).   Globally, the fight back is happening. Initiatives like the Community of Democracies, the Open Government Partnership, resolutions from UN Human Rights Council and the establishment and work of the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association, are all seeking to reverse this trend.   Organisations like the Human Rights Law Centre across the globe are fighting for the core human rights that are vital to enable civil society and democracy to operate; freedom of speech, freedoms of assembly and association and voting rights.   In September, I was invited to join 28 other civil society leaders from around the world in a two week US Government “Standing with civil society” program that explored the importance of civil society freedom and that built the capacity of the participants to advance it. The program culminated in addresses by President Obama at the Clinton Global Initiative and the Open Government Partnership in New York.   President Obama recognised that criticism by NGOs can make governments uncomfortable but noted that “open and honest collaboration with citizens and civil society over the long term – no matter how uncomfortable it is – makes countries stronger and it makes countries more successful, and it creates more prosperous economies, and more just societies, and more opportunity for citizens”.   As I write this, my colleague Anna Brown, along with 16 other human rights advocates, is attending a workshop in Kenya on litigating rights to peaceful assembly and association with Maina Kiai, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and association.   This global experience puts Australia’s democratic success in context. Australia has strong and stable democratic institutions and practices and a strong and vibrant civil society. But we can’t take our success for granted. The struggle for basic democratic rights in other nations reinforces not only the importance of what we have and its universality, but also the vital need to resist attempts to wind back what we have achieved over many years.   Sep. 2014   Queensland Police in charge of assessing threats to Premier"s safety keeping files on protesting unions, by Mark Willacy. (ABC News)   Police in charge of assessing threats to the Queensland Premier"s safety have been keeping files on groups opposed to the State Government"s policies.   The threat assessments compiled by the state"s Security Intelligence Branch were obtained under right to information, with many of the documents heavily redacted.   But uncensored sections spell out the "tactics and motivations" of unions protesting against public sector cuts and environmental groups demonstrating against issues such as coal seam gas projects.   "What we’re seeing is an extraordinary use of the Queensland Police Service to keep very close monitoring of the political opponents of this government," said Alex Scott, the general secretary of Queensland"s Together public sector union.   "What is more frightening is what has been redacted from this report than what"s actually included in it."   The original Queensland Special Branch was disbanded in 1989 in line with a recommendation by Queensland"s landmark Fitzgerald Inquiry.   The Special Branch had been accused of being a political tool, used by the Bjelke-Petersen government to harass and investigate political opponents.   The Security Intelligence Branch was formed under Labor in the mid-1990s, and is tasked with assessing threats against people "assessed to be at risk" from politically motivated violence.   The threat assessments released under Right to Information found that "the majority of conventional protesters are compliant with police and are generally non-violent".   But the Security Intelligence Branch assessed that demonstrators were capable of a different kind of damage to the Newman Government.   "IMGs [issue motivated groups] pose the greatest risk of embarrassment to the Premier and his Government by their continued and varied methods of protest and often intend to embarrass the Premier rather than physically harm him," one assessment said.   The police went on to warn that protests at a planned Government summit in Mackay in May 2013 could "have the potential to cause embarrassment and bring unwanted attention onto the Queensland Government and the [Queensland Police Service]".   Civil libertarians say the documents raise serious questions.   "The police haven"t borne the lessons of history in mind and we"re heading down that slippery slope where they"ve gone beyond a legitimate threat assessment into something that"s in great danger of becoming the political wing of the Premier"s department," said Andrew Sinclair of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties.   This potential for embarrassing the Government described in the threat assessments had already led to the Premier changing his lunching plans.   During a visit to Townsville in early 2013, Mr Newman was told that 25 nurses from the Queensland Nursing Union were picketing outside the restaurant he was going to for lunch.   The Security Intelligence Branch reported that "subsequently the Premier changed plans and found an alternate venue for lunch".   Mr Sinclair warned that saving the Premier from potentially embarrassing media coverage is not the job of his police protectors.   "I would have thought the idea of 25 nurses walking around carrying some pieces of paper with words on it that the Government didn"t want to hear, or didn"t want to have put in the media, isn"t something that should find itself in a threat assessment," he said.   http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-17/police-in-charge-of-protecting-newman-keeping-files-on-unions/5751222   Tasmania anti-protest bill contravenes Australia’s human rights obligations, say UN experts.   A group of independent United Nations experts have urged lawmakers in Tasmania to refrain from adopting legislation against protests that disrupt businesses, saying the proposed bill would contravene Australia’s human rights obligations.   Among other things, the experts said that the legislation could silence legitimate and lawful protests, is disproportionate, and targets specific issues such as the environment.   “If passed, the law would almost certainly run afoul of Australia’s human rights obligations, which Tasmania is also obliged to uphold. State governments in Australia need to ensure the legislation they adopt is in line with the country’s international obligations under international human rights law,” they said in a news release.   The Tasmanian government argues the law is necessary to prevent businesses being disrupted by protesters, especially as Tasmania has been the focus of debate and demonstrations on environmental concerns.   The bill, which is now before Tasmania’s Upper House, prohibits protests, whether on private or public property, that hinder access to business premises or disrupt business operations.   It imposes mandatory penalties, including fines up to 100,000 Australian dollars ($93,000) for organizations and up to 10,000 Australian dollars ($9,300) for individuals. Repeat offenders face a mandatory minimum prison sentence of three months.   “The law itself and the penalties imposed are disproportionate and unnecessary in balancing the rights to free expression and peaceful assembly and the government’s interests in preserving economic or business interests,” said David Kaye, the recently appointed Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression.   “The bill would have the chilling effect of silencing dissenters and outlawing speech protected by international human rights law.”   Maina Kiai, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, noted that in democratic societies, protests are key to raising awareness about human rights as well as political and social concerns, and of holding not just governments, but also corporations accountable. “The bill, if adopted, would impede that very function,” he stated.   Michel Forst, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, expressed concern that the law would curtail human rights defenders’ legitimate right to express their opinions, especially when these are at odds with the government or industry.   “Moreover, by listing specific industries, such as forestry, agriculture, or mining, it specifically targets environmentalists; this is shocking,” he added.   The experts, who report to the UN Human Rights Council, noted that in March 2014, Australia co-sponsored Council resolution 25/38 that recognizes that peaceful protests can make a positive contribution to the development and strengthening of democracy, and urges States to facilitate peaceful protests by providing access to public space.   “Given this, the experts pressed the government and legislature of Tasmania to be consistent with Australia’s international commitments and withdraw the bill,” stated the press release. Visit the related web page
	View more stories