Bahraini officials yesterday claimed that UN special rapporteur on torture, Juan Mendez, had cancelled his upcoming visit “indefinitely”. Funnily enough, the special rapporteur has denied this claim, saying that the government has actually blocked his visit, which was set to take place next month. The Special Rapporteur said in a release today that officials claimed that his trip could potentially endanger the success of the country’s National Dialogue, which began earlier this year.

Mendez said that the decision “does not enhance transparency with regard to the situation in the country nor demonstrate a commitment to redress impunity regarding any violations. Rather the authorities seem to view my visit as an obstacle rather than a positive factor to the reform process.”

The tiny gulf kingdom has faced unrest since the start of popular protests on 14 February 2011, which have now left 88 dead, according to Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR). 

The US State Department recently released a report evaluating human rights globally, and outlined Bahrain’s troubles with keeping up with its commitments to human rights. The report said that the country’s government has “limited freedom of speech and press through active prosecution of individuals under libel, slander, and national security laws; firing or attacking civilian and professional journalists; and proposing legislation to limit speech in print and social media.”

Bahrain says that reforms are underway, but their effect remains to be seen: according to Human Rights Watch, Bahrain’s authorities “have failed to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for serious human rights violations.” To top it all off, the group also reports that there have been “more than 300 formal allegations of torture and ill-treatment.”

Even though there’s no room for UN experts in Bahrain, it looks like the doors are wide open for another Bahrain Grand Prix. This Monday, Formula 1 head Bernie Ecclestone said he would be pleased to extend the country’s contract for another five years.

“I feel they do a super job and don’t see any problems”, Ecclestone told the BBC.

Let’s recap last weekend’s race: BCHR has reported a total of 96 arrests in the lead up to the race — with 16 protesters arrested the day of the Bahrain Grand Prix. Protests took place in 20 of the troubled country’s villages, with clashes between protesters and security forces. An ITV news crew was forced to leave Bahrain right before the race, after reporting on protests — even though they had the appropriate accreditation. During last year’s race, three Channel 4 journalists were arrested and deported while covering a protest, but officials said that they were cast out for covering protests without media accreditation. I wonder what the excuse was this year?

Last year’s race drew crowds of protesters, who were met with brutal show of tear gas and bird shot pellets from security forces. One man, Salah Abbas Habib, was killed during protests. Bahrain did charge a police officer with murdering Habib, but his case is sadly the exception. In 2011, the race was canceled after 35 people were killed during the country’s crackdown on popular protests at Manama’s now-demolished Pearl Roundabout.  Even though this year’s race went forward, every year this seems to come with a worrying cost.

Sounds like a problem to me.

The post Bahrain’s grand prix problem appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The joint statement was delivered yesterday to the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and marks the second International Day to End Impunity on November 23. The issue will be discussed at the 2nd UN Inter Agency meeting on Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, to take place 22-23 November in Vienna.

THE LONDON STATEMENT by members of the global media community on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, October 2012

We, members of the global media community meeting in London on 18 October 2012:

Condemn all cases of killings and other physical attacks, intimidation, harassment, abduction and wrongful imprisonment as well as other forms of oppression of journalists and other media workers;

Express our dismay at the failure of many governments to end impunity for the killers of journalists;

Register our disappointment and concern at the lack of effectiveness of previous United Nations interventions including UNSC Resolution 1738 on the safety of journalists in conflict and an end to impunity;

Affirm that the right of journalists and media workers to work free from harm, harassment and abuse is fundamental to freedom of expression and therefore a matter of urgent and legitimate concern for governments and societies around the world as well as the news media themselves;

Welcome the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity and declare that this historic commitment should fulfil the high expectations to which it gives rise;

Express our strong concern that in carrying forward the Plan of Action, the UN system, as well as other relevant national and international bodies, should operate effectively and in accountable ways to persuade Member States to create safe environments for working journalists;

Encourage all news media to monitor regularly the actions of their governments, judicial authorities and other institutions in implementing the Plan and ending impunity;

Propose that the acute concerns of the news media for meaningful and practical actions are fully and seriously taken into account at the UN Inter-Agency Meeting being held in Vienna in November and thereafter in the effective implementation of the UN Plan.

Annex

The following were also proposed from the floor and supported by a number of participants at the Symposium on “Media Responses to Matters of Life and Death” hosted in London by the Centre for Freedom of the Media, University of Sheffield, and BBC College of Journalism:-

1  The killing of a journalist in the course of their duty should be regarded as a crime against humanity (Bob Tyrer, The Sunday Times)
2   UNESCO should require Member States to provide yearly reports on the progress of investigations into journalist killings (Zaffar Abbas, Dawn Newspaper, Pakistan)
3   Media houses are encouraged to provide proper safety training and insurance to all staff, stringers and associated personnel (Zaffar Abbas, Dawn Newspapers, Pakistan)

Signatories of the London Statement by members of the global media community on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, October 2012:-

African Editors Forum
Al Jazeera
Article 19
Association of Commercial Television in Europe
BBC Global News
Blue Dot Safety Training
Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism (ABRAJI)
Centre for Freedom of the Media, University of Sheffield
City University, London
CNN
Colombo Telegraph, Sri Lanka
Commonwealth Journalists Association
Commonwealth Media Group
Commonwealth Press Union Trust
Daily Telegraph, UK
Dawn Newspaper, Pakistan
European Broadcasting Union
Federation of African Journalists
Frontline Club, London
Global Rolling News Live
Globo, Brazil
The Guardian, UK
Hurriyet Newspaper, Turkey
Index on Censorship
International News Safety Institute
International Press Institute
L Siglo de Torreon, Mexico
La Stampa Newspaper, Italy
Media Legal Defence Initiative
Philippines National Union of Journalists
Radio Netherlands Worldwide
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Rory Peck Trust
Sky News
Society of Editors, UK
Somali National Union of Journalists
Thomson Reuters
UNESCO IPDC Council – UK Representative Ivor Gaber
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA)
World Editors Forum

Signed in a personal capacity:

Dawood Azami, journalist and University of Westminster
Anabel Hernandez, Mexican journalist
Emin Milli, Azerbaijan writer
Hamid Mir, Geo TV presenter, Pakistan
Lorna Woods, Centre for Law Justice and Journalism, City University

The post Global media community condemns response to killing of journalists appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Kingston Rhodes
Chairman
United Nations, International Civil Service Commission
New York

Dear Chairman

On the morning of 27th June 2010 my husband Shamsher M. Chowdhury, who has been a commissioner of the ICSC since 2005, was suddenly arrested by the government of Bangladesh on false and concocted charges. He was taken to prison and after appearing in court on 30th June, was released on bail. As he was preparing to return home, another totally false and concocted case has been lodged against him today, 1st July 2010, and he has been detained in prison again.

Mr. Rhodes, the whole episode is part of a campaign of political persecution against my husband. For the last one year, the government of Bangladesh has been trying to get Shamsher M. Chowdhury’s membership of ICSC cancelled on one pretext or another. Since he was elected by the General Assembly and by name, technically the government can’t do anything about it.

Hence, it has started to politically persuade him and try to bar him from attending the 71st session of the ICSC which will be held in New York on 26th July. He is expected to arrive New York on 21st July, for which the UN has already issued him his air ticket. He has also booked his accommodation in a hotel in New York for this purpose.

It is also very likely that the government of Bangladesh will try to discredit him and force the UN to discontinue his membership of the ICSC. Mr. Chairman, the matter is indeed very serious. Not only is my husband being physically and mentally tortured, all attempts are being made to disgrace and discredit him for no fault of his own.

Mr. Chairman, Shamsher M. Chowdhury has the rank and status of an Under Secretary General of the United Nations being a commissioner of the UN ICSC. I therefore appeal to you that the Secretary General of the United Nations should immediately, I repeat, immediately intervene with the government at the highest level (Prime Minister) and ask for the release of Mr. Shamsher M. Chowdhury. Such an intervention is fully justified as Mr. Chowdhury is currently working for the United Nations in an elected capacity. In his appeal to the government of Bangladesh, Secretary General should also strongly mention that Mr. Shamsher M. Chowdhury has a major physical handicap and his continued incarceration under extreme hard and inhuman conditions which tamp amount to physical torture and causing hardship to a handicapped individual.

Mr. Chairman, given the seriousness of the matter, I seek your immediate necessary action so that the secretary general can intervene to not only end this persecution of an UN official but also put an end to this torture of a physically handicapped person immediately.

I am eagerly looking forward to hearing from you on this.

Yours Sincerely

Shaheda Yesmin
Wife of Shamsher M. Chowdhury
Commisioner UN ICSC

The post Bangladesh: Wife of arrested political leader appeals to UN appeared first on Index on Censorship.

February 17, 2010, Geneva – Organisations supporting journalists, writers and publishers in Iran have called on Tehran officials to open the door to the United Nations’ special rapporteurs on human rights – including its expert on freedom of expression Frank la Rue.

Resisting calls here for an international investigation into post-election abuses of human rights in Iran, Tehran’s envoy Mohammad Javad Larijani told both diplomats and the media on Monday that there was a “standing invitation” for the UN’s special rapporteurs to visit Iran and investigate claims of rights abuse – only to reverse his position today.

Listen to a recording of today’s UN meeting here.

The rapporteurs should be allowed to visit the country at the earliest opportunity, said representatives of the “Our Society Will Be a Free Society” campaign, in Geneva to observe the UN Human Rights Council‘s review of Iran’s record this week.

The campaign is a joint initiative of Index on Censorship, Committee to Protect Journalists, PEN, Reporters Sans Frontières, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, and the International Publishers Association.

Named for a pledge the Ayatollah Khomenei made during the 1979 Iranian revolution to protect freedom of expression and the press, the campaign will run through 20 March 2010, Iranian New Year (Nowruz), with events aimed at building pressure for the release of writers and journalists in prison in Iran continuing through the spring.

“Mr la Rue and the other UN rapporteurs should not be prevented by the Iranian government from making their own independent assessment of the situation,” said Alexis Krikorian of the International Publishers Association.

“The UN rapporteurs should go to Iran as soon as possible. Certainly we should hear their reports before the UN even starts to consider Iran’s bid to become a member of the Human Rights Council this May.”

Addressing the hearing before the 47-nation Council’s quadrennial Universal Periodic Review (UPR) procedure, Larijani said Iran was in “full compliance with the relevant international commitments it has taken on in a genuine and long-term approach to safeguard human rights.”

UN human rights experts have already voiced concerns about mass arrests and the abuse of opposition supporters, clerics, journalists, students and others, said Rohan Jayasekera of Index on Censorship “but independent investigation on the ground is crucial”.

The Council’s working group report on Iran, which included concerns raised by diplomats and human rights groups was adopted at noon Wednesday, following Iran’s grilling by other nations at the UN on Monday.

“The UN should have been able to mark Iranian New Year this year by announcing a programme of visits to Iran by its human rights rapporteurs,” said Jayasekera.

“Instead today Iran repudiated its international obligations on human rights and further underlined its unsuitability for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council.”

Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly continue to be undermined by the Iranian regime and human rights defenders face an increasingly precarious situation, said six of the rapporteurs in a statement last year.

The rapporteurs questioned the legal basis for the arrests of journalists, human rights defenders, opposition supporters and demonstrators, saying it was unclear and gave rise to fears of “arbitrary detentions of individuals legitimately exercising their right to freedom of expression, opinion and assembly.”

The statement was issued by: Manuela Carmena Castrillo, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention; Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; Frank la Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Manfred Nowak, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; Margaret Sekaggya, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; and Santiago Corcuera, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the working group on enforced and involuntary disappearances.

The list of prisoners of conscience currently held in Iranian prisons includes some of Iran’s most distinguished journalists, some of the country’s leading bloggers, and Kian Tajbakhsh, an Iranian-American scholar sentenced in August 2009 to 15 years in prison following a mass trial of 140 activists, intellectuals, and writers accused of fomenting a “velvet revolution.”

Among the journalists are Emadeddin Baghi, also a well known author and human rights defender; Mashallah Shamsolvaezin, an award-winning editor and press freedom advocate; and Shiva Nazar Ahari, a human rights journalist who has been jailed twice in the last eight months. The Committee to Protect Journalists this month announced that the 47 journalists now in prison in Iran are more than any other country on earth has imprisoned at any one time since 1996.

The post Iran must open door to UN human rights experts appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The UN Human Rights Council on 2 October adopted the resolution, which the US had co-sponsored with Egypt. The US had finally joined the Human Rights Council in June, and its support for the measure reflected the Obama administration’s stated aim to “re-engage” with the UN.

While the new resolution focuses on freedom of expression, it also condemns “negative stereotyping of religion”. Billed as a historic compromise between Western and Muslim nations, in the wake of controversies such the Danish Muhammed cartoons, the resolution caused concern among European members.

“The language of stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals, I stress individuals, and must not protect ideologies, religions or abstract values,” said France’s representative, Jean-Baptiste Mattéi, speaking for the EU. “The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religion.”

France emphasised that international human rights law protects individual believers, not systems of belief. But European members, eager not be seen as compromise wreckers, reluctantly supported the measure.

On the other side of the fault line stood the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which lobbied for a measure against “religious defamation”.

“We firmly believe that the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities,” said Pakistan’s delegate, speaking for the OIC. The “defamation” of religion, he said, “results in negative stereotyping of the followers of this religion and belief and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

Following the OIC’s logic, one could equally apply the language of the resolution to Islamism, a political form which is arguably a “contemporary manifestation of religious hatred, discrimination and xenophobia. It results in negative stereotyping of the followers of other religions and beliefs and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

The EU also had other worries. European members felt that the provision in the resolution on “the moral and social responsibility of the press” was objectionable in that it went beyond the limited restrictions set out in article 19, the provision on free expression in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.

Finally, the EU encouraged the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, Frank LaRue, to continue his work. This was an indirect reference to the attacks made against LaRue by several OIC members at the June session of the Human Rights Council. (Read more here)

The Council stopped short of repeating the OIC’s criticisms of the Special Rapporteur but encouraged him to stick to his mandate. That indicates that he should continue to focus on violations of free expression, rather than purported “abuses” of that right.

While this new resolution reflects new efforts by the US to broker compromises between Western and Muslim nations, it also represents an ominous crack in the defences of free expression.

The post US hypocrisy on free speech at United Nations appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The UK’s ambassador at the UN, Peter Gooderham, speaking in the debate at the Human Rights Council in Geneva on 4 June, said “freedom of expression is essential to effectively tackle discrimination, corruption, to promote freedom of religion and the right to education”. In those words he summed up the reasons why this freedom has become anathema to the Islamic states, and for their massive campaign to overturn this right within the United Nations system.

From their successful undermining of the mandate of the UN independent expert on freedom of expression in March last year, and the passage of resolutions “combating defamation of religion” in successive years in both the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly, to their successful labelling of the ill-defined term “Islamophobia” as racism, they are winning the battle to silence all criticism of Islam, and any criticism of abuses of human rights by the Islamic states and their allies.

Last week they turned their attention to two senior UN officials: Frank La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights herself, the South African human rights lawyer Navi Pillay. The attack on La Rue was unprecedented, but not unexpected.

During the debate on La Rue’s report to the Council on 3 June, he was told that “he lacked competence” to advise the Human Rights Council on its work and he had “exceeded his mandate” in attempting to do so. Having won the first round over the change to his mandate last year, the OIC now wanted its pound of flesh.

“We advise the Special Rapporteur to henceforth strictly adhere to his mandate and the code of conduct. The OIC will continue to closely monitor his performance and will take the appropriate course of action in case of any further deviation,” Pakistan warned.

“He receives his instructions from the Council, not the reverse…there are steps that I hope we shall not find ourselves obliged to act upon in the future,” growled Egypt.

Indonesia chimed in with the complaint that “his recommendations were based on opinions rather than facts”. There is something profoundly Orwellian in the idea that the UN expert on the right to freedom of opinion and expression should be threatened for expressing an opinion. “We don’t want to invoke the president’s ruling [on how to terminate his mandate], but…” warned the Indonesians.

What had this respected lawyer done to incur such anger? In his report to the council he had failed to give priority to reporting on “abuses” of the right to freedom of expression (read: expressions of Islamophobia), the hot new requirement in his mandate forced through by the OIC in 2008. He had instead begun his three-year term by reporting on serious violations of freedom of expression: the 60 journalists murdered in 2008, and the 929 reported attacks on media professionals. He also addressed the links between extreme poverty, access to information and freedom of opinion and expression. In other words, he had been doing his job.

The challenge to La Rue did not go unanswered. The United States, Canada, the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands and several non-governmental organisations weighed in, pointing out that, according to the code of conduct, it was for the mandate holder alone to decide how to carry out his mandate; his independence must be respected. But the voices of reason are now in a minority at the Human Rights Council.

All week there had been a mood of triumphalism in Geneva as Sri Lanka gloated over its success the previous week. Thanks to support from the OIC and its allies — Russia, China and India — a special session of the council had let Sri Lanka off the hook. There are chilling parallels here with successful efforts by the Chinese to stifle criticism of their actions in Tibet last year. Despite widespread allegations of indiscriminate slaughter of civilians by the Sri Lankan Army, there would be no UN-sponsored inquiry into human rights abuse during the war against the Tamil Tigers. In an interview in Lakbima News, Sri Lanka’s ambassador, Dayan Jayatilleka, gloated: “Stand up for others; they will stand up for you.” In the council on Friday he lambasted France, the UK and others, describing his “contempt” for their continuing calls for an international inquiry.

Then India weighed in with an ad hominem attack on the integrity of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. How dare she call again for an international inquiry into Sri Lanka? She had supported the call for a special session of the council; the special session was held and had concluded that an international inquiry was unnecessary. Why was she defying the will of the council? (Could it be that she is concerned about human rights abuse –– wherever it occurs?)

In her report, the High Commissioner, a UN civil servant whose office is mercifully independent of the council, had referred to a meeting she had attended in Paris to discuss the human rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. How dare she speak out in favour of human rights for homosexuals when the council has no agreed policy on homosexuality, asked Pakistan. (Could she possibly believe that all human beings are entitled to human rights?)

What is at stake here is more than limits on freedom of expression. What we are seeing is a direct challenge to the ability of the Human Rights Council and other UN human rights mechanisms to deal effectively with human rights abuse. When freedom to collect information and express opinions is restricted, then the ability to expose corruption, discrimination and human rights abuse is fatally weakened. Could this possibly be the real objective of the Islamic states and its allies?

At the end of the debate on the High Commissioner’s report, John Fisher of the Canadian HIV/Legal Network asked whether the time had come to revive the idea of a code of conduct for member states.

Sorry, John, it’s far too late.

Roy W Brown is the International Humanist and Ethical Union’s main representative at the UN in Geneva

Read Miklos Haraszti’s report on the rise of ‘religious defamation’ exclusively here

The post Shoot the messenger appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post UNESCO chief deplores murder of Mexican journalist appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Egypt’s Unesco hopeful in book burning row appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Diplomats walk out of UN conference after Iranian ‘hate speech’ appeared first on Index on Censorship.