Peter Kellner: Which human rights matter most?

Peter Kellner speaks at the Winter 2015 Index on Censorship magazine launch event at the British Library.

Peter Kellner speaks at the Winter 2015 Index on Censorship magazine launch event at the British Library in February 2015. The panel discussion coincided with the publication of Drafting freedom to last: The Magna Carta’s past and present influences to mark the 800th anniversary of the document’s drafting.

Peter Kellner is president of YouGov and a contributor to Index on Censorship magazine. Kellner discusses the results of a YouGov survey about rights across seven European democracies and the United States. Full results are available here

As far as I know, North Korea is the only significant country whose citizens have never been polled. Everywhere else, it is possible to discover what people think on at least some issues; and in the world’s democracies we can ask about the most sensitive social and political topics and obtain candid answers. In less than a century, and in many countries less than half a century, opinion polls have given people a voice of a kind they never had before.

It is against this backdrop that I chose the topic for my final blog for YouGov, before stepping down as president. The rise of polling in different countries has accompanied the spreading of democracy and human rights. We can do something that our grandparents never could: find out which human rights matter most to people – and to do it, simultaneously, in a number of countries. In this case we have surveyed attitudes in seven European democracies and the United States.

This is what we did. We identified thirty rights that appear in United Nations and European Council declarations, in the British and American Bills of Rights and, in some cases, are the subject of more recent debate in one or more countries. To prevent the list being even longer, we have been selective. For example, we have omitted “the right of subjects to petition the king”, and the right of people not to be punished prior to conviction, which were promised by Britain’s Bill of Rights. Matters requiring urgent attention in one era are taken for granted in another.

Even so, thirty is a large number. So we divided the list into two, and asked people to look at each list in turn, selecting up to five of the 15 rights from each list that “you think are the most important”. This means that respondents could select, in all, up to ten rights from the thirty. This does not mean that people necessarily oppose the remaining rights, simply that they consider them less important than the ones they do select.

This is what we found:

  • The right to vote comes top in five of the eight countries (Britain, France, Sweden, Finland and Norway), and second in two (Denmark and the United States – in both cases behind free speech). Only in Germany does it come lower, behind free speech, privacy, free school education, low-cost health care and the right to a fair trial.
  • In all eight countries more than 50% select free speech as one of the most important rights. It is the only right to which this applies.
  • Views vary about the importance of habeas corpus – the right to remain free unless charged with a criminal offence and brought swiftly towards the courts. It is valued most in Denmark (by 49%) and the United States (40%). In Britain, where habeas corpus originated in the seventeenth century, the figure is just 27%.
  • Rights to free school education and low-cost health care are selected by majorities in six of the eight countries. The exceptions are France and the United States. In the US, this reflects a different history and culture of public service provision. In France, unlike the other six European countries we surveyed, financial rights (to a minimum wage and a basic pension) come higher than the rights to health and education.
  • France is out of line in three other respects. It has by some margin the lowest figure for the right to live free from discrimination – and the highest figures for the right to a job and the “right to take part with others in anti-government demonstrations”
  • Few will be surprised that far more Americans than Europeans value the right to own a gun (selected by 46% of Americans, but by no more than 6% in any European country) and “the right of an unborn child to life” (30%, compared with 13% in Germany and no more than 8% in any of the other six countries).
  • The French and Americans are also keener than anyone else on “the right to keep as much of one’s own income as possible with the lowest possible taxes”. In the case of the United States, this is consistent with limited expectations of public-sector provision of health, education and pensions. With France it’s more complex: public services do not rank as high as in the six other European countries, but jobs, pay and pensions matter a lot. In their quest for security, income AND low taxes, many French voters appear to make demands on the state that seem likely to lead to disappointment. Perhaps this, as well as the lingering memory of France’s revolutionary past, explains the enthusiasm of so many French voters on both Left and Right to mount anti-government demonstrations.
  • In Europe, property rights matter less than social rights. In Germany only 6% regard ‘the right to own property, either alone or in association with others’ as one of their most valued human rights. The figures are slightly higher for France (14%) and Britain (16%) and higher still in the four Scandinavian countries (20-29%). Only in the United States (37%) is it on a par with the rights to free school and low-cost health care.
  • There are striking differences in views to rights that are matters of more recent controversy. In most of the eight countries, significant numbers of people value “the right to communicate freely with others” (e.g. by letter, phone or email) without government agencies being able to access what is being said). Four in ten Germans and Scandinavians regard this as one of their most important rights, as do 35% of Americans. But it is valued by rather fewer French (29%) and British (21%) adults.
  • Much lower numbers choose the right of gay couples to a same-sex marriage: the numbers range from 10% (Finland) to 19% (US). This is a clear example of a reform that, separate YouGov research has found, is now popular, or at least widely accepted – but not considered by most people to be as vital a human right as the others in our list.
  • In six of the eight countries, many more people value “the right of women to have an abortion” than “the right of an unborn child to life”. The exceptions are France, where both rights score just 13%, and the United States, where as many as 30% choose the right of an unborn child to life as a key human right, compared with 21% who value a woman’s right to an abortion. The countries with the strongest support for abortion rights are Denmark and Sweden.

Those are the main facts. Each of them deserves a blog, even a book, to themselves. It’s not just the similarities and differences between countries that are significant, but the variations between different demographic groups within each country. (For example, British men value free speech more than women, while women place a higher priority on the rights to free schooling and low-cost health care. Discuss…)

Nor does this analysis tell us about direct trade-offs. How far are people willing to defend free speech in the face of social media trolls – and habeas corpus when the police and security services seek greater powers to fight terrorism? (Past YouGov surveys have generally found that, when push comes to shove, most people give security a higher priority than human rights.)

The results reported here, then, do not provide a complete map of how human rights are regarded in the eight countries we surveyed. But they do give us a baseline. They tell us what matters most when people are invited to consider a wide range of rights that have been promoted over recent decades and, in some cases, centuries. It is, I believe, the first survey of its kind that has been conducted.

It won’t be the last. Understanding public attitudes to human rights, like promoting and defending those rights, is a never-ending task. It is also a vital one, just like giving voters, customers, workers, patients, passengers, parents – indeed all of us in our different guises – a voice in the institutions that affect our lives. Which has been the purpose of YouGov for the past fifteen years and will continue to be so.

See the full results of the survey.

This article was originally posted at yougov.co.uk and is posted here with permission.

Joint statement in support of European Parliament resolution on the human rights situation in Angola

The resolution calls for the release of all political prisoners and human rights defenders and highlights the case of José Marcos Mavungo, at that time on trial in Cabinda province for the crime of rebellion. Mr. Mavungo was organising a peaceful protest, but the government alleges he was involved with the handling of explosives and leaflets along with other individuals. Despite providing no evidence at trial to connect him with the persons or explosives, and that these men with explosives whom Mr. Mavungo is accused of associating with were not brought to trial, he was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison and to the payment of 50 000 Kwanzas legal fees (approx. US$400) on 14 September. Amnesty International considers him to be a prisoner of conscience.

The resolution further notes the increasing shrinking space for freedoms of expression, assembly and association through arrests, instrumentalisation of the judiciary system to repress dissent by criminally prosecuting individuals for exercising these rights, and the use of violence by security forces to repress peaceful public gatherings. All of these concerns have been documented many times by human rights, civil society and other organisations from within Angola and elsewhere in Africa as well as internationally.

The EP resolution also calls for action from the European Union (EU) and its member states to deliver on their commitments to support and protect human rights defenders worldwide through concrete and visible measures.

In a vote of 550 in favor, with 14 opposed and 60 abstentions, a strong statement regarding these escalations became part of the official parliamentary record.

We, the undersigned national and international organisations, strongly support the resolution by the European Parliament on the Human Rights Situation in Angola. We believe that this resolution underlines the urgent need for action in response to the escalating human rights violations in Angola.

It will be crucial for the EU, its member states and other international actors to provide timely political and material support to Angolan human rights defenders, their lawyers and families and to engage the Angolan authorities on human rights at all levels of relations, including all political, trade and development relations.

We urge the Angolan government to fully implement the measures called for in the resolution including by ending continuing human rights violations, immediately releasing all detained political prisoners, respecting the rights of citizens to enjoy their rights to freedom of expression and assembly, and engaging positively in dialogue with the European Parliament about the very serious human rights issues detailed in the resolution.

The organisations are (in alphabetical order):

Amnesty International
Angola-Roundtable of German Non-Governmental Organizations
Front Line Defenders
Index on Censorship
International Press Institute
International Service for Human Rights
Liberdade Já
OMUNGA
Organização Humanitária Internacional
PEN American Center
Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
Southern Africa Litigation Centre
Transparência e Integridade, Associação Cívica
Transparency International
World Organisation Against Torture

Philip Pullman, Jimmy Wales, and Steve McQueen join call for Angola to drop charges against investigative journalist

Journalist and human rights activist Rafael Marques de Morais (Photo: Alex Brenner for Index on Censorship)

Journalist and human rights activist Rafael Marques de Morais (Photo: Alex Brenner for Index on Censorship)

International signatories from the worlds of technology, journalism, publishing, theatre, film and business, including jewellers Tiffany & Co, called on Angolan president José Eduardo dos Santos on Tuesday to drop the prosecution of award-winning investigative journalist Rafael Marques de Morais.

Marques was last week given a six-month suspended sentence following a trial in which he faced criminal defamation charges over his 2011 book on blood diamonds, which was published for the first time in English on Tuesday.

“Rafael’s trial was a sham. He was told charges would be dropped, only for him to be hit with new charges out of the blue, and he was not allowed to present his evidence or call witnesses,” said Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of freedom of expression group Index on Censorship, which organised the letter.

“Rafael is a courageous journalist, working with little support to expose corruption in Angola. This absurd trial and verdict is meant to stop him from speaking out. We want to make sure that does not happen.”

Marques was awarded an Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression award in March for his work. Signatories to the letter include jewellers Tiffany & Co.; tech entrepreneurs Martha Lane Fox, one of the judges of the awards, and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales; authors Philip Pullman, Neil Gaiman and Elif Shafak; actors Janet Suzman, Juliet Stevenson, and Simon Callow; playwrights Howard Brenton and Timberlake Wertenbaker; as well as Steve McQueen, director of Oscar-winning film 12 Years a Slave. Other signatories included journalists Sir Harold Evans and Christina Lamb; and artists and writers with direct experience of censorship, such as Syrian political cartoonist Ali Ferzat and Azerbaijani journalist Idrak Abbasov.

The letter will be delivered by Index on Censorship to the Embassy of Angola in London on Tuesday, June 2.

For more information, contact David Heinemann on 0207 260 2664 or email [email protected].

The letter

We, the undersigned, call on Angolan President José Eduardo dos Santos to drop the prosecution of journalist Rafael Marques de Morais.

Marques’ vital investigations into human rights abuses should not be impeded by the threat of jail, which is set to loom over him for two years under the court’s terms.

His conviction and six-month suspended sentence are a clear violation of the rights to free expression, to a free press and to a fair trial.

Marques’ reporting is fundamental not only to Angola, but to the world at large.

We call on you to ensure standards of international law are applied during the appeal process.

Yours faithfully,

 

Ali Ferzat, cartoonist

Angela Quintal, editor, Mail & Guardian, South Africa

Dame Ann Leslie, journalist

Anthony Barling, lawyer

Art Kaufman, World Movement for Democracy

Bob Fu, founder and president, ChinaAid

Brilliant Earth Jewellery

Carl Gershman, president, National Endowment for Democracy

Chantal Uwimana, Transparency International

Chie Murakami, director general, Diamonds for Peace, Japan

Christopher Hird, film producer

Christophe Deloire, secretary-general, Reporters Without Borders

Christina Lamb OBE, journalist

David Aaronovitch, columnist

David Harewood MBE, actor

David McCune, publisher

David Schlesinger, founder, Tripod Advisors

Dreda Say Mitchell, author

Edward Fitzgerald CBE QC, lawyer

Elaine Potter, journalist

Elif Shafak, author

Geoffrey Hosking OBE, historian

Grigory Pasko, journalist

Sir Harold Evans, journalist

Howard Brenton, playwright

Idrak Abbasov, journalist

Janet Suzman, actor and director

Jesper Højberg, executive director, International Media Support

Jeffrey Smith, Robert F Kennedy Centre for Justice & Human Rights

Jimmy Wales, founder, Wikipedia

Jodie Ginsberg, chief executive, Index on Censorship

John Witherow, editor, The Times, UK

Juliet Stevenson, actor

Kamila Shamsie, author

Kostas Vaxevanis, journalist

Lara Pawson, author of In the Name of the People: Angola’s Forgotten Massacre

Larry Kilman, secretary-general, World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers

Leber Jeweler Inc

Lee Hirsch, film director

Lindsey Hilsum, journalist

Louise Redvers, journalist

Mariane Pearl, journalist

Mark Stephens CBE, senior member, Howard Kennedy LLP

Martha Lane Fox CBE, House of Lords

Mary Lawlor, executive director, Front Line Defenders

Maya Wolfe-Robinson, journalist

Matthew d’Ancona, journalist

Matthew Parris, journalist

Mohamed Al-Dharadji, film director

Neil Gaiman, author

Paul Webster, film producer

Peter Oborne, journalist

Peter Kellner, president, YouGov

Peter Pomerantsev, author

Peter Tatchell, director, Peter Tatchell Foundation

Philip Pullman, author

Rahim Haciyev, editor, Azadliq, Azerbaijan

Richard Sambrook, director, Centre for Journalism, Cardiff University

Ronald Deibert, academic

Robert McCrum, writer and editor

Sanar Yurdatapan, Initiative for Freedom of Expression, Turkey

Shubhranshu Choudhary, journalist

Simon Callow CBE, actor

Steve McQueen CBE, film director

Sue Woodford-Hollick OBE, businesswoman

Sue Valentine, Committee to Protect Journalists Africa Programme

Suzanne Nossel, executive director, PEN American Centre

Stephen Hull, editor-in-chief, Huffington Post UK

Thomas Hughes, executive director, Article 19

Tiffany & Co.

Timberlake Wertenbaker, playwright

Turi Munthe, founder, Demotix

Yoav Shamir, filmmaker

Ziyad Marar, publisher

2 Feb: Index magazine debate: Do we need a First Amendment in the UK?

magna-carta

On the day when the four surviving copies of the original 1215 Magna Carta are being briefly brought together for the first time, join us to debate whether we need a US-style written First Amendment?

With a panel hailing from both sides of the Atlantic, speakers include former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, academic Sarah Churchwell, Artistic Director of the Bush Theatre Madani Younis and political analyst Peter Kellner.

Please note that the debate is invitation only, please email [email protected] if you are interested in attending.

WHERE: British Library, London
WHEN: Monday 2 February 2015, 5:30pm

This event is presented in association with the British Library

SUPPORT INDEX'S WORK