campaign

• JORDAN: ‘Transnational feminist solidarity is vital in the struggle against gender-based violence’

   Content warning: this interview contains references to femicide and violence.

  CIVICUS speaks with Banan Abu Zain Eddin about the widespread anger triggered by recent femicides in Jordan, and more broadly in the Middle East and North Africa, and civil society’s role in the struggle against gender-based violence (GBV).

  Banan is a feminist activist and co-founder and executive director of Takatoat, an independent feminist collective based in Jordan whose work focuses on establishing safe spaces for women and girls and building solidarity to push back against the prevalent patriarchal culture.

  What do recent femicide cases reveal about the scale of the problem of GBV in Jordan and the region?

  We have recently seen a frightening rise in femicides in the region, shockingly carried out in public spaces. In Egypt, Naira Ashraf, a student at Mansoura University, was murdered in broad daylight and in the presence of several bystanders outside the university gates. Shortly after, a Jordanian student, Iman Arsheed, was shot on her university campus in Amman. A few weeks later, another Egyptian university student, Salma Bahgat, was knifed to death by a fellow student. In what seems to be a pattern, the murderer was a man whose marriage proposal she had rejected. The string of tragedies continued in Lebanon, where a young pregnant woman was beaten and burned to death by her husband.

  We are seeing a wave of femicides in the region. We have reached a point at which people are witnessing femicides happen in public and not bothering to interfere. This is leading to femicide being normalised and even turned into a spectacle. A terrible case in this regard took place in 2020, when a woman was murdered by her father who then sat beside her body drinking a cup of tea while people made videos and took photos of the murder scene. The victim had recently been returned to her family after spending time in a women’s detention facility for complaining of her husband’s domestic abuse.

  Women and girls are constantly at risk of being killed just for being female. Women are targeted when they are viewed as challenging those exercising power over women’s bodies and choices. Men get easily offended when women violate the unwritten rule that a man cannot be rejected by a woman. A rejection of a marriage proposal represents a denial of male authority over women.

  This is very scary. Following Iman Arsheed’s murder, many women and girls received death threats. Many were afraid of going to class, and some stopped attending, effectively losing their right to access education. Such crimes reinforce the exclusion of women, taking us backward in a struggle that an older generation of feminists has carried on for decades.

  What roles are Jordanian women’s rights organisations playing in the struggle against GBV?

  We are putting forward demands for national mechanisms for monitoring GBV, reporting cases, protecting victims and holding perpetrators accountable. We emphasise that encouraging women and girls to report abuse should only come after the enactment of protection mechanisms, and that immediate accountability is the main deterrent.

  We also work to counter the normalisation of GBV by focusing on the ethics of media coverage. As much as the murderer should bear full responsibility for his crime, the media should be held accountable for its coverage. Naira Ashraf’s murder provided a blunt example of the terrible normalising effects of media coverage that is sympathetic towards perpetrators rather than victims of GBV. Her murderer’s defence lawyer was given a lot of air space that he used to justify the murder, creating a wave of public sympathy for his client. 

   

  What should the Jordanian government do to curb GBV?

  Women’s rights and safety should be a priority on the government’s agenda. Sadly, this is not the case. State inaction has normalised GBV. The recent femicides didn’t happen out of the blue: a series of events led to them that the state did nothing to stop. The state has so far failed to establish effective protection and reporting mechanisms and encourage women to report violence before it escalates.

  When a woman in Jordan reports a situation of violence, including domestic violence, she is typically blamed. Reporting mechanisms have a major flaw when it comes to abusive family members: victims are sent back home to their abusers once perpetrators sign a pledge to stop the abuse. On top of that, the concept of swift justice for GBV victims simply doesn’t exist.

  Additionally, the limited protection mechanisms that currently exist scare most GBV victims away. Women hosted in safe houses are subjected to a number of rules and regulations that result in them losing their freedom of movement, being under surveillance and losing access to communication devices.

  In short, the current wave of femicides is a direct result of collusion between the government, the media and the judiciary.

  What was the idea behind the call for a regional strike against GBV?

  The regional strike that we held on 6 July was just the start of our cross-border fight against GBV. Transnational feminist solidarity is vital in this struggle. The driving force of our call was sheer anger at the current situation: we will not accept more piecemeal, ineffective solutions for a problem that is systematic and systemic.

  Violence against women is the result of a system that places women in a subordinate position. That’s why the whole range of feminist demands for rights are inseparable. Intersectional feminism believes that protecting women from violence implies not only protecting them from femicide but also closing the gender pay gap and recognising women’s unpaid work, among many other things.

  The strike was quite successful because it proved that if the rise in femicides is a regional phenomenon, feminist organising against it is regional as well.

  Civic space in Jordan is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Takatoatthrough itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@takatoat on Twitter. 

• KENYA: ‘People are discouraged from voting when they think that voices do not matter’

  CIVICUS speaks about the recent presidential election in Kenya with Ken Ogembo, programme manager of Siasa Place.

  Siasa Place is a civil society organisation (CSO) founded in 2015 with the aim of promoting youth participation in politics. It educates people about the importance of voting and how the government can be held accountable.

  Did you observe an increase in civic space restrictions around the 9 August election?

  We observed several civic space restrictions during the election. The media did not provide fair coverage to all candidates, and the most popular candidates had a clear advantage because everything they did was widely covered and they got a lot of propaganda. Media are powerful tools that can be used to influence the views of people and in this case were used to promote some parties and bring down others. Social media was also used to spread misinformation that influenced many people’s voting decisions.

  Further, there was violence in some counties, which we believe was organised to spark fear. As a result, people no longer felt comfortable attending campaigns for some candidates because of fear they could be attacked. 

  There were also cases of candidates being attacked. Some female politicians were attacked and assaulted; unfortunately not much was done to protect them or follow up on their cases. William Ruto, announced as the winner of the election, was also attacked in Kisumu. His vehicles were destroyed but fortunately he was not hurt. 

  There was also a situation in Kakamega county between the two main coalitions, Kenya Kwanza and Azimio la Umoja: they were fighting over access to a stadium and a number of people got hurt in the process.

  However, I do not believe violence was serious or widespread to the point that we could say it was what marked the electoral process.

  Why was there such low voter turnout?

  There are a number of factors that could have possibly contributed to it, but I think it is first and foremost about people being demotivated from voting because they do not see any change happening as a result of elections. Government corruption is pervasive no matter who is in the government, and economic performance is consistently poor. Public services are of very low quality: there are not enough healthcare facilities, doctors are often going on strike, markets are dirty. Youth unemployment continues to be very high, and most people don’t think this will change, so many do not see any reason for voting.

  We also need to look at how candidates are nominated. Presidential candidate Raila Odinga’s party, Azimio la Umoja, did not conduct democratic internal processes in most of its strongholds and often nominated people who had long been in power and had performed dismally. People are discouraged from voting when they think their voices do not matter.

  I would also say it is also ignorance that drives young people away from the polls. They should understand that regardless of whether they get out to vote, a government will get elected and will rule over them. The fact that they did not vote takes away their moral authority to question those in power. Of course they still have a constitutional right to do so, but their questioning will lack substance and they will not have any alternative to offer.

  Through our engagement with young people, we have noticed they lack confidence in the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IBEC), the institution that manages elections, which many consider unable to deliver free and fair elections. They view it as pointless to go out and vote if the IBEC can’t ensure their votes will count.

  This is probably a mistake, because there have been improvements in the electoral process, including by making it clear that the results received from voting stations are final. However, the IBEC still has a lot of work to do make people trust the electoral process.

  Finally, I think the government played a huge role by not providing any civic education. It only started doing the basics when it was already too late, as most people who didn’t vote had already made up their minds not to. And when the government did, the content was not of the right kind, in the sense that would make people understand why voting is important and how to play their role as citizens.

  Has civil society been able to play its role in the electoral process?

  Civil society’s role has been somewhat restricted. Many CSOs would need more support and resources to play their full range of roles during elections. During this election we saw many CSOs unable to provide civic education programmes because of lack of funding and government support.

  Our job as civil society is to advocate on people’s behalf, inform them about the process and raise awareness of their rights. But most of us were denied the right to do our work due to lack of resources. My organisation, Siasa Place, played a key role in the previous election because it received the required resources in time. But this year the support we needed came about two months before the elections, which is rather late for us to start doing our work at the community level. This affected our role, but we hope things will improve in the coming years. We need government and civil society to work together to inform people around elections so they know what they are doing.

  There were also cases of CSOs being instrumentalised by political parties to influence voters. That defeats the whole purpose of having an active civil society. We urge the concerned CSOs to remember their original goals and mission and refocus on them. We should be the voice of marginalised people and communities, not of political parties. It is our duty to hold political parties accountable, not root for them at elections.

  Given the very close result, do you think there could be a recount or even an election re-run?

  If the defeated candidate can convince the court that there have been irregularities so gross that they have affected the outcome, then the court could nullify the results. But if votes are recounted and the result comes out the same, there won’t be a need for a rerun.

  Civic space in Kenya is rated ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Siasa Place through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@siasaplace on Twitter. 

• MALAYSIA: ‘Young voters could be Malaysia’s kingmakers

  

  CIVICUS speaks with Tharma Pillai, co-founder and Advocacy Director of Undi18.

  A youth civil society organisation (CSO) born out of the student movement, Undi18 successfully advocated for the amendment of article 119(1) of Malaysia’s Constitution to reduce the minimum voting age, allowing people over 18 to vote in the 19 November 2022 election.

  How did Undi18 start and what was your objective?

  In 2016, my co-founder and I were both studying in the USA and that year’s election inspired us. I came from a sciences and technology background, where most people don’t really care about these things. But seeing democracy in action and our US classmates engage with the electoral process made us reflect on our inability to vote in our home country, Malaysia. It was quite interesting that because they had the right to vote, they felt the responsibility of helping choose the best possible leader for their country.

  We started thinking of ways to replicate these practices and bring this kind of energy into Malaysian university campuses. It was only natural for us to focus on the right to vote because voting age in Malaysia was 21, which meant that a high proportion of college students were ineligible to vote. This did not happen in the USA, where the minimum voting age is 18. By 2016, some of our US classmates were voting for the second time in their lives, while I had never yet had the chance. We thought that would have to change 

  When we did our research, we realised that our demand was not radical at all, and in fact it was long overdue. We were one of only eight countries in the entire world with a minimum voting age as high as 21. We launched Undi18 – which means ‘Vote18’ – as soon as we came back to Malaysia. Our single focus was on the amendment of article 119(1) of the Federal Constitution to lower the voting age from 21 to 18.

  What tactics did you use to campaign for change?

  To make sure we had a stronger voice, in the first year we ran a digital advocacy campaign, something unheard of in Malaysia, where most civil society work and campaigning take place very much on the ground. We came into existence as a hashtag movement in February 2017.

  At the time we were not registered as a CSO. We didn’t have funding. Our team was very small. The campaign was our passion project. But due to effective digital mobilisation, it looked like we had so many supporters. That prompted the media to pick up on our story. We were always willing to work with people of all political leanings.

  Many Malaysian CSOs tend to side squarely with the opposition because for a long time our country had one-party rule. We of course worked with the opposition, but we also engaged with other parties. That also made us open to engaging with whoever criticised our movement and addressing any grievances directly.

  In addition to the digital campaign, we started off a petition and a memorandum to the prime minister. Unfortunately, we didn’t get too far with the government. We knocked on many doors and talked to many people, but the government viewed young people as inclined to vote for the opposition, so they disliked the idea of lowering the voting age for reasons of political calculation. But we gained traction with the opposition, which raised the issue in their manifesto. This gave us a lot of leverage when the opposition eventually came to power in 2018. They had promised to deliver change on this issue.

  How did you engage with the parliamentary process?

  As soon as the new government was inaugurated, we tried to convince them to introduce an amendment bill, but there were challenges. No constitutional amendment had ever been passed in Malaysia by a government without a parliamentary supermajority of two thirds, and this new government only had a simple majority. It took a year for the government to finally greenlight the
  initiative.

  But not having a supermajority, the government needed to negotiate with the opposition. We did our best to engage with political parties across the spectrum, especially those in the opposition, to convince them that this was not a partisan initiative and all could benefit, them included. We pleaded with them to support the bill for the sake of young people, democracy and Malaysia’s future. Luckily, the then-Minister of Youth and Sports was a very strong ally of ours and helped us navigate these obstacles.

  Thanks to these efforts, in July 2019 this became the first constitutional amendment in Malaysia’s history to pass with 100 per cent of the votes in the lower and upper houses of parliament.

  Were there any implementation challenges?

  There were postponements and delays. The agreement with the opposition was that the law would be implemented within two years. The two-year timeline was unusual, but necessary due to the technical difficulties entailed by the new automatic voter registration system.

  Repeated promises were made that this would be done by July 2021.But another change of government slowed things down, as the new government thought young voters would vote against it. In March 2021, it announced implementation would be postponed until September 2022 at the earliest, but it didn’t provide a clear date.

  We campaigned against this postponement and held protests across Malaysia, which grew to include larger issues fuelling public anger, including the economic situation, the shutdown of parliament and the poor management of the COVID-19 health crisis. We also sued the government. We filed a judicial review against the prime minister, the Election Commission and the government of Malaysia for postponing the implementation of the UNDI18 Bill beyond the due date. The High Court decided in our favour and ordered the federal government to implement the bill by 31 December 2021. Due to public pressure that was sustained thanks to the protests, the government decided against appealing the verdict and complied. As a result, the bill was finally implemented on 15 December 2021, and when the updated voter rolls were published one month later an additional 5.8 million voters had been included in the system and 18-year-olds could officially vote in the next election.

  What were the main elements of the amendment?

  The amendment had three components. First, it lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. Second, it also lowered the minimum running age to 18, meaning you could become an elected member of parliament at that age. And third, it established automatic voter registration for anyone turning 18.

  The 2022 elections were the first in which people between 18 and 21 cast their ballots. An additional 5.8 million new voters were added to the electoral roll issued in January 2022. Malaysia being a country of 33 million, this was quite a number.

  In Malaysia, ‘young voters’ are defined as those between 18 to 40 years old. After the changes, they account for 51 per cent of the electoral roll, up from 40 per cent. This means young people could make change happen. Malaysian politics are dominated by old people. At one point we had the oldest prime minister in the world – a 93-year-old man. Now for the first time, young voters could be Malaysia’s kingmakers. This is why youth turnout is a key element to watch when analysing the results of this election.

  Change started happening even before the polls opened. In the run-up to the election, many senior leaders were replaced with younger candidates in order to appeal to young voters. Overall, the number of young and new candidates increased. And all parties had more youth-centric manifestos, addressing some of the concerns expressed by young people, such as corruption, climate change, the state of the economy and healthcare.

  What more needs to be done to make policymaking more inclusive of younger people?

  I think Malaysia needs political rejuvenation, and that can be done through education. Our society gives too much power to older people, who of course don’t want to let go of it, whether it’s in government, civil society, politics, or business. To change things, you must train young leaders – but nobody is doing this kind of work. At Undi18 we are doing our best to fill that gap so that young people can take up the space, gain power and get ready to be the country’s next leaders.

  We strongly believe that informed voters are integral to democratic success, so we have been working with the Ministries of Education and Higher Education to advance educational programmes to address this issue systemically. We want educational curricula to emphasise democracy so the democratisation process beginsin schools. Some topics such as constitutional rights, human rights and the functions of the parliament are already in the syllabus, but they’re not emphasised enough.

  We also have our own programmes. We run outreach campaigns on social media platforms. We are quite active there as most of our target audience is there. We also run outreach programmes in schools and universities to educate students about their rights. And we have corporate, civil society, government and international partners to ensure we reach as many people as possible.

  ---

  Civic space in Malaysia is rated ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Undi18 through its website and follow @UNDI18MY and @TharmaPillai on Twitter.
• MALDIVES: ‘We have come a long way, but more needs to be done to further open up civic space’
  CIVICUS speaks about the situation of women’s rights in Maldives with Safaath Ahmed Zahir, founder and president of Women & Democracy (W&D). 
   
  Founded in 2016, W&D is a civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes women’s economic and political participation and good democratic governance in the Maldives through research, advocacy and awareness-raising activities. 
   
  What led you to become an activist and found a women’s rights CSO?
   Growing up in Maldives, a small island developing nation, the disparities between men and women became evident to me. I came from a majority-women family and witnessed the personal upheavals that my mother endured and how much my family battled for my education. Returning home after studying abroad was an eye-opener for me. In interviewing for a job, I experienced first-hand the deep-rooted patriarchal culture and the double standards women face on a daily basis. So I decided to put my education to good use: to push for women’s rights and empowerment in my country.

  I first played a role in creating Women on Boards, a CSO promoting gender diversity in the workplace. This inspired me to try to contribute further to building the organisational infrastructure and community to support women’s economic and political participation in Maldives. The organisation I founded, W&D, is now one of the most prominent in Maldives, with over 300 members, 200 of them aged between 18 and 29.

  What are the main women’s rights challenges in Maldives?

  Maldives ranked 106 out of 144 nations in the World Economic Forum’s 2017 Global Gender Gap Report. Women are marginalised in the political sphere due to institutional barriers, discriminatory cultural practices and social norms. Despite being roughly half of the population, having a 98 per cent literacy rate and actively participating in political parties, in 2009 only 6.5 of members of parliament were women. The proportion fell to 5.9 per cent in 2013, and again to 4.6 per cent in 2019. Currently, only four out of 87 parliamentarians are women, and few women hold senior public sector roles.

  With the passing of the Decentralisation Act, which allocates 33 per cent of local council seats to women, there has been some progress in local governance. The Maldives’ women development committees are an important platform for women to enter into politics and to participate in the decision-making process at local and national levels. But many barriers still limit their fulfilment of their mandate. They should be empowered to achieve true decentralisation.

  Women continue to take on the burden of childcare and domestic chores, which makes it difficult for women to engage in economic activities on a par with men. Female labour force participation in Maldives is higher than in other South Asian countries, but women tend to be clustered in low-growth sectors and in lower-paying positions, and they earn less than men. While tourism is the lifeblood of our economy, women make up only seven per cent of the tourism labour force.

  Women’s entrepreneurship is generally underdeveloped, and women’s economic contribution tends to be rendered invisible, particularly in major sectors such as tourism, fisheries, construction and wholesale and retail trading. Gendered economic inequalities were exacerbated under the pandemic, reversing what little progress had been made over previous years.

  Gender-based violence also remains an entrenched problem. One in three women aged between 15 and 49 have experienced physical or sexual violence at some point in their lives. There is a great need for more and better infrastructure to support survivors.

  In sum, a clear female disadvantage persists. Regulatory institutions must be strengthened to solidify existing gender equality gains and mitigate gender inequalities.

  How is civil society in general, and W&D in particular, working to address these challenges?

  Women’s rights CSOs have been working to address these challenges for several years, through capacity development workshops, advocacy campaigns, movement-building and creating opportunities for women and girls.

  Six years on from its founding, W&D has become a leading CSO working to protect the rights and improve the lives of women. We particularly advocate for women’s safety, economic and political leadership and for inclusive democratic governance.

  Since 2018, we have conducted an annual capacity development programme to advance women’s leadership and political empowerment in partnership with the International Republican Institute. In three years, more than 680 women aspiring to public office and political leadership have taken part in our training activities. In the 2021 elections for local councils and women’s development committees, 83 women who successfully completed our training were elected.

  During the pandemic, we launched a rapid response programme for vulnerable women and girls. In response to the dramatic increase in reports of domestic abuse, we established a domestic violence and mental wellness helpline to help women seek the assistance of the relevant authorities, undertake safety planning and connect them with wellbeing resources. We provided survivors with psychosocial counselling and referred the most urgent cases to emergency shelters or other safe spaces. With a grant from the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust (QCT) we were able to assist 130 women.

  Also with QCT support, we worked to improve access to menstrual materials for vulnerable women and girls. Approximately 10,500 sanitary materials were distributed as part of our rapid response programme. We have just received additional support to continue our rapid response programme. We expect to assist at least 240 more women and girls within the next eight months.

  Additionally, in partnership with the Commonwealth Foundation we have hosted multi-stakeholder discussions and consultations with vulnerable populations, relevant government bodies and CSOs to offer policy reforms to address the needs of the most vulnerable.

  This year we implemented a project to help strengthen the capacity of CSOs and community-based organisations working towards women’s empowerment and social development in Maldives. We brought together more than 160 people from various organisations.

  How has civil society in Maldives joined the recent global mobilisation wave against gender-based violence?

  Over the past seven years there have been many street mobilisations, mainly condemning rape and demanding justice for sexual crimes against women and girls and children in Maldives. Protection gaps in rape laws and barriers to accessing justice have perpetuated the prevalence of sexual violence and the lack of justice for survivors. The dire state of women’s safety in Maldives was highlighted by the 2016 Demographic Health Survey conducted by the Ministry of Health, which showed that one in every four women in relationships had faced physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime. In recent years, the Maldivian community has become more outspoken on the issue, particularly amidst the #MeToo movement, where a lot of Maldivian women came forward with their experiences.

  Throughout 2020 and 2021, there were multiple street mobilisations spurred by cases of sexual violence and injustice. In early 2020, following a case of sexual abuse of a two-year-old girl by her relatives, outraged citizens protested against rape and urged the government to protect children from predators. The authorities again came under criticism in mid-2020 after a foreign woman was sexually assaulted and the suspects were released from custody, with reports soon following that one of them was in a position of influence. People gathered outside parliament to protest against rape and impunity.

  Following the exacerbating effects of the pandemic on violence and abuse against women and girls, protesters rallied again in 2021 The government has taken steps to address these problems. It ratified the First Amendment to the Sexual Offences Act to improve the definition of rape and strengthen investigations, including by removing burdensome evidence requirements. In 2021, it also criminalised marital rape, marking a significant milestone for the women’s rights movement. But there is still a lot of progress to be made in combating the violence and abuse faced by women and children.

  How has the space for civil society action evolved over the past few years?

  As a relatively new democracy, the Maldives has taken significant steps towards ensuring civic space freedoms, but there is still a lot of room for improvement.

  Following the November 2018 elections, Maldives has experienced legislative reforms and a relative opening up of civic space. A commission was established to probe unresolved disappearances. Maldives drastically improved its position in the World Press Freedom Index, moving from 142 to 87 out of 180 countries. This was made possible by reforms such as the repeal of the 2016 defamation law.

  While Maldives has come a long way since its first democratic election back in 2008, more needs to be done to further open up civic space. Over the years, human rights defenders have been targeted and subjected to verbal attacks, including hate speech and death threats, while women activists have faced online vilification and threats due to their work for women’s rights.

  CSOs are also under pressure from extremists and hate groups, whose influence in limiting the social and cultural lives and roles of women has persisted. There have been instances of religious scholars advocating for girl child marriage and female genital mutilation, and attempts to suppress women advocates who speak out against these grave violations of women’s rights. Women human rights defenders are specifically targeted and face additional and gender-specific challenges, including threats of sexual violence and rape.

  What kind of international support does the Maldives’ women’s rights movement need?

  We need the continued support of international partners and collaborators to maintain and advance our work to empower women. As our movement is mainly composed of CSOs, we rely on the generosity of international organisations that identify with our mission to be able to continue to run the projects that are making a difference in Maldives.

  We also need continued opportunities for dialogue and collaboration with the international community. The exchange of ideas and information among countries and cultures is inspiring and empowering for women and girls in Maldives, particularly in the areas of business and politics.

  International support for Maldivian civic space also plays a significant role in furthering women’s empowerment. This is largely achieved by developing the skill sets of CSOs through workshops and programmes run by our international partners and collaborators.

  Vocal support from the international community for the Maldives women’s rights movement is also crucial. While we have faced obstacles, CSOs in Maldives have persevered in promoting women’s rights and we will continue to do so alongside our international partners and supporters.

  ---

  Civic space in Maldives is rated ‘obstructed’by the CIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Women & Democracy through its website or Facebook page, and follow @wdmaldives on Twitter.

• MEXICO: ‘Human rights defenders constantly put their freedom and their lives at risk’

  CIVICUS speaks with Antonio Lara Duque, a human rights lawyer with the Zeferino Ladrillero Human Rights Centre (CDHZL), about the situation of Indigenous rights defenders in Mexico, and specifically about the situation of Kenia Hernández, a criminalised and unjustly imprisoned woman Indigenous leader.

  CDHZL is a civil society organisation in the state of Mexico that accompanies the struggles of Indigenous communities, native peoples and collectives who are seeking a dignified life by claiming and exercising their human rights.

  Who is Kenia Hernández, and why is she detained?

  Kenia is an Indigenous Amuzga young woman. She is 32 years old. She is the coordinator of the Zapata Vive Libertarian Collective, which promotes peaceful resistance against the neoliberal development model. She is a lawyer by training, a self-identified feminist and is dedicated to defending human rights, and specifically to defending people imprisoned for political reasons, looking for missing people with the goal of finding them alive and giving legal support to female victims of violence.

  Kenia was arrested on 18 October 2020 under accusations of attacks on a public thoroughfare and robbery with violence. She was charged with serious crimes to ensure she could be kept in the most terrible maximum-security prison for women in all of Mexico.

  On 15 March 2022 the trial court in Ecatepec, in the state of Mexico, will determine whether she is guilty or innocent in one of the five criminal cases against her. All these cases were fabricated with the sole purpose of isolating her and preventing her from continuing mobilising, as well as to send a signal of exemplary punishment to all those people she managed to bring together into a nationwide movement that questioned the private management of highways.

  Is Kenia’s case part of a broader trend of criminalisation of Indigenous defenders in Mexico?

  Indeed, Kenia’s case reveals that the Mexican state has a clear policy of a ‘pedagogy of punishment’, for two reasons.

  First, it sends a signal to the people who protest, and particularly to those who protest against the privatisation of highways, that they should no longer resort to public demonstrations as a form of social mobilisation, because if they do, they will bring upon themselves an unjust and cruel imprisonment such as the one experienced by Kenia.

  Second, Mexican state officials are trying to subdue and bend the will of Kenia, to punish her for protesting, but also to weaken her convictions, to subdue the energy and strength she puts into protest, to let her know who is in charge and who must obey. As she has not submitted to them, they continue to keep her in prison. They know that if she is released she will go back to her activism.

  Both situations are seriously worrying, because they seek to reverse decades of social struggles and opening of democratic spaces.

  What is civil society, and specifically CDHZL, doing to secure her release?

  CDHZL is dedicated to disseminating, promoting and defending the human rights of peoples, organisations and human rights defenders. We defend the environment, land and territory, the human right to water and Indigenous culture. And we focus particularly on the protection of human rights defenders, since in Mexico these are people who constantly put their freedom and their lives at risk.

  Part of our work consists in providing legal defence to human rights defenders who are unjustly criminalised and imprisoned for the peaceful defence of their rights. In its 10 years of existence, CDHZL has helped around 250 people regain their freedom.

  We hope that soon Kenia will be another of them. Mexican civil society has given a lot of visibility to her case, putting her criminalisation on the public agenda and involving key people, in particular Mexican senators, to convince relevant decision-makers to stop criminalising Kenia. We have also tried to bring her case to the international arena, pointing out the punitive policy of the Mexican federal government.

  Through its large team of lawyers, CDHZL has sustained a legal defence in the five legal processes against Kenia, with all that they entail: dozens of hearings, challenges and trials of guarantees, some of which we won. But clearly this is much more than a legal struggle, as high-ranking officials are determined to keep Kenia in prison at all costs.

  Has there been any improvement in the situation of Indigenous defenders under the current leftist government?

  We expected improvements in the situation of Indigenous peoples and human rights defenders and collective rights more generally, but unfortunately there continues to be a generalised disdain among the federal government, regardless of its leftist leanings.

  The government has been unable or unwilling to tune in to the most heartfelt demands of Indigenous peoples. Aggressions against human rights defenders have continued, including disappearances, murders and imprisonments. When it comes to imprisonment, Kenia’s case is one of the most shocking examples of the misuse of the criminal justice system against a human rights defender under a government that claims to be the architect of a ‘fourth transformation’ – a process of profound change supposedly comparable to those of independence (1810-1821), reform (1858-1861) and revolution (1910-1917).

  What kind of regional and international support does Mexican civil society need in its struggle for human rights and civic space?

  Undoubtedly, international observation, very poorly accepted by the current government, would help recover democratic spaces for social protest and the free expression of ideas.

  Appeals to the Mexican government can help sensitise the authorities to the importance of respecting human rights and those who defend them beyond political party affiliations.

  International mediation and good offices will undoubtedly be a key tool to strengthen civil society in the defence of human rights, particularly in processes where the life and freedom of human rights defenders and Indigenous peoples’ rights are at stake.

  Civic space in Mexico is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with CDHZL through itswebsite or itsFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow @cdhzloficial on Twitter.

   

• MEXICO: ‘Legal change on LGBTQI+ rights does not bring instant social change’

  CIVICUS speaks with Erika Venadero about the recent extension of same-sex marriage rights to all of Mexico’s states and the ongoing campaign to realise LGBTQI+ rights in Mexico. Erika is a sexual diversity human rights activist in the state of Jalisco and a member of the National Network of Diverse Youth (RNJD), a coalition of LGBTQI+ youth rights groups from across Mexico.

  What work does RNJD do?

  RNJD is a space that was born out of the 2019 Consultative Youth Parliament, where a Youth Law was discussed.

  As young people we had no legal recognition. We had never been considered as subjects of rights. The people in charge of making the laws and dictating the rules according to which we should lead our lives are adults, even quite old adults, and mostly men. Not surprisingly, they do not understand and prioritise our interests and needs, and instead legislate for adults, and especially for adult men. Hence the need to demand that we be recognised as young people and, above all, as diverse young people.

  Only recently has our network become formalised as a civil association. We are only three years old. Nevertheless, we have engaged in the recent process to legalise same-sex marriage.

  While most of us don’t wish to enter into a civil union, proving our relationship to a public official with signatures and other formalities, we know there are people who wish to have this experience, and exclusion from this right is accompanied by many other forms of exclusions Even if we don’t want this, or don’t want it at this point in our lives, we know that other LGBTQI+ people do, and that the denial of this right is part of what makes LGBTQI+ people second-class citizens.

  What was the process leading to the legalisation of same-sex marriage like, and what role did civil society play in it?

  The struggle for the recognition of the symbolic union between two people who love each other – simply two people, as the current law puts it, without any gender markers – began many years ago, and progressed thanks to the work of individuals and groups who pushed to extend this right to all people.

  LGBTQI+ people are treated as second-class citizens simply because we do not comply with socially established norms that privilege heterosexual relationships. Laws are written and implemented, and all political and social spaces are created, occupied and run by heterosexual people. So this struggle began with a reflection about our lack of representation and visibility in various spaces: personal, political, social and work-related, among others. We have the right to live a full life, but the hegemonic practices that are imposed on us prevent us from living a free life due to the simple fact that we are who we are and love who we love.

  The legalisation of equal marriage in Mexico has been a victory for civil society, and specifically for LGBTQI+ collectives and their allies working with LGBTQI+ people day in and day out. Through their daily work on the streets and in every space, they shifted opinions and reached agreements for the recognition of our rights to be taken forward to the political level of decision making.

  That is why RNJD has been present throughout the process, from the early drafts of the law to parliamentary debates and votes. These are debates that can go on for a long time. As they deal with ‘sensitive’ issues, some political sectors will try to postpone votes indefinitely in the hope that the issue will fade into oblivion. That is why it was important for RNJD to stand firm to demand these bills be discussed and voted on. We will continue to stand firm for the laws to be implemented.

  Have you faced anti-rights campaigns or any other form of backlash?

  Every time LGBTQI+-related news comes out, the response is an avalanche of diversophobic comments. Our very nature makes some people uncomfortable. All our lives we have been forced to live under heterosexual norms, so we have faced anti-rights expressions for as long as we can remember.

  During the recent process to change the law we have faced an intense anti-rights campaign. Not only do anti-rights groups insult and attack us, they also denounce our publications on social media and have sometimes managed to have them removed. We activists suffer constant personal attacks and our social media accounts are frequently blocked. In my case, for instance, an anti-rights group once attacked me so much and reported my profile so many times that Facebook took it down. It’s really hard to understand what it is that bothers them so much.

  Lots of people express hatred towards us. Many keep close watch of everything we do and every single thing we upload, both on the RNJD page and on our personal accounts.

  Clearly people already know who we are and what we do. The network is extremely active and visible in social, political and cultural spheres. We have had very tense internal discussions about the double-edge sword of visibility. Our work has made us visible to both those who hate us and those who are willing to get information, learn about our work, understand what we are about and eventually support us. I prefer to focus on those who come to us for information rather than those who throw their hatred at us.

  To confront anti-rights movements and hate speech, our strategy is to generate alternative narratives. We even use humour to disarm their arguments. For instance, we suggest that they love the traditional heterosexual family so much that they feel like having two of those – a reference to infidelities and what is colloquially known in Mexico as the ‘big house’ and the ‘small house’. These response mechanisms have helped us provoke dialogue.

  What are the next steps after the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Jalisco?

  The idea that equal marriage is now legal in all Mexican states and LGBTQI+ people can marry just about everywhere is simply not true.

  Although the bill has been voted into law in Jalisco, the civil registry manual continues to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. As long as local legislators do not change this, many civil registry officials will continue to resort to this text to deny LGBTQI+ people access to equal marriage.

  In addition, several Mexican states have passed and implemented equal marriage laws years ago, despite which many obstacles still remain. Legal change does not bring instant social change. Hence the importance of continuing to focus on cultural change. Laws can change very quickly, and they do change overnight, but culture does not, and we must not forget that those who manage civil registries are people who have been socialised in a certain culture. Even if they are public servants and must apply the rules emanating from the state, they may also have particular religious or moral convictions. Changing these takes time. The process of cultural change is extremely slow, but we need it to happen to unlock all the locks.

  What other challenges do LGBTQI+ people face in Mexico, and what else needs to change?

  LGBTQI+ people in Mexico face many, many challenges, largely as a product of overlapping vulnerabilities and inequalities. For example, the same issues that affect women in general also affect LGBTQI+ women: the fact that we are lesbian, bisexual or transgender does not mean that we are not women and cannot become pregnant. But in most of Mexico it is still not legal to voluntarily terminate a pregnancy, despite what the Supreme Court has said about it.

  Another huge problem in Mexico is that of enforced disappearances. Jalisco, my state, is one of the states with the highest numbers of disappeared people – and LGBTQI+ people are among the disappeared.

  Another pending issue is the Care Act, currently blocked in Congress. LGBTQI+ people need safe spaces to inhabit, grow up and grow old. All our research, all our statistics indicate that LGBTQI+ people in Mexico are alone and largely unsupported.

  A specific problem for LGBTQI+ people is so-called ‘conversion therapies’. These consist of inhumane and degrading acts aimed at suppressing diverse sexual orientation, that is, aimed at eliminating our true selves. I have personally experienced ‘corrective rape’. My aggressors, people who claimed to be followers of the word of God, told me that they were ‘making me a woman’.

  Centres offering ‘conversion therapy’ operate throughout Mexico and do so legally. Legislation is currently being discussed at the national level to put an end to these therapies, but in the meantime these places continue to operate. In Jalisco, the centres that carry out these practices only need to register and pay a monthly fee. A simple formality and payment enables them to commit countless atrocities.

  Another pending issue is that of the recognition of gender identity, especially regarding children. Several states have laws granting trans people legal recognition of their self-perceived identity, but many more have not yet started moving in that direction.

  As much as we continue to fight and mobilise, we may not see all these changes materialise, in which case we will have done it for the generations coming after us. We are creating spaces for the future in the same way that others did for us since the 1980s. We will make sure that things keep moving forward.

  ---

  Civic space in Mexico is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with the National Network of Diverse Youth through itsFacebook page and follow@RNJF20 and@kika_venadero on Twitter.

• NICARAGUA: ‘María Esperanza’s case is part of a growing process of criminalisation of social protest’

  CIVICUS speaks with Ana Lucía Álvarez, Nicaragua officer of the Mesoamerican Initiative of Women Human Rights Defenders (IM-Defensoras), about the case of María Esperanza Sánchez, unjustly imprisoned in Nicaragua since March 2020, and the ongoing campaign for her release.

  IM-Defensoras is a network of activists and organisations from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and Nicaragua that seeks to provide a comprehensive, regional response to the increasing violence against women human rights defenders in Mesoamerica. Founded in 2010, it seeks to empower and connect women defenders involved in various organisations and social movements to strengthen networks of protection and solidarity among them and to increase the visibility, recognition and impact of their human rights work.

  

  How long has María Esperanza been in prison, and why?

  María Esperanza was captured on 26 January 2020. She is an activist who for a long time accompanied relatives of political prisoners. I believe she began her activism and her organisation after the citizens’ uprising of April 2018. She was already being persecuted, so she was staying in a safe house. The police illegally and arbitrarily raided the house, without a search warrant, and arrested her. She was accused of trafficking narcotics, psychotropics and other controlled substances to the detriment of public health. Her trial is being handled by lawyer Julio Montenegro, who specialises in cases of criminalisation of protest and judicial prosecution of activists and human rights defenders. 

  Do you consider María Esperanza’s case to be part of a broader attack on civic space in Nicaragua?

  There is definitely a growing process of criminalisation of social protest in Nicaragua. The first upsurge in criminalisation came after Operation Clean-up, which ended around August 2018. This was a pseudo-military operation carried out by police and para-police forces to dismantle any organisation of territorial protection that the population had built through barricades in neighbourhoods and roadblocks around the country.

  Once Operation Clean-up was over, the criminalisation of those who had taken part in the civic struggle began. More than 800 people became political prisoners, before being released in 2019 by unilateral decision of the government through the Amnesty Law.

  María Esperanza had already been persecuted, harassed, put under surveillance and threatened before she was imprisoned for her human rights work. Her arrest and trial, like those of so many others, were plagued by irregularities. Violations of due process are systematic. In Nicaragua, the justice system is totally co-opted. It has collapsed and is under the control of the presidential couple: President Daniel Ortega and his vice-president and wife, Rosario Murillo.

  How has the situation of civil society changed since the 2018 wave of protests?

  More than 350 people were killed in a span of six months during the 2018 protests. The symbolic and emotional weight of that death toll in a country that has experienced civil wars, dictatorships and armed uprisings has been tremendous. In Nicaragua there has never been accountability, there have always been policies of wiping the slate clean, which has deepened the wounds.

  In addition to the suffering of the 350 dead, there were over 800 people imprisoned for political reasons, and while many have since been released from prison, we purposefully say that they have been released rather than that they are free, because after their release, political persecution has not ended for them. Systematic harassment by police and para-police forces continues, and it becomes an obstacle to the enjoyment of many rights, including the right to work.

  For these people, the effects of the economic crisis that the country is currently experiencing are compounded by the difficulties brought about by political persecution. They often cannot leave their home because there is a patrol outside, or they go out and they are followed, and then those who follow them learn the names of their employers and start to harass them as well.

  Persecution happens at the local, neighbourhood level. The ruling party, the Sandinista National Liberation Front, has established various structures that are used to maintain territorial control through surveillance and repression: Councils of Citizen Power, Family Cabinets and Sandinista Leadership Committees. If you are an opponent or a human rights defender, there will always be a neighbour of yours who is involved in one of these structures and informs the regime and the police of what you are doing, and then you start to be persecuted and harassed, and maybe at some point you get arbitrarily arrested.

  Harassment and hypervigilance cause psychological damage not only to the persecuted individual but also to their family. This has had an impact on the increase in emigration, which is a dual phenomenon, caused by both political persecution and social need. Since 2018, 120,000 people have left Nicaragua, a huge number for a country of just six million.

  The 2021 presidential election openly exposed the regime’s lack of legitimacy. On what basis does the government stand?

  In the run-up to the 2021 election, persecution was only exacerbated. In order to carry out the electoral farce of November, the government imprisoned 10 presidential pre-candidates and many people with a key role in the electoral process and in the formation of alternatives. This sent a very clear message, as a result of which there is still a lot of self-censorship.

  Daniel Ortega has continued to concentrate and consolidate his power. We are currently living under a regime that has become totalitarian, where all freedoms are totally restricted. This is the only way the government can sustain itself, because it has no legitimacy. That is why repression and social control continue to increase rather than decrease. In the absence of such levels of repression and social control, the very high level of popular rejection of the regime would make it impossible for it to maintain political control.

  As a result, repression, territorial control, neighbourhood repression, the criminalisation of protest and social dissent, and the closing of spaces for the exercise of the freedom of expression and media freedoms can be expected to continue.

  Now a combination of laws has been passed that includes a Cybercrime Law. And we have already seen the first political prisoner convicted under this law, which does nothing other than criminalise the freedom of opinion.

  What the government is looking for with political prisoners is to use them as hostages. Among the people arrested recently are presidential candidates, businesspeople, bankers, lawyers, activists and human rights defenders. The government is trying to negotiate their release to gain legitimacy and international approval.

  The truth is that the government has no international support. The only foreign leaders who attended the presidential inauguration were Cuba’s Miguel Díaz-Canel, Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro and outgoing Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández.

  How can the international community support Nicaraguan civil society in its struggle for the recovery of democracy and human rights?

  We need to amplify denunciations of violations and sharpen accountability mechanisms. Civil society in Nicaragua has made a tremendous effort not only to document human rights violations but also to identify their perpetrators. Given that the justice system in Nicaragua has collapsed, and that civil society is doing everything within its power, the onus is on the international community to push for accountability and punishment of those responsible.

  Daniel Ortega’s regime is no longer a political project but an economic enterprise. Its control of the state allows Ortega to use corruption networks to his advantage. In the light of this, the international community should fine-tune its mechanisms, review economic sanctions and identify the companies that continue to do business, not always entirely legally, with the Ortega regime. Since many association agreements have democratic and anti-corruption clauses, they need to be made operational. Personal sanctions must also be imposed on the architects of corruption and repression.

  What kind of pressure should be exerted to get María Esperanza Sanchez released?

  María Esperanza was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Everything that has happened to her and to the rest of the political prisoners is completely arbitrary; that is precisely why we consider them to be political prisoners. What we demand is the unconditional and guaranteed release of them all.

  What happens to them will depend to a large extent on the strength with which the opposition and the international community manage to exert pressure, and on the correlation of forces that is established between the Nicaraguan government and the human rights movement.

  We must campaign and keep up the pressure. We must continue to put our finger on all the arbitrariness, illegalities and human rights violations. There are still people in Europe and other parts of the world who think Ortega is the idealistic revolutionary of the past, and not the despot he has become. The best way to expose dictators and human rights abusers is to keep communicating the truth on the basis of well-documented evidence.

  Civic space in Nicaragua is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor. Nicaragua is currently on theCIVICUS Monitor Watch List, which identifies countries in which a severe and abrupt deterioration in the quality of civic space is taking place.
  Get in touch with IM-Defensoras through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@IM_Defensoras on Twitter.

• PHILIPPINES: ‘Increased US military aid will worsen the already dire human rights situation’

  CIVICUS discusses the human rights impacts of US aid to the Philippines with Cristina Palabay, Secretary General of Karapatan.Founded in 1995, Karapatan isa coalition of civil society activists and organisations working to promote and protect human rights in the Philippines.

  The USA recently pledged US$500 million in military aid to the Philippines amid tensions with China. This could bolster the authoritarian government of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, already responsible for extrajudicial killings, disappearances and aerial bombing and artillery attacks on civilian areas on the basis that they’re suspected of supporting armed revolutionary movements. The additional aid, along with a proposed 51 per cent increase in the Philippines’ defence budget for 2025, heightens concerns about corruption and rights abuses.

  What’s behind growing tensions between the Philippines and China, and how is the USA involved?

  Growing tensions between the Philippines and China stem from territorial disputes in the West Philippine Sea, particularly over the Kalayaan archipelago and Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal). These disputes were exacerbated by the implementation of the 1994 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which grants rights to a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, including the right to explore and exploit fisheries, petroleum and other marine resources.

  On the surface, this is about the Chinese Coast Guard preventing Filipino fishermen from accessing the EEZ or confronting the Philippine Coast Guard. Behind the scenes, however, are increasing provocations by the USA as part of its broader geopolitical and military strategy in Asia. The USA seeks to maintain its influence in the region to counterbalance China’s expanding economic reach both in Asia and globally.

  As well as asserting its navigational rights within the EEZ in 2023 and 2024, the USA conducted numerous joint military exercises with the Armed Forces of the Philippines aimed at countering Chinese aggression in the disputed waters. Instead of easing tensions, this is exacerbating them. These provocations threaten to overshadow legitimate claims and could undermine efforts to resolve maritime disputes between the Philippines and China peacefully.

  Has the relationship between the Philippines and the USA changed since Ferdinand Marcos Jrbecame president?

  There has been no significant change beyond the absence of the crass and offensive rhetoric associated with former President Rodrigo Duterte. The Philippines’ dependence has allowed the USA to maintain its presence and influence in the country’s national defence and security affairs, serving its economic and political interests.

  The USA-Philippines 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty and the 1998 Visiting Forces Agreement are longstanding but one-sided agreements that have allowed the USA to maintain a military presence in the Philippines, despite having closed its bases in 1991 following public protests. The presence of US troops was further expanded by the 2014 Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement. Other additional bilateral defence agreements with NATO allies such as France, Germany and Japan have also bolstered the USA’s strategic position in the region.

  The US position could become more aggressive if Donald Trump returns to office. This could further escalate tensions in the region, particularly over the West Philippine Sea dispute. This in turn could lead to increased US military intervention in the Philippines through existing agreements and so-called military assistance.

  What is US military aid being used for, and how does it affect human rights?

  On 30 July 2024, following a meeting between US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, US Secretary of Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and Philippines’ government officials, the US government announced a US$500 million foreign military financing package for the Philippines to reinforce ‘cooperation’ on the West Philippine Sea disputes.

  Since 2019, the Philippines has been the largest recipient of US military and security aid, with US$273.2 million provided over the past five years. US military aid has historically been used to support the country’s military operations, including the provision of hardware, financial assistance for acquiring military equipment and technical advisory services. In practice, however, this aid has often been used to suppress political dissent and social movements in the Philippines. The funds have been used to support air, naval and ground military operations that have resulted in bombings, detentions, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, illegal arrests and other serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.

  The new US military aid comes on top of a proposed 51 per cent increase in the national defence budget for 2025, which includes a six per cent increase for the Armed Forces, a four per cent increase for the Philippine National Police, approximately US$104.4 million for the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict and US$95.4 million for the Payapa at Masaganang Pamayanan Programme, a counter-insurgency initiative for conflict-prone areas.

  We believe that the so-called aid and overall increase in security and military budgets indicate a shift towards warmongering that will worsen the Philippines’ already dire human rights situation. The government is prioritising its military efforts over people’s urgent economic and social needs, even though people are struggling with rising prices, inadequate social services and lack of decent work.

  How has the state of civic space evolved in recent years?

  Civic space in the Philippines has narrowed significantly, with fundamental rights such as freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly under constant threat. Counter-terrorism laws, such as the 2020 Anti-Terrorism Act and the 2012 Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act, have further restricted humanitarian work and civil liberties. These laws were meant to target terrorism but are being used to stifle political dissent and silence civil society.

  Instead of protecting rights, the anti-terrorism laws are being used to violate them, with activists falsely accused of being involved in violent conflict. So far, 37 petitions have been filed challenging the constitutionality of these laws, but the Supreme Court has largely upheld them.

  To date, Karapatan has documented that at least 112 human rights defenders face criminal charges under these laws, 32 of whom are currently detained after being arbitrarily labelled as terrorists. Those arbitrarily designated as terrorists include peace consultants, Indigenous rights defenders and a community health worker.

  Despite these challenges, civil society and social movements continue to resist. Our strategies include mass campaigns such as #DefendTheDefenders, which aims to educate people about fundamental rights and freedoms and denounce their erosion through the weaponisation of terror laws. We’ve also built local networks to support human rights defenders and mobilised international solidarity to amplify their voices, highlight the realities on the ground and counter the official narrative that falsely claims human rights have improved under the current government.

  Civic space in the Philippines is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Karapatan through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@karapatan on Twitter. Connect with Cristina onFacebook orTwitter.

• QATAR: ‘Labour reforms need to continue after the World Cup is over’

  CIVICUS speaks aboutthe World Cup in Qatar with Vani Saraswathi, editor-at-large and director of projects at Migrant-Rights.org andthe author ofStories of Origin: The Invisible Lives of Migrants in the Gulf.

  Migrant-Rights.org is aGulf-basedcivil society organisation that works to advance the rights of migrant workers in Gulf countries. It documents migrant narratives and promotes local discussion and campaigns to bring changes in policies, practices and attitudes towards migrant workers.

  What human rights violations have you documented in construction works for the 2022 Qatar World Cup?

  The economy of Qatar is heavily dependent on migrant workers, who make up over 93 per cent of the labour market. The construction sector iseven moreheavily dependent on migrant labour, and due to the nature of the work exploitation and rights violations are much more visible than in other sectors. This also happens in the hospitality sector, domestic work and fishing and agriculture, but tends to be more hidden.

  Since 2000, Qatar’s population has grown very fast, from 700,000 people in 1999 to 1.7 million in 2010 to close to three million now. The infrastructure and the services needed to host such a large population have not kept pace: people were being recruited quickly, but support systems were not built fast enough.

  Rights violations have shifted over the years from poor accommodation to crowded accommodation to rampant wage theft. As the scale of construction operations grew, corporations resorted to subcontracting, with worker recruitment, safety and welfare left in the hands of subcontractors and no effective legal mechanism for oversight, which enabled corruption.

  Unfortunately, the narrative on corruption around worker recruitment focuses on origin countries because for one of the richest countries in the world it is easier to blame poorer countries than take responsibility for the problem. The fact that many of the kickbacks are filling the pockets of procurement officers and businesspeople in destination countries is overlooked.

  This is the environment in which abuse takes place. Workers are entering the country already in debt and often do not receive the salary they were promised.

  Certain steps have been taken to fix this issue. The Qatar Visa Centre, for instance, takes care of the last mile of recruitment so workers sign their contract and undergo medical testing before they come. Fees are also being paid in Qatar. But the bulk of the exploitation happens on the job, when people are not paid what they were promised, or they are made to work overtime with no extra pay. This is not being properly addressed.

  Migrant workers’main concern is to be able to send money home, and as long as they get theirmoney they are often willing to tolerate many abuses: social isolation, cultural exclusion, terrible living conditions and lack of access to justice. These issues are ongoing.

  On other issues, such as workplace safety and heat stress, Qatar has been working on upping standards. There is still a lot to be done, but in the context of the Gulf, summer midday work bans and heat stress regulations are a big step forward. But it is not sufficient.

  A pending issue is health deterioration. Most construction workers are recruited when they are in their early 20s and usually undergo stringent medical tests to ensure they are in best health. But their health deteriorates quickly post-arrival. Due to the inhospitable and unhygienic living and working conditions, they often develop various comorbidities including high blood glucose levels and hypertension. There are also several cases of unexplained deaths of previously healthy, young men, but their deaths are attributed to natural causes or cardiac arrests, and Qatar has failed to investigate the real causes. In contrast to those who have accidents, whose injuries are assessed and who may get a disability allowance or insurance, those developing severe health conditions receive no compensation. Instead, they suffer the consequences when their productivity diminishes, and the burden is passed on totheir familiesand origin countries.

  Do you think recent labour reforms will have a positive effect?

  One of the main reforms has been the removal of the requirement for foreign workers to apply for an exit permit to leave Qatar. The other Gulf countries, except for Saudi Arabia, had already done the same, allowing for some freedom of movement.

  Another important change has been the removal of the requirement of a no objection certificate. This means that all workers, including domestic workers, are allowed to change jobs at any point in their labour contract. This measure triggered a lot ofpushback.

  A new online system was set up that allowed people to search and apply for jobs. It initially went well, but employers started pushing back when they saw the prospects of an exodus and feared losing control of their workers. The Shura Council, the legislative body, also weighed in, following which Qatar introduced a new requirement: to go through the online process to change jobs, workers must submit a resignation letter stamped by their employer. This became a de facto no objection certificate. There are strong power dynamics at play. For instance, there have been cases of workers getting approval to change jobs after not having been paid for months, changing jobs and then having their authorisation withdrawn and made to go back.

  A non-discriminatory minimum wage has also been introduced. Although pretty low, it is still a minimum wage. The basic monthly salary amounts to approximately US$275, or around US$500 if thecompany does notprovide accommodation and food. It is not much in a country with a per capita GDP of above US$60,000, and hence applies only to low-income migrants from Asia and Africa.

  Additionally, across Gulf countries there is a system in place for all workers to be paid electronically. It’s aimed at preventing non-payment but has repeatedly failed to do so. The system should spot non-payment cases early on, rectify them and hold the employer accountable, but it does not. Non-payment cases typically arise when workers who haven’t been paid for several months file a complaint. Setting aside the problem of domestic workers, a persistent problem of non-payment results from smaller companies at the bottom of the supply chain being unable to pay if they are not paid on time by their client.

  The government of Qatar also set up a work insurance fund to protect workers when employers fail to pay them. When a worker’s complaint is resolved by either a court or the dispute settlements committee, a mechanism that handles workers’complaints, the fund must pay. There are certain criteria to qualify and there is a cap on how much a worker can receive that is lower than what most of them are owed. Itdoesn’tmatch the scale of abuse that happens, but it’s still something.

  Finally, management-worker joint committees have been allowed within companies. This was presented as either a step towards allowing unionisation, or a substitute for it. But the power dynamics are so skewed there is very little scope for collective bargaining, and they do not remotely resemble unions, even if the joint committees have elected representatives.

  What role has civil society played in raising awareness of these and other rights violations?

  A transnational advocacy network comprising mostly trade unions and international human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch was activated following Qatar’s designation as host of the 2022 World Cup.

  The World Cup was a good entry point as it forced Qatar to allow for investigations. The network obtained access and produced reports. A lot of international journalists came in. This is something we must recognise, because other countries that held big events, such as theDubai Expo or the Formula One race in Bahrain,didn’t allow this kind of scrutiny.

  But Qatar hasn’t always managed the attention well and sometimes got too defensive or complained that its efforts to open up and allow criticism were underappreciated. But while the government engaged with foreign or international trade unions speakingon behalf of Asian and African workers, it never allowed criticism to be voiced internally and never allowed those workers to organise. The same goes for civil society.

  At the local level there are charitable institutions but there is not a rights-oriented civil society. The closest there is to this are organisations such as Migrant-Rights.org, working regionally. To nurture civilsociety, space would need to exist to speak about women’s rights, LGBTQI+ rights, citizenship rights and many other issues people are grappling with but cannot currently express. But the government knows this is a Pandora’s box. The most it will do is selectively open up some space for issues that are less threatening, such as the situation of migrants, as long as local activism around it remains suppressed.

  The situation is different from what happens in Bahrain and Kuwait, where despite harsh oppression,there are still independent voices rising and fighting back. People are being jailed or forced into exile but there is still a civil society vibrancy thatdoesn’t exist in the open in Qatar. It is probably present behind closed doors and in smaller spaces. People are talking about these issues, but they are not speaking aloud. Qatar,however, recently held its first elections for the Shura Council, so things may be about to change.

  Has there been any accountability for violations of workers’rights?

  The problem in Qatar is that laws have been enforced and reforms have been implemented only in response to criticism. This time around, it was in response to the attention brought by international organisations under the spotlight of the World Cup. The problem with this kind of response is that it tends to stay on paper because it is not the result of dialogue with the key stakeholders, namely employers and workers, and an understanding of the system on the ground.

  Enforcement is difficult because local employers are pushing back: they feel that workers’rights come at a cost that is being paid from their pockets. The government has made no attempt to talk to stakeholders on the ground, and it won’t be able to implement any reform without them. Qatar is a tiny country. We’re talkingabout a handful of extremely powerful families who are in business, in the security apparatus, in the Shura Council, everywhere. Some of their companies have a proven record of poor practices, including using short-term visas and not giving end-of-service payments, and they continue to be awarded new contracts over and over. They are not held to account.

  What needs to be done so the rights of migrant workers in Qatar are not forgotten when the World Cup ends?

  The World Cup is just one event and a starting point for limitless business ambitions. If you look at industry reports, it is clear that large-scale infrastructure projects are going to continue. I only hope that those who shone the spotlight on Qatardidn’t do it because of the sport, but because they really care about migrant workers. Because if that is the case, they should continue promoting reforms and monitoring their effective implementation after the World Cup is over.

  Qatar needs to ensure workers get their wages and fair compensation and that nobody leaves the country in distress.Otherwise rights violations will continue to happen, and it’s not right. I hope the government at least realises that even when the World Cup is over, itdoesn’t need that kind of bad publicity.

  ---

  Civic space in Qatar is rated‘repressed’by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch withMigrant-Rights.orgthrough itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@MigrantRights and@vanish_forever on Twitter.

• ROHINGYA REFUGEES: ‘We want to go back home in peace’

  CIVICUS speaks about the situation in Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh and youth activism with Maung Sawyeddollah, founder and executive director of the Rohingya Students Network, a global network of Rohingya students and young people based in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh.

  What is the Rohingya Students Network and what does it do?

  The Rohingya Students Network is a global interconnected network of Rohingya students and young people. I founded it in December 2019 and it now has members in all 33 camps in Cox’s Bazar. We operate through WhatsApp and we arrange weekly meetings with all members to work towards our objective, which is to ensure the life, liberty and security of the Rohingya people.

  We do two kinds of work. We work on community development by organising activities such as skills training and youth workshops. And we advocate for our people by talking to international media and working alongside the International Court of Justice (ICJ). As bringing justice to our people is very important for us, we help by collecting materials such as victims’ testimonies. We also oversee the overall situation of our people and collect data to share with our members.

  We are bringing a case against Facebook because we believe Facebook used the genocide in Myanmar for business. We would normally send a letter to Facebook and ask them for help to fund Rohingya education camps. But they refuse to compensate for what they did, and so we had to take the legal way. Facebook is responsible for many human rights violations in Myanmar, so now we are legally pursuing the matter. We are getting help from Victim Advocates International, an organisation of lawyers.

  What is the education situation in refugee camps?

  The situation is bad. There are several schools in the camps but they all have a very dated system. One of them is the Rohingya Learning Centre. But all they do is give Rohingya students biscuits! Kids tell us, ‘We go to the Learning Centre to get biscuits, not to get education’.

  There’s a lack of learning centres and qualified teachers inside the camps, even though we’ve been living here for five years. Teachers just teach basic things such as A is for apple, B is for ball. Our kids aren´t getting the quality education they deserve.

  Have there been any changes in the situation of Rohingya people?

  I would say there hasn’t been any change to our situation since 2017. It’s true there have been meetings about the Rohingya and many organisations and groups have issued statements regarding our situation. However, all these meetings and statements have brought no positive outcome. The solutions offered to end the conflict still equal zero.

  There have been some minor improvements though. For instance, the USA has declared the Rohingya situation as genocide. The case has made some progress in the ICJ and the International Criminal Court. But still, solutions haven’t gone past an initial stage. Our crisis is a complicated one. 

  The long-term scenario is complex. We left our country, Myanmar, in 2017 and are still facing systematic violence there. We were a minority and had to leave because of the violence towards us. We are now living in Bangladesh but continue to fight in various arenas to get the justice our people deserve.

  There are many factors we need to consider to get our rights back. We can say there’s a civil war happening in Myanmar. There are two parallel governments competing to rule the country: the military government and the National Unity Government.

  In Rakhine State – where Rohingya people are from – there are powerful groups such as the Arkan Army, which are also a challenge because they prevent people from getting back to their homes. These are challenges we need to address. And who knows, maybe someday we can get back home.

  What challenges do you face when doing your work?

  The threats and dangers are constant. For every single activity we want to do, there is some kind of opposition. A big part of society is opposed to the kind of work we do. We are respected by the government of Bangladesh and allowed to do our work freely, although I think they are now changing their minds. I think our Going Home Campaign, which we launched a few weeks ago, will make our relationship a bit harder.

  There is also the fact that we continue to demand our rights, and many people speak up online and advocate for our rights, but the audience that we really need to listen to us, those responsible for the persecution we suffer, and those we need to sort out our situation, are sitting in government chairs in Myanmar and won’t address our demands because they simply don’t want us.

  What international help do Rohingya people need?

  We need as much international help as we can get. We need the international community to pressure the government of Myanmar so that they accept all of our demands for basic needs and rights. We need them to accept Rohingya people in Myanmar.

  What we expect from the world is to help us create the right conditions to put pressure on Myanmar’s power holders, the main stakeholders to solve this crisis. There are many ways they can help us. For instance, as the USA helped us by declaring our situation as genocide; other big powers should do the same. We need the world to speak out and stand together with us. We want to go back home in peace!

  Civic space in Bangladesh is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Follow@NetworkRsn and@M_Sawyed on Twitter. 

• SERBIA: ‘We live in a system that’s allergic to pluralism, with a government hostile to critical voices’

  CIVICUS discusses recent local elections in Serbia with Tamara Branković, deputy program director at the Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability (CRTA). CRTA is an independent, non-partisan civil society organisation working to develop democratic culture and civic activism in Serbia.

  In Serbia’s 2 June local elections, the coalition led by President AleksandarVučić’snationalistSerbian Progressive Party won in the two largest cities, including the capital, Belgrade, where the polls were a rerun of a December election found by international observers to have serious irregularities, and which sparked months of protests. In Belgrade’s rerun, a new centre-right group came second and the left-wing greens third. This time, the elections appeared to be cleaner, but competitiveness was limited as the ruling party misused state resources to favour its candidates.

  Why did the ruling coalition win in the local elections?

  We only observed the elections for the Assembly of the City of Belgrade, but I believe our conclusion also applies to other local elections that took place on 2 June.

  It should be noted that the election in Belgrade was a rerun of last December’s election, which, as CRTA proved, was severely compromised by illegal and illegitimate electoral engineering, mainly through organised voter migration. The June election was the second, less bad half of an extremely dirty match.

  The campaign didn’t feel like a campaign for local elections but rather for national elections. The dominant political force, with President Aleksandar Vučić at its head, placed what it called issues of ‘national survival’ at the top of the agenda, charging the atmosphere with hardcore nationalist sentiments.

  This was further fuelled by a vote just a few days before the election in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on a resolution on genocide in Srebrenica. It drove an unparalleled propaganda surge, presented as a dignified national defence against a hostile west allegedly attempting to put a label of collective guilt on Serbian people.

  When I refer to the dominant political force, I mean not only the ruling Serbian Progressive Party but also state officials, because the line between the ruling party and the state has increasingly blurred, which is a key explanation of the election results. Political clientelism and pressures on voters contributed significantly to the ruling party’s victory.

  What role did civil society play in the elections, and what challenges did you face?

  Our role was to try to rescue what could be saved of the integrity of the electoral process. We tried to inform and educate citizens about their electoral rights and the ways those rights were being manipulated and abused. We sought to mobilise citizens to report any violations they saw to our observation mission. And most importantly, we tried to recruit and train enough citizen observers so we could get a full picture of the quality of elections. It was a large operation that lasted from April to June, involving 1,500 people.

  But we live in a system that’s allergic to pluralism. Our government is hostile to critical voices, so the space for civil society is constantly shrinking. We need our international friends to be aware of this and spread the word that democracy in Serbia is in danger.

  What other concerning trends did you see?

  Unfortunately, we’ve seen a growth of several negative trends. We witnessed a record number of cases of vote buying and numerous tense situations that approached or crossed the line into violence. All the chronic problems that have devalued elections for many years continued to grow, from people’s distrust of the voters’ register and extremely unequal media access for candidates, to abuse of state institutions and public resources, unscrupulous pressure on voters and deteriorating conditions for election observation.

  Since the December 2023 elections, a number of international voices have spoken out about the situation in Serbia. The UN Human Rights Committee issued a strong rebuke, criticising the Serbian authorities for their opaque handling of election violations. Various UN human rights experts reported serious state attacks on election observers, civil society and the media and asked for clarifications from the Serbian government, but barely received a response.

  These problems remain unresolved because of state capture. State institutions are subordinated to party interests, and the party in power shows no political will to change this situation.

  ---

   Civic space in Serbia is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with CRTA through itswebsite, and follow@CRTArs and@nemaperspektive on Twitter.

• SLOVAKIA: ‘The election result may reinforce the country’s image as a problematic EU member’

  CIVICUS speaks with Michal Piško, Director of Transparency International Slovensko, about Slovakia’s recent first-round presidential election and the upcoming runoff.

  Transparency International Slovensko is a Slovak civil society organisation aimed at increasing institutional transparency and combatting corruption.

  What’s at stake in this presidential election?

  Slovakia’s presidency holds limited powers, although it has strong legitimacy arising from its direct popular election. Its most significant powers include vetoing laws – which a parliamentary majority can relatively easily overcome – and appointing some key state positions, such as constitutional judges.

  However, it can become a key player in critical junctures, as seen at the beginning of 2024. The governing coalition pushed for a harmful amendment to the Criminal Code in a fast-track legislative procedure. The new rules would have complicated the investigation and punishment of serious corruption cases by significantly shortening penalties and statutes of limitations. The current president, Zuzana Čaputová, challenged the amendment in the Constitutional Court, which partially suspended it coming into effect.

  The role of the president is also crucial beyond their formal competencies, particularly in significant public debates.

  What are the main campaign issues and the candidates’ positions? 

  The first round of the presidential election was held on 23 March. Čaputová decided not to run for re-election. Ivan Korčok, a pro-European former foreign minister who emerged as a civic candidate that was later backed by opposition parties, challenged Prime Minister Robert Fico’s ally and current speaker of parliament, Peter Pellegrini. Representing the opposition and the government coalition respectively, they will now compete in the runoff that will take place on 6 April.

  The central campaign Issue is the role of the president: whether they are meant to be closely aligned with the government or provide a counterbalance. Given that the current administration is led by a four-time Prime Minister known for his aggressive rhetoric and actions undermining the rule of law, it has been key to have a critical president playing an active role. If Pellegrini wins, it would bolster the government’s capacity to implement its controversial policies.

  How free and fair has the election process been so far?

  Transparency International Slovakia, a well-known anti-corruption organisation, has been actively monitoring the transparency and fairness of election campaigns and financing for a long time.

  Unfortunately, the current campaign cannot be considered transparent or fair, particularly because of Pellegrini’s failure to disclose donor information and the significant lack of information on his campaign expenses.

  The process has also been marred by negative campaigning orchestrated by politicians or hidden sources targeting Korčok, portraying him as a war promoter. It has also been distorted by the parallel election campaign for the European Parliament, in which both coalition and opposition parties indirectly support or criticise presidential candidates.

  What can we expect in the runoff?

  In the first round, pre-election opinion polls generally underestimated voter turnout and Korčok’s performance. Despite expectations, first-round voter turnout exceeded 50 per cent, a notable increase compared to previous years. Another surprise was Korčok’s relatively significant result, with more than 42 per cent of the vote and a 5.5-point lead over Pellegrini. Most pollsters expected more balanced results.

  However, the situation could still change in the runoff, as Pellegrini may receive the support of third-placed candidate Štefan Harabin’s anti-west and anti-system voters.

  Right now, both candidates seem to have fairly balanced chances of success. While Pellegrini is primarily targeting his messaging at anti-system voters, Korčok is attempting to mobilise pro-European voters.

  It is still unclear which candidate most Hungarian voters, who make up almost 10 per cent of Slovakia’s population, will support. Historically, they have leaned towards pro-European and democratic politicians, but their decision may also be influenced by the fact that Hungary’s authoritarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, is aligned with the current Slovak government.

  Despite Pellegrini not being openly pro-Russia, his victory would strengthen the current government’s position and reinforce Slovakia’s image as a problematic country with anti-democratic tendencies within the European Union. It would also intensify the existing division within the Visegrad Group, a Central European alliance of four countries, two of which – the Czech Republic and Poland – would continue leaning towards the west, while Hungary and Slovakia would further lean towards Russia.

  ---

  Civic space in Slovakia is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Transparency International Slovensko through itswebsite orFacebook,Instagram andLinkedin pages, and follow@transparencysk on Twitter and@TISlovensko on Youtube.

• SWITZERLAND: ‘Right-wing populists pose a true threat when other parties meet their demands’

  CIVICUS speaks withLea Schlenker, board member of Operation Libero,about the rise of right-wing populism in Switzerland’s recent elections.

  Founded in 2014, Operation Libero is a Swiss civil society organisation working to preserve and advance liberal democracy by campaigning against populist initiatives and advocating for an open, progressive and just society.

  How concerning are the results of the 22 October Swiss federal election?

  On 22 October, the right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP) came first, securing 62 out of 200 parliamentary seats, nine more than it previously had. The SVP is becoming increasingly extremist, and its election victory shouldn’t lead us to trivialise the racism and hatred they stoked during the campaign. We shouldn’t normalise the fact that they called queer people ‘sick’ and let far-right extremists manage their campaign accounts on social media. We shouldn’t endorse them by posing in photos at the Federal Palace with the leader of Switzerland’s largest party.

  The outcome of this election leaves us deeply concerned about issues such as climate change and asylum policies and the treatment of refugees.

  The trend of the rising far right is not exclusive to Switzerland – it is being observed globally. Right-wing parties instrumentalise legitimate citizen concerns, such as inflation or the ongoing war in Europe, to spread misinformation and target minorities. Under the guise of what they call a ‘culture war’, right-wing populists stoke unfounded fears of ‘cancel culture’ and ‘foreign infiltration’. This is very worrying. As a political movement that defends fundamental rights and combats right-wing populism from a liberal perspective, we believe our work is now more necessary than ever.

  How did Operation Libero engage with the election?

  We launched a campaign called ‘Du hast die Wahl’ (‘It’s your Choice’). Our goal was to persuade as many progressive people as possible to participate in the elections and stand up for their values by emphasising the importance of their voice. The SVP is attacking our liberal achievements, including the freedom of religion, the right to abortion, women’s bodily autonomy and equal rights. Some SVP members deny climate change, while others flirt with autocrats like Vladimir Putin. It is our mission to thwart these attacks on democratic values.

  During the campaign, we distributed stickers and used billboards across Switzerland. The design incorporated a white background on the left side and a black background on the right side, symbolising a clear choice. The design, resembling voting ballots, visually reinforced the choice people faced in the election: equal rights or sexism, populism or democracy, isolation or openness, SVP or the future. We deliberately wrote ‘future’ in white lettering on a black background, sparking a lot of public debate and challenging either black or white stereotypes. Our campaign was funded exclusively by donations from members and supporters.

  

  Another important element of our campaign was the petition ‘Wahlen ohne Hass’ (‘Elections without Hate’), which we ran in collaboration with the National Coalition Building Institute. We advocated for elections free from hate speech targeting any minority group. This petition was primarily a response to the racist and xenophobic rhetoric employed by right-wing populists during the campaign. The SVP manipulated police reports to refer to isolated incidents as widespread trends. The impact of our petition was further amplified by the Federal Commission against Racism, which described the SVP campaign as ‘racist, xenophobic, and inflammatory’.

  On election day, we rented a truck and drove it to the capital, Bern. The truck displayed the message we wanted to convey to the public: that we reject the normalisation of the SVP’s discourse and its effect of shifting the whole political spectrum rightwards.

  

  What can be done to prevent further advances of the Swiss far right?

  Right-wing populists pose a true threat when other parties meet their demands, a trend already observed in countries such as Germany. It would be a great mistake for conservative parties to respond to the election results by aligning even more closely with the SVP. The SVP must be treated as a radical outsider so that it remains a minority – albeit a large one that received 28 per cent of the vote. Swiss liberals must distance themselves from the SVP, which often conceals its populist and extremist nature behind a conservative facade.

  Non-extremist parties must urgently form a coalition for an open and progressive Switzerland even if they maintain fundamental differences on specific issues. To counter the SVP’s initiatives on immigration, downsizing public media and promoting ‘neutrality’, Switzerland requires a robust progressive coalition. This is feasible, despite the SVP’s electoral advances, if conservative parties refuse to become their allies.

  With a mostly conservative and right-wing parliament, it will be challenging to implement progressive reforms for a more open and equal society. But we remain hopeful because there are numerous political activists and forces aligned with our democratic vision.

  How does Operation Libero work to protect human rights and safeguard democracy?

  Since its foundation in 2014, Operation Libero has been dedicated to defending liberal and inclusive democracy, advocating for equal rights and fostering European collaboration. We scale up our campaigning every time our liberal democracy or its underlying values come under attack, which unfortunately occurs with regularity.

  Operation Libero was founded to stop right-wing populist advances but we have expanded our mission to actively shape the country through two current initiatives. Firstly, we are working to build a broad alliance to break deadlocks in relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) by promoting a popular initiative to embed the objectives of cooperation with the EU in the Swiss Federal Constitution. We want to have close ties with the unique peace and freedom project that is the EU. The Europe Initiative already has the support of 11 organisations.

  And in May we started collecting signatures for the Democracy Initiative, which addresses a fundamental democratic challenge: the fact that Switzerland currently excludes from citizenship, and therefore from the political decision-making process, around a quarter of its permanent resident population. Including all these people as fellow citizens with equal political rights is essential for Switzerland to become a democracy worthy of the name.

  ---

  Civic space in Switzerland is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Operation Libero through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@operationlibero onTwitter.

• TAIWAN: ‘China has tried to intimidate voters and pressure Taiwanese civil society organisations’

  CIVICUS discusses Taiwan’s upcoming presidential election with Brian Hioe, one of the founders of New Bloom Magazine.

  New Bloom is an online magazine that covers activism and youth politics in Taiwan and Asia and the Pacific. A former fellow at the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, Brian is currently a non-resident fellow at the University of Nottingham’s Taiwan Research Hub.

  What’s at stake in the 2024 election?

  Taiwan’s elections consistently capture global attention due to the anticipation surrounding China’s response. Typically, elections feature two candidates representing the two major parties. One of them, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), is historically pro-independence and the other, Kuomintang (KMT), is historically pro-unification. This pattern persists in the current election, although there are other parties in the race.

  Traditionally, Taiwanese voters opt for what they perceive as the safest choice in terms of safeguarding their hard-earned democratic freedoms. The overarching concern is to avoid actions that might trigger backlash from China.

  Now it looks like the centre-left candidate of the ruling DPP is going to win because the pro-unification camp is very divided. But with multiple candidates running, fragmentation is to be expected, potentially affecting the outcome.

  What are the most relevant domestic campaign issues?

  There is a lot of dissatisfaction with the current government’s inability to address pressing economic issues. Young people’s salaries are very low, working hours are among the world’s longest and most people cannot afford to buy a house. We also have a declining birthrate and a growing older population.

  Dissatisfaction has translated into some support for the pro-China party. The KMT is the historic Chinese nationalist party and was the ruling party during Taiwan’s authoritarian era, from 1949 to 1987. Its campaign centres on deepening economic relations with China, promising to bring back the good old days of economic success.

  Environmental issues, and particularly air pollution, also weigh heavily on voters. The question of Taiwan’s future energy needs is key, as a balance is sought between maintaining a stable energy supply and minimising pollution. There is heated debate around nuclear energy. Taiwan’s environmental movement is anti-nuclear, as is the DPP, unlike the KMT. There are concerns about what to do with nuclear waste. People are worried that the frequent earthquakes that hit Taiwan could cause a potential catastrophe, as happened in Fukushima, Japan in 2011.

  Past elections also featured debate on culture-war issues such as same-sex marriage, which the DPP pushed for but the KMT opposed. But these have now taken a back seat to economic and environmental issues.

  However, the defining matter remains the cross-strait issue – the question of what kind of relations Taiwan will maintain with China.

  What are the positions of the main candidates?

  DPP candidate Lai Ching-te, the current vice president and expected winner, previously served as mayor of Taiwan’s historical capital Tainan and Taiwan’s premier. He is perceived as more conservative than the incumbent and is strongly pro-independence, although as he has climbed in the polls he has tempered his position in fear that strong rhetoric could provoke a reaction from the military or China. Despite his comparatively conservative background, he has signalled openness to progressive ideas, notably by becoming the first presidential candidate to participate in the Pride parade this October.

  KMT candidate Hou Yu-ih is the current mayor of New Taipei and a former police chief with a record of involvement in the arrest of political dissidents during the authoritarian period. He is more moderate than other KMT candidates on unification issues, which is perceived to improve the KMT’s chances. However, his choice of running mate signalled a potential shift towards a more dogmatic position on unification.

  The third candidate is former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je, the leader of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), a new party leaning towards unification. He has gained some support from young people, who tend not to support the KMT. He has a populist style, often making gaffes or misspeaking. He has faced criticism for making misogynistic and homophobic comments, but this hasn’t affected his popularity.

  How do young people feel about this election?

  There seems to be a notable decrease in enthusiasm and engagement with the election process. The 2020 election came around the same time of the protest wave in Hong Kong, which gave many young people a glimpse of what the future could look like for Taiwan if it were to become part of China.

  Now the context is different and what prevails among people is dissatisfaction with the DPP due to challenging circumstances, which has resulted in the rise of the third-party anti-establishment candidate. Ko Wen-je is, ironically, a candidate opposed to progressive causes such as LGBTQI+ rights, but many young people are still attracted by his anti-establishment message.

  In contrast, the DPP is perceived as the status quo and despite its recent progressivism under the Tsai administration has not managed to win over young people. Broadly, while millennials may still support it, Gen Z does not.

  What role are foreign powers playing in the election process?

  China’s persistent efforts to interfere in Taiwan’s political processes have resulted in recent arrests of people accused of operating in favour of China to influence the election, with efforts made to stiffen sentences for espionage. Ten military officials have, for example, been arrested in connection with these interference attempts.

  A tactic employed to influence the election is paint the DPP as overly provocative towards China or overly reliant on the USA, suggesting that this may lead to adverse consequences. The DPP has indeed strengthened relations with the USA, while the KMT, once the US-backed authoritarian ruling party, has shifted its position. The KMT now argues that growing too close to the USA might provoke China, questions arms sales and civic exchanges and disseminates conspiracy theories regarding fictional US plans to destroy Taiwan in the event of a war.

  The other side of the political aisle attacks the KMT for being too close to China and criticises its attempts to revive trade agreements such as the Cross Strait Services Trade Agreement (CSSTA), opposition to which led to the 2014 Sunflower Movement.

  Have there been any concerns about the integrity of civic space?

  Taiwan is the only country in Asia rated by the CIVICUS Monitor as having open civic space. There are questions about how civil society engages with both major political parties and concerns about potential co-optation. Civil society faces the challenge of balancing relations with political parties and maintaining a critical position without being perceived as partisan. Civil society is often closer to the DPP, because it is more centre-left and suspicious of China.

  But there haven’t been government attempts to restrict civic space. The government does take actions to curb Chinese influence but to date has not infringed on civil society rights.

  China in contrast has tried to pressure Taiwanese civil society organisations (CSOs), particularly those focusing on cross-strait issues. Five years ago, a Taiwanese CSO worker was arrested in China on vague national security charges, in what seemed aimed at sending a warning to Taiwanese civil society not to meddle with China.

  China has also tried to intimidate voters. In a recent example, a person who purchased a book on the possibility of a Chinese invasion received a suspicious phone call from someone impersonating a customer service representative asking them about it.

  What are your expectations for the post-election period?

  Unless something unexpected happens, a DPP victory is the likeliest outcome. China is unlikely to take any drastic actions before the election, as such moves might inadvertently strengthen support for the DPP.

  Following the election, however, China is expected to respond with intimidation tactics, possibly through military exercises, to signal its opposition to a new DPP administration. The intensity of these exercises may be influenced by China’s relations with the USA at the time.

  In terms of civic space, should the DPP continue in power, civil society may need to broaden its outreach, both regionally and internationally, to build resilience and avoiding being sucked in by the two-party dynamics.

  However, were the KMT to win, civil society would likely refocus on domestic concerns. It may regroup to resist, particularly in the face of potential attempts to reintroduce trade agreements such as the CSSTA.

  If the status quo is maintained, Taiwan will continue strengthening ties with the USA and the west while actively reaching out to southeast Asian countries, a strategy aimed at reducing economic reliance on China and diversifying political ties.

  The geopolitical landscape will play a crucial role in shaping Taiwan’s future, and the actions and reactions of both China and Taiwan will be closely watched on the international stage.

   

  ---

  Civic space in Taiwan is rated ‘open’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with New Bloom Magazine through itswebsite, contact Brian Hioe through hisFacebook page and follow @brianhioe onTwitter orInstagram.

  The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIVICUS.

• TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS: ‘Advancing LGBTQI+ rights requires advocacy, awareness-raising and a concerted effort to foster a culture of inclusion’

  

  CIVICUS speaks with Tim Prudhoe, a lawyer with Stanbrook Prudhoe, about a legal challenge brought against discriminatory legislation against LGBTQI+ people and the struggle for equal rights of same-sex married partners in Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI).

  Stanbrook Prudhoe is a law firm specialising in complex and cross-border cases in the Caribbean region.

  What legal action are you involved in?

  Since 2021 we have been representing Tim Haymon, a US citizen, and Richard Sankar, a Turks and Caicos Islander, in legal proceedings against the TCI government. The case is now up on appeal after findings of breaches of rights protected under the TCI constitution. The couple married in Florida in 2020, but Tim has been denied an exemption from the need to obtain a work permit, although that exemption is available to the spouse of a Turks and Caicos Islander. There is no definition of ‘spouse’ under the relevant immigration legislation and the definition used in the letter of refusal referenced the marriage legislation. The Marriage Ordinance treats same-sex marriages as void.

  The refusal of the spousal exemption was by the Director of Immigration. Tim and Richard brought proceedings against him alleging breaches of the protected rights of equality before the Law, the right to family and private life and freedom from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

  The trial took place in November 2022 and the decision was delivered in March 2024. The TCI Supreme Court upheld two of our three claims, finding violations of the constitutional rights to private and family life and to protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, the court did not uphold the claim of equality before the law. That is the subject of an appeal that will be heard on 23 and 24 October.

  The government has also appealed. Although it relied on no evidence during the trial, it now disputes any findings of constitutional breach. The government’s legal team remains headed by Ivan Hare KC of Blackstone Chambers in London, UK. Colours Caribbean, an LGBTQI+ rights organisation, successfully applied to join the appeal as an interested party.

  Before the claims were first started, Tim and Richard offered to abandon their legal action if the government enacted civil partnership legislation giving same-sex couples the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex couples. Unfortunately, this offer was ignored. Our appeal document itself repeats that offer. When we first made that offer, we even provided the government with a copy of the Cayman Islands legislation recognising civil partnerships as a precedent they could work from. But, again, no response.

  The Supreme Court’s decision was a significant step forward for LGBTQI+ rights in TCI. Former TCI Premier Michael Misick criticised it publicly, calling for Richard to have his Turks and Caicos Islander status revoked. If successful, the government’s appeal would be a major setback for equality. Either way, the outcome will have broader implications for LGBTQI+ rights across the Caribbean.

   

  What’s the status of LGBTQI+ rights in TCI, and what difference have recent Privy Council rulings made?

  The status of LGBTQI+ rights in TCI has a long way to go still. The government’s reliance on traditional moral standards and recent rulings on marriage issues by the UK Privy Council, the final court of appeal for TCI and other British Overseas Territories, are significant barriers to the advancement of LGBTQI+ rights.

  Recent Privy Council rulings on same-sex marriage in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands have significantly influenced the discourse on LGBTQI+ rights in TCI. The combined appeal on the right to marry in the Ferguson case in Bermuda and the Bodden Bush case in the Cayman Islands is particularly noteworthy.

  In Bermuda, same-sex couples had the right to marry for a period before the law was changed. Marriages already performed remained valid, but no new marriages could be celebrated – a situation that led to a case being taken to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that those left out were in practical effect facing discrimination. The Privy Council ruled that marriage was a unique legal institution and those jurisdictions could decide the scope of marriage without violating their constitutions.

  This gave us an insight into the Privy Council’s position. However, we distinguished our case in TCI by focusing on recognition of equivalent legal rights rather than the establishment of a right to marry. The government argued we were trying to introduce the right to marry via the back door, because of the attempt to invoke the spousal exemption from immigration restrictions.

  The Privy Council’s decision, which confirmed that jurisdictions can define marriage, wasn’t that surprising. TCI’s constitution, like Cayman’s, includes a preamble about TCI being a God-fearing nation. The government’s arguments in TCI appeal rely heavily on this. This is pretty odd, in light of the fact that it failed to present any actual evidence at trial.

  Despite these challenges, the LGBTQI+ community and its advocates continue to press for equality and recognition, reflecting a wider struggle in many small jurisdictions.

   

  What are the challenges for LGBTQI+ activism in TCI?

  A major challenge is stigma, which is keenly felt in a place as small as TCI. Despite the presence of people who identify as LGBTQI+, there isn’t a well-developed community infrastructure such as gay pubs or clubs. There’s been a slight improvement in visibility following recent decisions, but it hasn’t yet become a significant movement. For example, there’s now anticipation for an upcoming gay pride event, a notable first for the TCI, albeit modest, as a boat trip during Gay Pride Week in June.

  Living as an LGBTQI+ person in TCI often means necessarily leading a discreet life. While there are both locals and expatriates in same-sex relationships, such partnerships are not flaunted or embraced as a popular lifestyle choice. Rather, they tend to remain private, perhaps implicitly acknowledged by the community but not openly discussed.

  There’s a complex interplay between legal processes and government responses. Despite government appeals against decisions concerning LGBTQI+ rights, such actions are influenced by political dynamics, particularly when elections are approaching. The electorate consists solely of Turks and Caicos Islanders and has strong opinions on issues such as same-sex marriage, which politicians must navigate with caution.

  Constitutional protections theoretically guard against discrimination, but practical enforcement is uncertain. While legal recourse exists in principle, instances of intimidation and hostility, such as aggressive media commentary or social media harassment, deter people from pursuing anti-discrimination cases.

  In essence, while there is a legal framework to combat discrimination, the challenges of social stigma, political sensitivities and intimidation hinder progress towards full LGBTQI+ equality in TCI.

   

  What role has civil society played in the case?

  We’ve worked with the Pride group that’s recently emerged. Although not gay myself, I was pleased to attend their meeting to have a chance to explain relevant parts of the legal challenge. I have been a friend of Richard for many years, and more recently Tim as well.

  The only outside group involved was Colours Caribbean, whose involvement in the Cayman case I had been aware of for some time. When they heard of our legal victory, despite ongoing appeals from both sides, they approached us to join the proceedings. We don’t control their involvement, but the fact that we haven’t objected to it apparently influenced the court’s decision to give them a speaking role in the October appeal.

  What are your expectations?

  I expect that Tim and Richard will win their appeal on the failure by the judge to deal with the equality before the law claim. Whatever the outcome of the government’s appeal, I expect that the British government will have to exercise its power of override, as it did in the Cayman Islands context, to introduce civil partnership recognition legislation. In TCI, the Governor, a British-appointed official, has a constitutional power to legislate in the best interests of the jurisdiction. For example, previous governors have forced through legislation decriminalising same-sex sexual activity – a move still resisted in other parts of the Caribbean.

  I think our success will primarily relate to the anti-discrimination aspect of the lower court judge’s decision. Right now, we are in a perplexing situation: the judge has agreed with our argument that Richard and Tim’s constitutionally protected rights are being violated but he stopped short of implementing the necessary remedial measures.

  This creates a glaring inconsistency: existing violations are acknowledged but no remedy is provided. So if another same-sex couple were to seek spouse treatment, they would be denied the exemption, even though the Court has recognised this as a breach of constitutional rights. It is unlikely that the Court of Appeal will accept this situation. We argue that the judge made a fundamental mistake in finding breaches but not proposing remedies. Moreover, the judge’s criticism of our approach fails to recognise alternative ways of remedying the situation, such as amending immigration laws to include same-sex couples in the eligibility criteria for spousal exemptions.

  The delay in the judge’s decision, despite mounting pressure, suggests a rushed outcome in the end. It appears that in his haste, the judge failed to thoroughly explore possible solutions to the violations identified. I therefore anticipate that the Court of Appeal will scrutinise the lower court’s handling of the case and consider remedies in line with constitutional obligations.

  What are the next steps?

  The trajectory of progress depends heavily on the outcome of the Court of Appeal hearing. It’s unlikely a decision will be made immediately after the hearing, given the complexity and scale of the case. As we have argued that the lower court judge erred in his decision, the matter could be escalated to the Privy Council for constitutional review.

  However, in terms of broader progress and the continued advancement of LGBTQI+ rights, increased visibility and public awareness are paramount. The greater the exposure and discussion surrounding the case, particularly at the appellate level, the more likely it is that attitudes will evolve positively. Increased awareness fosters confidence within the LGBTQI+ community, encouraging people to live more openly and authentically.

  Historically, many people who identify as LGBTQI+ have felt compelled to leave TCI and seek more accepting environments abroad, primarily in cities in the UK or the USA. This trend underscores the prevailing reluctance to accept LGBTQI+ identities in the local context. It will undoubtedly take time to overcome this suspicion and foster a culture of acceptance, but progress is evident and ongoing.

  It is my hope as a legal practitioner that church groups engage in this discussion in a constructive and inclusive way, avoiding regressive interpretations of religious doctrine. Such interpretations, rooted in outdated beliefs, only serve to hinder progress. It’s worth noting that TCI, essentially a tourist destination, relies heavily on its reputation as a progressive and welcoming place. Failure to address LGBTQI+ rights risks tarnishing this image, with negative implications for tourism and therefore for economic prospects.

  Advancing LGBTQI+ rights in the TCI requires ongoing advocacy, awareness-raising and a concerted effort to foster a culture of inclusion and acceptance within the local community and wider society.

  ---

  Get in touch with Stanbrook Prudhoe through itswebsite and connect with Tim Prudhoe onLinkedin.

• TUVALU: ‘We share Taiwan’s democratic principles, values and struggles for sovereignty’

  CIVICUS speaks about the prospects following the inauguration of a new government in Tuvalu with Kiali Molu, a PhD candidate in Politics and International Affairs at the University of Bergen in Norway and at the University of the South Pacific.

  Kiali is a native Tuvaluan and his research, currently funded by the government of Norway, focuses on Tuvalu’s strategies to maintain its statehood and sovereignty as its territory is threatened by sea-level rise.

• UK: ‘The anti-boycott bill is the latest government attempt to stifle civil liberties’

  CIVICUS speaks with Daniel Lubin, co-founder of Na’amod (British Jews Against Occupation), about the UK government’s proposed anti-boycott bill that would prevent public bodies from using divestment as a strategy to meet human rights responsibilities and obligations.

  Na’amod is a movement of British Jews seeking to end its community’s support for apartheid and occupation and mobilising for dignity, freedom and democracy for all Israelis and Palestinians.

  What are the goals and contents of the proposed anti-boycott bill?

  The Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, also known as the anti-boycott bill, would ban public institutions from participating in boycotts or divesting from companies or countries that are committing, or are complicit in committing, human rights abuses when such actions would diverge from current British foreign policy. Although the bill would affect many international issues, such as the situation of the Uyghur minority in China or fossil fuel divestment, Israel is the only country explicitly mentioned in the bill, and most government statements so far have justified the bill as a tool to tackle anti-Israel sentiment and even antisemitism.

  Further, the bill doesn’t differentiate between Israel proper and the Occupied Palestinian Territories – East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank – which conflates Israel’s sovereign territory with the land it occupies illegally under international law.

  And domestically, this bill is just the latest UK government attempt to stifle civil liberties, following the Nationality and Borders Act, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Public Order Act.

  The Nationality and Borders Bill 2022 contains provisions about nationality, asylum, immigration, victims of slavery and human trafficking. The government claimed its goal was to save lives and stop people smuggling, but it introduces a treatment of refugees that is incompatible with international law.

  The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, also known as the ‘policing bill’, expanded police access to private education and healthcare records and gave police sweeping powers, such as the authority to conduct ‘stop and searches’ without suspicion and criminalise trespassing. This expansion of powers further targets groups already disproportionately affected by over-policing, such as young Black men. Similarly, the trespassing provisions, which make ‘residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle’ a criminal offence, effectively criminalises Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.

  The Public Order Act 2023, also referred to as the anti-protest bill, stifled the right to protest by giving law enforcement agencies greater powers against protests deemed ‘disruptive’ such as those used by climate protesters.

  The anti-boycott bill follows in the footsteps of these draconian pieces of legislation. It clearly does nothing to combat antisemitism. This claim is merely a fig leaf to shroud the government’s long-term campaign against civil rights in the UK.

  What will be the consequences of the anti-boycott bill?

  Public institutions – including councils and universities – will not be able to boycott or withdraw funds from countries or companies complicit in human rights violations. It will also bind their financial decisions to the policy of the government of the time and impede public sector workers’ right to freedom of expression.

  In less tangible terms, the fact that the bill and rhetoric around it conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism will contribute to the chilling effect that makes rights advocates feel less able to criticise Israel for fear of being labelled antisemitic. In the long term, by setting up Jews and Jewish safety in opposition to other civil and human rights struggles, this bill will end up pitting minority communities against each other.

  What is civil society, including your organisation, doing to prevent the bill’s approval?

  Civil rights groups and multiple Jewish organisations, including Na’amod, have voiced their opposition to the anti-boycott bill. Na’amod started campaigning it in May 2022, when it was first announced in the Queen’s Speech and the legislative process began. Last October we protested against the bill at the Conservative Party Conference and have since been raising awareness through direct action and campaigning as a part of the Right to Boycott coalition, formed by trade unions, charities and faith, climate justice, human rights, cultural, campaigning and solidarity organisations.

  The coalition advocates for the right of public bodies to decide not to purchase or procure from, or invest in, companies involved in human rights abuses, abuses of workers’ rights, destruction of our planet, or any other harmful or illegal acts. We highlight the key historical role that boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns have played in applying economic, cultural and political pressure that has led to changes in abusive, discriminatory or illegal policies. This includes the bus boycotts of the US civil rights movement, the arms embargoes used against apartheid in South Africa and divestment from fossil fuel companies to advance climate action.

  As the bill returns to the House of Commons this month and faces a series of amendments, we will continue to speak out and mobilise our community against it. We cannot lose such powerful tool for progressive change.

  ---

  Civic space in the UK is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Na’amod through itswebpage orFacebook page, and follow @naamoduk onTwitter andInstagram.

• UN TAX CONVENTION: ‘People power is the major weapon we bring to the fight against inequality’

  CIVICUS speaks about civil society’s work to tackle inequality from the ground up and discusses the prospects of a United Nations (UN) tax convention with Jenny Ricks, Global Convenor of Fight Inequality Alliance.

  Fight Inequality Alliance is a growing global coalition bringing together a wide range of social movements, grassroots and community-based organisations, civil society organisations, trade unions, artists and individual activists organising and mobilising from the ground up to find and push for solutions for the structural causes of inequality in order to rebalance power and wealth in our societies.

  Is there a global consensus that inequality is wrong and needs to be addressed?

  In recent years there has been quite a consensus that inequality has reached new extremes and is damaging for everybody in society as well as for the environment. We are at a time when it’s not just people on the frontlines who are most affected by inequality saying it’s wrong and grotesque and it needs to change, but even organisations like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are saying it’s a problem. The Pope is saying it’s a problem. Governments have signed up to reducing inequality through one of the Sustainable Development Goals.

  There is this broad consensus on the surface: it seems like everybody thinks concentration of power and wealth at the top of societies has gone too far and the gap is too extreme and affects people’s daily lives and livelihoods as a matter of life and death. And not only that: it also corrodes democracies. When oligarchs control the media, buy elections, crack down on human rights defenders and civic space and trash the environment, it affects everybody.

  But underneath that superficial consensus, I think there’s still deep disagreement about what fighting inequality really means. We at the Fight Inequality Alliance are interested in dismantling the systems of oppression that drive inequality, including neoliberalism, patriarchy, racism and the legacy of colonialism. These are the deep structural roots of the inequalities that are the reason billions of people struggled to survive under a global pandemic while the richest people in the world continued to have a great time. So we have an agenda of transformation of the nature of our economies and our societies, and not just tinkering with the status quo, making minor tweaks to stop people rioting.

  How can structural inequality be tackled?

  When we started forming the Fight Inequality Alliance, we were clear that the problem was not a matter of lack of policy solutions. We know what the policy solutions are to fight inequality, such as the measures needed to tackle climate change, the redistributive tax policies needed or the policies required to ensure decent work.

  The problem was that the overwhelming concentration of power and wealth at the top wasn’t matched by a countervailing force from below. The richest and most powerful are organised and well-funded. They are pursuing their interests and their greed aggressively and successfully. What we have is people power. But across civil society and beyond, groups were very fragmented, very siloed and focused on their individual agendas and absorbed by the issues their constituencies most need them to respond to. There was not enough connection across struggles.

  0rganising around inequality is a good way for people to understand how their struggles are interconnected: underneath the day-to-day struggles there are common roots, and therefore there are also common solutions to be fought for. That’s where we saw our role lay, and also in shifting the narratives we have about inequality. We need to change what we envisage as being necessary and possible in our societies, and build power behind the alternative visions we are striving for. When we are limited by what popular narratives deem as natural or normal, such as the false idea that billionaires are hardworking geniuses so deserve unlimited wealth, it limits our energies and our organising capacities for structural change.

  People at the grassroots know their problems and their solutions. Inequality isn’t an issue for economists and technocrats to solve: it is primarily a fight that needs to be fought by people. And the voices of people living at the sharp end of these inequalities needs to be heard. They are the real experts in this struggle. So people power is the biggest weapon that we bring to the fight. Governments and international institutions want to take these debates to the technical arenas of policy-making bodies and conference hall settings, wrapping them in technical language that intentionally makes them inaccessible to most people. Many issues that require structural changes, and certainly inequality, are seen as things to be measured, reported on and talked about in economic circles.

  But inequality is a human tragedy, not a technical matter. It is about power. And solutions need to be owned by the people whose lives are most affected by it. We need to shift the balance of power, in our societies and in the global arena, not wrangle over the wording of a technical paper discussed behind closed doors, and that’s done by organising on a large scale. This people power is the major weapon we bring to the fight against inequality.

  Why is taxation important in the struggle against inequality?

  Fighting inequality requires us to redistribute power and wealth, and taxation is a major redistribution tool.

  Over the last decade or two civil society has done a lot of work to try and challenge the fact that the richest people and the biggest corporations across the world are not paying their fair share of tax. The economic model is exploitative, unjust and unsustainable, based on resource extraction, primarily from the global south, abusive labour practices, underpaid workers and great environmental damage.

  But everyone can relate to this issue nationally too – when it comes to national or local budgets, governments often increase indirect taxes such as value-added tax, which is the most regressive kind of tax because it applies to anything people buy, including essentials, instead of taxing rich people or multinationals more, and they have set up whole global industry and schemes to avoid and evade tax on a massive scale.

  Redistribution is happening as we speak, but it is based on extracting from the poorest and distributing towards the wealthiest people in the world – billionaires, corporate shareholders and the like. That is what we are fighting to reverse, at a local level as well as globally.

  How could a UN convention on taxation help?

  The current level of wealth concentration is so grotesque that it requires solutions and action at all levels. We need to fight on the local front where people are struggling while we push for systemic change in places like the UN. The discussion of global tax rules feels quite distant from the day-to-day struggles that most people, within our alliance and beyond, are campaigning for. But decisions made about them have repercussions for those struggles.

  Rules on taxation have so far been set by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organisation with 38 member states – a rich countries’ club. How can decisions over global taxation rules that affect everybody sit anywhere but the UN, which for all its faults and failings is the only multilateral body where every state has a seat at the table?

  Even so, as we have seen with climate negotiations, there is a huge power struggle that needs to be fought at the UN. It will still be a titanic struggle to get the kind of global tax rules we want. But if global tax rules are made within the OECD, the majority of the world doesn’t even stand a chance. Asking rich countries to please behave better is not going to yield the kind of transformation we want.

  So in November 2022 we saw a first positive step as the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for more inclusive and effective international tax cooperation and urging member states to kick off negotiations on a global tax treaty. The resolution echoed a call made by the Group of 77 (G77), the largest bloc of developing countries in the UN, as well as the Africa Group, and gave the UN a mandate to monitor, evaluate and determine global tax rules and support the establishment of a global tax body.

  A global tax convention would put global south states on an equal footing with global north states, so the proposal faced pushback. Global power dynamics were clearly at play. This was to be expected: this is bound to be a long-term process, and an open-ended one. There is no guarantee it will result in the strong global framework that we need. But it’s still a fight worth fighting, and the UN is the right arena for it, simply because there’s no other space to have these negotiations. Where else could the G77 or the Africa Group renegotiate global tax rules?

  How are you campaigning in the light of the resolution?

  We are not directly campaigning for the UN Tax Convention as much as we are trying to bring people into this agenda in a different way. We’ve been campaigning a lot on taxing the rich and abolishing billionaires, which is a more appealing way to present the issue and mobilise people around it. We can’t imagine hundreds of thousands of people taking to the street for the UN Tax Convention at this point. So instead we’ve been organising around the need to tax the rich, domestically and globally, both individuals and corporations.

  This call has a lot of popular resonance because people find it easier to link it to their primary struggles, for jobs, healthcare spending, better public services or basic income, or against austerity measures, regressive tax rises or subsidy cuts. It’s become part of the campaigns of a lot more movements across the world through our organising over the last few years. This has been the way into the tax agenda for a lot of grassroots movements in the global south. It has potential to bring people’s attention to the broader tax justice agenda. You can’t start by holding a community meeting about the UN Tax Convention. You need to start from the daily inequalities people are facing.

  ---

  Get in touch with Fight Inequality Alliance through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@jenny_ricks and@FightInequality on Twitter.

• UNITED NATIONS: ‘From now on, states should adopt a human rights approach to environmental regulation’

  

  CIVICUS speaks with Victoria Lichet, executive director of the Global Pact Coalition, about the resolution recently passed by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) recognising the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right.The Global Pact Coalition brings together civil society organisations (CSOs), activists, artists, lawyers and scientists advocating for the adoption of the Global Pact for the Environment, a draft international treaty to enshrine a new generation of fundamental rights and duties related to the protection of the environment, and particularly the right to a healthy environment.

  What are the relevance and implications of the recent UNGA resolution on the right to live in a clean, healthy and sustainable environment?

  The adoption of a resolutionon the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment by the UNGA, the legislative body of the UN, which includes all the UN member states, is a historic victory for environmental protection. The recognition of the right toa clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a universal human right makes environmental protection a core aspect of human rights protection. It is a major step towards a human rights-based approach in environmental litigation, as it integrates human rights norms into environmental matters.

  In addition to recognising the right to a healthy environment as a right for all people, the resolution’s preamble clearly affirms the linkage between a healthy environment and human rights. The UNGA recognises that ‘environmental damage has negative implications, both direct and indirect, for the effective enjoyment of all human rights’.

  While UNGA resolutions are not legally binding, this resolution is a strong political and symbolic message. It will play a role in shaping and strengthening new and stronger international environmental norms, laws, standards, and policies. As such, it will necessarily improve the overall effectiveness of environmental law and catalyse further environmental and climate action. This also proves that multilateralism still has a role to play in international environmental law.

  What role did civil society play in the process leading to this resolution?

  This resolution followed months of mobilisation by CSOs and Indigenous peoples’ organisations (IPOs), including the Global Pact Coalition. Under the inspiring leadership of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, David R Boyd, and his predecessor, John Knox,the coalition of CSOs and IPOs was able to reach out to governmentsthrough emails and letters to better inform them about the importance of the right to a healthy environment. It also led social media campaigns to inform the public about the process. 

  The core group of countries that led this initiative, made up of Costa Rica, Maldives, Morocco, Slovenia and Switzerland, was really helpful and communicated important steps regarding the resolution. We are very grateful for their leadership.

  Does the final text of the resolution fully reflect civil society contributions?

  The final text of the resolution mostly reflects civil society expectations. Through negotiation, some states were able to remove a few paragraphs. For example, the first draft said that the right to a healthy environment was related to the right to life and the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. But the final draft also included additional paragraphs, for example to include ‘business enterprises and other relevant stakeholders’ in the call to adopt policies to enhance international cooperation to scale up efforts to ensure a healthy environment.

  Overall, the main goal for civil society was to have the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment recognised as a human right for all, and this was obviously fully reflected in the final text. So it is in fact a historic victory for civil society.

  What measures should states adopt to make the right recognised in the resolution effective?

  Recognition should be combined with strong and ambitious national and regional public policies that implement mechanisms to strengthen environmental protections, the protection of people’s health and the enjoyment of their other human rights. From now on, states should adopt a human rights-based approach in environmental regulation as well as better renewable energy and circular economy policies.

  As Special Rapporteur David Boyd said, the international recognition of the right to a healthy environment should encourage governments to review and strengthen their environmental laws and policies and enhance their implementation and enforcement.

  What should civil society do next?

  Civil society should now advocate for stronger and more ambitious instruments to protect the environment, our right to a healthy environment and other environmental rights. Now that the right to a healthy environment has been recognised at the international level, we should introduce additional progressive rights and duties that will take us even further in environmental protection.

  The UNGA resolution could be the foundation for a more comprehensive international instrument on the right to a healthy environment and other environmental rights. We already have ambitious models that could be used in these future negotiations, including the Global Pact for the Environment and the draft covenant of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the world’s largest global environmental network.

  The path from ‘soft law’ to ‘hard law’ – in this case, from the non-binding UNGA resolution to a convention on the right to a healthy environment – is a very common one in international law. For example, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is one part of the UNGA resolution on the International Bill of Human Rights, and therefore not legally binding, resulted in two treaties adopted in 1966: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It took 18 years to incorporate the Declaration into two legally binding texts.

  We hope it will not take 18 years to achieve a convention on environmental rights, because that would bring us to 2040. We do not have that kind of time. The time has come to adopt such a convention, a ‘third pact’ recognising a third generation of human rights. After civil and political rights, and economic and social rights, it is time to enshrine our environmental rights.

  As we face a triple planetary crisis, a binding international environmental text is critically important because millions of people are already dying from toxic environments, particularly from air pollution.

  ---

  Get in touch withthe Global Pact Coalition through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@VictoriaLichet and@PactEnvironment on Twitter.

   

• USA: ‘Our aggressive tactics helped amplify the demands of the broader climate movement’

  CIVICUS speaks with Evan Drukker-Schardl of Climate Defiance about the disruptive tactics the organisation uses to put climate change on the agenda.

  Climate Defiance is a youth climate organisationdetermined to challenge political betrayal and fight for a just world. Through mass protest and peaceful direct action, it seeks to force politicians to address the existential climate crisis, rejecting the constraints of current political realities in favour of transformative change.

  What makes Climate Defiance different from other climate action groups?

  Climate Defiance takes a direct approach, confronting climate criminals wherever they are – whether they are being honoured by industry peers or speaking in public. We challenge their presence in society and highlight the damaging impact of politicians and fossil fuel executives on our collective future.

  This approach has resonated widely, particularly online, where millions have supported videos of young activists confronting those responsible for endangering their future. It has also allowed us to amplify the climate movement’s demands. Notably, our protests have had tangible results, such as the resignation of Harvard professor Jody Freeman from the board of ConocoPhillips. Similarly, Assistant Secretary of the Interior Tommy Beaudreau resigned just 15 days after we disrupted his participation at an event.

  What are your demands, and how has the US government responded to them?

  Our demands focus on ending coal, gas and oil infrastructure, both in specific cases and as a general policy. We have also joined others in calling for an end to new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export permits. Over the past year, we have consistently raised these issues, most notably during a meeting at the White House where we repeatedly stressed the need to address LNG exports. Shortly afterwards, the Biden administration announced a moratorium on new permits.

  While Climate Defiance cannot take sole credit for these developments, our aggressive tactics have helped amplify the demands of the broader climate movement. We understand we are not here to make friends; rather, we are focused on forcing those in power to listen and respond to our demands.

  Although the Biden administration and Congress may not meet all our demands, we have made it clear they have no choice but to address our concerns, even if it goes against the interests of fossil fuel companies that hold significant power. Our actions ensure that those in power are aware of and accountable to the demands of the climate movement.

  What forms of protest have you undertaken so far, and why?

  So far, our protests have taken a variety of forms, all aimed at holding climate criminals accountable. For instance, we recently targeted Senator Lisa Murkowski, who was instrumental in getting the Biden administration to approve the Willow Project in Alaska, allowing new drilling on federal lands. She was receiving an award at a non-profit gala in Washington DC, presented by Chevron’s top lobbyist. We interrupted her speech with a banner that read ‘Murkowski is a murderer’. This direct action brings our energised activists to where the powerful are being honoured and exposes the truth about their destructive actions.

  Similar actions led to the resignations of Beaudreau and Freeman. While we don’t expect Murkowski to resign, our actions ensure she cannot expect to go unchallenged in public forums. We specialise in these confrontational tactics, disrupting events like the Congressional baseball game, a bipartisan event attended by numerous climate offenders from both parties. This game symbolises a political consensus that perpetuates fossil fuel subsidies at the expense of our planet and its people.

  We’re present at such events to demand an end to these subsidies and highlight the bipartisan support for policies that harm our environment. While we cannot predict the immediate outcome of these protests, they are essential in raising awareness and pressuring policymakers to prioritise climate action over corporate interests.

  Are you seeing restrictions on protests?

  Climate Defiance has so far managed to protest effectively while minimising the risk of arrest for our activists. Avoiding arrest ensures the safety of our activists and conserves our resources and capacity.

  However, the broader protest landscape in the USA has seen concerning developments, particularly in relation to the Gaza and Palestine solidarity movements. Across university campuses in the USA and around the world, there has been a noticeable shift in how disruptive and confrontational protests are handled. Authorities have responded with excessive force and repression, seeking to silence criticism and dissent.

  While Climate Defiance focuses on confronting climate criminals, it is important to recognise and condemn any undemocratic actions taken by those in power to stifle legitimate dissent. Such behaviour reflects poorly on the democratic principles that should underpin society, and those responsible should be held to account.

  We stand in solidarity with all people protesting against genocide in Gaza. It is unconscionable that university administrations, police forces and politicians are brutalising and targeting student protesters instead of listening to their principled calls for justice and an end to massacres in our name and on our dime. Crackdowns on college campuses are a threat to us all and should alarm people even if they are not part of the Palestine solidarity movement in the USA.

  How has the public reacted to your protests?

  Public reaction to our protests has been mixed. While some people appreciate our direct approach and see the urgency of our cause, others are uncomfortable with our disruptive tactics. We build relationships with politicians who want them and whose values align with ours, but we are not afraid to criticise those in power who further the destruction of our planet, wherever they are on the political spectrum. Our priority is to be vocal, public and disruptive to drive home that our lives depend on transformative action now to end fossil fuels.

  Regardless of whether people agree with our methods, we have been able to achieve tangible results. Even those who don’t support us cannot ignore the impact we are having. We believe that discomfort can be a catalyst for change. We challenge people to confront uncomfortable truths to motivate them to act.

  Ultimately, our aim isn’t to win a popularity contest but to insist that everyone, regardless of their background, deserves a healthy and prosperous future. We see protest as a means of subversion, a way of challenging the status quo and demanding a better world for future generations and ourselves.

  ---

  Civic space in the USA is rated ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Climate Defiance through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow @ClimateDefiance onTwitter,Instagram andTikTok.