protesters detained

• AUSTRALIA: ‘Repressive laws have been introduced to limit people’s ability to protest against climate injustice’

  CIVICUS speaks about the challenges faced by climate activists in Australia with Nelli Stevenson, head of communications and investigations at Greenpeace Australia Pacific.

  Greenpeace is a global environment campaigning network that comprises 26 independent national and regional organisations in over 55 countries across all continents as well as a co-ordinating body, Greenpeace International, based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

• CHINA: ‘Feminism remains resilient because it addresses issues central to everyday life’

  CIVICUS discusses women’s rights and a crackdown on feminist activists in China with Jing Guo, founder of the Legal Aid Hotline for Women’s Right to Work, which provides legal and psychological support to women facing gender-based discrimination and violence.

  The Chinese government, which sees any form of independent activism as a threat to its power, is targeting the women’s rights movement. It recently sentenced two women’s rights activists, Sophia Huang Xueqin and Wang Jianbing, to five and three and a half years in prison respectively for ‘inciting subversion of state power’. Huang is a prominent #MeToo activist, while Wang advocates for labour rights and support for women who report workplace sexual harassment. Arrested in 2021, they had already spent three years in prison when they were sentenced.

  What’s the status of women’s rights in China?

  Women in China face several pressing issues that have a significant impact on their daily lives. Gender discrimination is pervasive, affecting women in education, the workplace and within their families. Women often face higher barriers to education, stricter admission standards, job discrimination, lower wages and unfair treatment, especially during pregnancy. The lack of adequate public childcare services also places a heavy burden on women, often forcing them to sacrifice career opportunities to care for their families.

  Violence against women is alarmingly widespread, occurring in homes, schools and workplaces, but legal protection is limited and poorly enforced. Many officials lack awareness of gender issues and the profound impacts of domestic violence and sexual harassment.

  In addition, social norms continue to favour sons over daughters, perpetuating gender inequality. Women are often pressured to conform to traditional roles and relationships, but increasing awareness is leading many to resist these expectations.

  Gender inequality is prevalent, but the government is reluctant to mobilise efforts to improve women’s status and civil society organisations have limited resources. For instance, there is a lack of comprehensive and reliable national statistics on women’s status. Surveys conducted by governmental organisations such as the Women’s Federation are not convincing, and civil society doesn’t have the capacity to conduct widespread surveys.

  What happens to activists who publicly raise these issues?

  Prominent feminist activists face severe repression. For example, Sophia Huang Xueqin, a feminist journalist and #MeToo activist, was arrested in 2021 while on her way to the UK to study. Last month she was sentenced to five years in prison for ‘subversion of state power’. Huang has been a prominent voice in China’s #MeToo movement, reporting on victims of sexual abuse and speaking out against misogyny and sexism in Chinese newsrooms.

  According to the verdict, the authorities considered her regular meetings and forums to discuss social issues to be subversion. Huang’s activism began in 2018, when she supported the first #MeToo case in China by helping survivors share their experiences. After personally experiencing sexual harassment, she began investigating in journalism circles and covered protests in Hong Kong in 2019. The government accused her of promoting non-violent protest strategies, demonstrating the absurdity of the charges against her. Her story and others like it reveal what women face when they campaign for their rights in China.

  Why is the Chinese government targeting feminist activists?

  The Chinese government targets not only feminist activists, but any form of dissent, resulting in widespread harassment and repression. There was also a significant setback in 2015, when five feminists were arrested while planning an anti-sexual harassment campaign.

  The deteriorating political environment has made activism increasingly difficult, but feminism remains resilient because it addresses issues central to everyday life. The fact that feminist ideas are deeply embedded in everyday life makes it difficult for the government to completely suppress activism.

  Despite limited resources and ongoing security concerns, feminist activism continues. The movement is largely driven by volunteers who support victims and promote public education. Women continue to build connections and organise small-scale activities, both inside China and in exile. Online groups and social media serve as important platforms for expressing feminist ideas and sharing experiences.

  What has been the impact of the Chinese #MeToo movement?

  The #MeToo movement triggered a powerful shift in public awareness of sexual harassment in China, transforming what was once a taboo subject into an issue we could finally talk about. Just a decade ago, discussion of sexual harassment was virtually unheard of, and it was the persistence of activism that changed this.

  #MeToo spawned informal volunteer groups dedicated to supporting survivors and educating the public, inspiring changes in men’s attitudes. Volunteers from diverse professional backgrounds have come together in a vast advocacy network that empowers those affected by sexual harassment. This collective effort isn’t just about dealing with individual cases; it’s about fostering a cultural shift that promotes equality and respect for all.

  As a result, a 2022 law provided a clearer definition of sexual harassment, allowing some cases to reach the courts and resulting in significant victories for survivors.

  Despite ongoing challenges, the #MeToo movement continues to reshape gender dynamics, particularly in academia and civil society, where young, educated women are taking action to change the ingrained patriarchal ideas in these areas.

  How do Chinese women’s rights activists organise and mobilise, and what kind of international support do they need?

  Feminist activism in China is resilient, as activists continue to develop innovative strategies to organise and mobilise women. Activities such as hiking serve as informal gatherings where participants can network and discuss pressing issues. Outside China, activists face fewer security concerns, but are still cautious. They organise events such as stand-up shows in cities such as London, New York and Vancouver to raise awareness and build a community.

  Despite limited resources, activists are making the most of what they have and stressing the importance of creating supportive and courageous spaces to share experiences and ideas. In recent years, more feminists have created platforms for political expression, providing opportunities for open discussion of political issues. Events held abroad encourage Chinese feminists to share their stories bravely, often without photographs to protect their identities, reflecting ongoing security concerns even in exile.

  International support is crucial to sustaining feminist activism. Financial assistance, intellectual exchange and the creation of supportive networks are essential for the growth of the movement. For example, Chinese activists and organised groups have launched a transnational campaign to demand Huang’s release, but we need broader support from more people and organisations to build a stronger network to prevent these injustices happening again.

  Civic space in China is rated ‘closed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch with Jing Guo through herFacebook page.

• GEORGIA: ‘The foreign agents law poses a threat to the vibrancy and autonomy of civil society’

  CIVICUS speaks with Nino Samkharadze, policy analyst at the Georgian Institute of Politics, about thecontroversial ‘foreign agents’ law just passed in Georgia.

  The Georgian Institute of Politics is a Tbilisi-based non-profit, non-partisan research and analysis organisation dedicated to fortifying the foundations of democratic institutions and effective governance in Georgia.

  What’s the purpose of Georgia’s law on foreign agents?

  According to the government, the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, which has just been passed by parliament, aims to increase the transparency of civil society’s operations by requiring civil society organisations (CSOs) to disclose their sources of funding and provide details about the nature of their activities.

  In its transition from the post-Soviet era, Georgia faces economic and political challenges. Its evolving democracy is characterised by weak institutions and it’s heavily dependent on support from international sources, including financial grants from the European Union (EU), European states and the USA. The introduction of this law may have been a response to concerns about foreign influence, but it has sparked debate in Georgian society. It poses a threat to the independence and security of CSOs. Its vague language and broad room for interpretation provide the government with opportunities to influence and control civil society, potentially stifling dissenting voices and undermining the positive contributions of CSOs to democratic governance.

  Why did the government reintroduce the bill after failing to pass it last year?

  The process began with the introduction of a first version of the bill in February 2023. It wasn’t proposed directly by the ruling Georgian Dream party but by People’s Power, a splinter political group closely linked to Georgian Dream and espousing even more radical anti-western narratives. But it was met with considerable domestic and international opposition. Protests erupted in Tbilisi, Georgia’s capital, and criticism came from European institutions and the US government. In response, Georgian Dream announced it would vote against the bill, which ultimately led to its rejection by parliament. Following this failure, Georgian Dream underwent a period of reflection and intensified its propaganda. It softened the bill’s language and tone to make it appear less radical and reintroduced it in April 2024. Soon after, on 14 May, it was passed by parliament.

  Georgian Dream came to power in 2012 and is now in an unprecedented third term in office. Since it began its third term in 2020, it has increasingly shown anti-democratic tendencies. With a general election scheduled for October 2024, it’s under increasing pressure as polls indicate a decline in public support. If it doesn’t maintain its majority, it will have to seek cooperation from opposition parties. In this context, the government may see the passage of this law as a way to defuse opposition and strengthen its grip on power.

  How do you think the law would affect civil society?

  The impacts of the law on civil society are expected to be significant and multifaceted, affecting various dimensions of its functioning and autonomy.

  CSOs are likely to be negatively labelled as serving the interests of foreign powers, undermining public confidence in their activities and missions. This labelling could easily lead to stigmatisation and marginalisation, reducing the effectiveness of advocacy efforts and diminishing their influence in the public sphere.

  The law’s provisions for extensive monitoring also pose a threat to the autonomy of CSOs and the privacy of their staff. The government’s ability to access and publish personal data, including correspondence and communications, could hamper CSOs’ ability to operate freely and investigate cases of corruption and human rights abuses.

  Further, the ambiguity of the law leaves room for interpretation and potential abuse by the government. Similar to the situation in Russia, where laws targeting ‘foreign agents’ have been used to restrict civil society activities, the vague language of the law could allow for further restrictions on CSOs and their ability to operate independently.

  The law may also lead to a withdrawal of funding from international foundations and donors. Given the increased risks and restrictions on civil society activities, donors may be reluctant to continue supporting organisations in Georgia, further limiting the resources available for democracy and state-building efforts.

  Overall, the draft law poses a threat to the vibrancy and autonomy of Georgian civil society. It undermines the essential role CSOs play in promoting democratic values, defending human rights and holding the government to account. It could have far-reaching consequences for Georgia’s democratic development and its relationship with the international community.

  How has civil society reacted?

  Georgian civil society has vehemently opposed the bill, seeing it as a dangerous step towards authoritarianism. This law poses a threat to critical voices and raises fears of further concentration of power in the hands of the ruling elite, as has happened in Belarus and Russia.

  No wonder the bill is also often referred to as the ‘Russian law’ – it’s seen as a precursor to outcomes similar to those seen in Russia. It’s feared that dissenting voices will be marginalised or silenced under this law, mirroring the situation in Russia where government critics often face persecution or exile. Given the consolidation of the ruling party and the erosion of democratic principles in Russia, there are concerns in Georgia that the ruling party is also seeking to consolidate power and stifle dissent. Despite some differences between both legal texts, the broader implications for democracy and civil liberties are deeply worrying.

  Georgian society, known for its pro-European and pro-democracy stance, has taken to the streets to protest against this threat. International partners, including the EU and the USA, have also criticised the law and stressed the importance of upholding democratic values.

  How has the government responded to the protests?

  The government’s response to the mass protests has been one of dismissal, demonisation and repression.

  The government has tried to discredit the protesters, particularly younger people, by suggesting they are uninformed about the law and are being manipulated. However, this is contradicted by the fact that many of the protesters, many of whom are students, are well educated and have a clear understanding of the issues at stake.

  The government has also resorted to tactics of repression and intimidation, with reports of regular arrests, beatings and pressure on people associated with the protests. Civil servants, including teachers and academics, have been threatened with the loss of their jobs if they are found to be involved in the protests. This has a chilling effect and discourages dissent.

  CSOs have been targeted with demonisation campaigns that portray them as enemies of the country. While there has been no immediate closure or direct pressure on these organisations, the hostile rhetoric and stigmatisation contribute to an environment of fear and intimidation.

  This authoritarian approach reflects a concerted effort to stifle dissent and maintain control, even at the expense of democratic principles and human rights. It threatens to further undermine confidence in institutions and exacerbate social and political tensions.

  How can the international community best support Georgian civil society?

  The international community can play a crucial role in supporting Georgian civil society at this difficult time.

  High-level visits and engagement by representatives of the EU and the USA are essential. We hope they’ll lead to tangible measures to hold accountable those members of Georgian Dream who supported this law. This could include the introduction of targeted sanctions against people responsible for undermining democratic principles. In addition, the EU should use Georgia’s official status as a candidate for EU membership to impose conditions of adherence to democratic norms and respect for human rights. Sanctions or other forms of pressure could be imposed if these principles are violated.

  It’s also crucial that the EU and the USA continue to demonstrate their unwavering support for Georgia and its pro-European aspirations. Financial assistance and political support are essential to strengthen civil society and maintain momentum in the struggle for democracy. Without this support, civil society risks being further marginalised and weakened by the government.

  A combination of diplomatic pressure, conditionality and unwavering support from the international community is needed to support Georgian civil society in its struggle for democracy and human rights.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with the Georgian Institute of Politics through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@GIP_ge and@nincavar10 on Twitter.

• HONDURAS: ‘We demand environmental justice in the face of corrupt interests insensitive to local needs’

  CIVICUS discusses community resistance to mining mega-projects in Honduras with Juana Esquivel, representative of the Municipal Committee for the Defence of Common and Public Goods of Tocoa. The committee is made up of local organisations and communities that oppose extractive projects that threaten the environment and common and public goods.

  On 13 June, an open council meeting convened by the Tocoa mayor’s office approved a petroleum coke thermoelectric plant, despite a legal appeal by the local community. It is feared the project will cause deforestation, sedimentation and pollution of the Guapinol River. A similar conflict took place in 2014 when, without consulting communities, the authorities granted permits for a mine in a protected national park affecting the Guapinol and San Pedro rivers. In response to their peaceful protests against the project, many activists were criminalised and eight were imprisoned for long periods.

  Why do you oppose the Tocoa thermoelectric plant project?

  We oppose the thermoelectric plant because its impact on human health and the environment would be devastating. The fact that it is less than 150 metres from some communities significantly increases the risks. But these are not reflected in the environmental impact studies the company presented, which contain deliberate errors that minimise the project’s real damage.

  The plant would use pet coke, a substance derived from coal and oil that is not regulated for energy production in Honduras. It would require huge amounts of water to operate, threatening the drinking water supply of local communities. Waste would be discharged into the Guapinol River, seriously affecting aquatic life and the ecosystem. The company’s studies absurdly claim that the fish in the river will adapt to the warm water coming from the plant.

  Our demands are clear: the project must not go ahead because of its serious environmental and health impacts. We demand that our rights be respected and our environment protected.

  Why did you object to the calling of a public town hall meeting on 13 June?

  Civil society objected to the meeting because of the history of manipulation and lack of transparency in the implementation of mega-projects in the area. The thermoelectric plant is part of a mega-project known as Los Pinares/Ecotek, owned by the Emco Holdings group, which has six other components: two mining concessions in the core zone of the Carlos Escalera National Park, an iron oxide processing plant and three water concessions on the Guapinol, Quebrada de Ceibita and San Pedro rivers.

  The municipality issued a falsified document stating it had carried out a community consultation to validate the project. The project is being presented to the community as a solution to its energy problems, when in fact it is designed to supply energy to the iron oxide processing plant, not the community.

  In December 2023, we attended a public town hall meeting where between 2,500 and 3,000 people expressed their opposition to the project. Faced with this massive opposition, the mayor suspended the event, citing security reasons, and in January he unilaterally called another town hall meeting, without the support of municipal institutions, which was suspended following a legal appeal we filed. Finally, in the town hall meeting of 13 June, the mayor manipulated the situation, holding the open town hall meeting against the will of the community and listening only to those who support the project, who are representatives of boards of trustees controlled by the mining company.

  How has the community organised against this mega-project, and what reprisals have people faced?

  We have been fighting against the Los Pinares/Ecotek mega-project since 2014. We have carried out numerous protests, including holding permanent popular assemblies in front of municipal offices and mass protests. Thanks to these we managed to have Tocoa declared a mining-free municipality and the core zone of the Carlos Escaleras National Park restored.

  In 2018, we set up a camp under the banner ‘For Water and Life’, which lasted 88 days. This direct action triggered a wave of criminalisation and persecution. Repression against environmental activism has been fierce, with 32 prosecutions and eight comrades imprisoned for almost three years.

  Activists have been murdered and there’s a climate of constant threats and harassment. Hundreds of families have been displaced by threats and the use of excessive force by the authorities and armed groups hired by the company.

  Despite these challenges, we continue to fight against the corruption and state and corporate violence that has affected our communities for more than a decade.

  Has thegovernment of President Xiomara Castro fulfilled its promises regarding Guapinol?

  The government’s actions on this issue have been negligent and have exacerbated polarisation and conflict. Although the government has made Guapinol a central issue on its political agenda, the release of imprisoned environmental defenders has been the result of years of community mobilisation and resistance rather than direct intervention by central authorities.

  A significant government debt to Tocoa and Guapinol remains: the complete cancellation of the Los Pinares/Ecotek megaproject. A decree was issued in February 2024 to protect areas of the Carlos Escalera National Park, but it is crucial to ensure its effective implementation and the repair of the environmental damage already caused.

  The community remains vigilant and active, demanding environmental justice and the preservation of its natural resources in the face of corrupt economic and political interests insensitive to local needs.

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

  Get in touch with the Municipal Committee for the Defence of Common and Public Goods through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@guapinolre on Twitter.