asia

• IRAN: ‘The severity of the crackdown only shows how scared the regime is of the protest movement’

  CIVICUS speaks with Sohrab Razaghi, executive director of Volunteer Activists (VA), about the situation in Iran on the anniversary of the anti-regime protests sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini at the hands of morality police.

  VA is an independent civil society organisation (CSO) based in the Netherlands, whose primary aims are building capacity among activists and CSOs, facilitating information exchange among civil society activists, community peacebuilding and advocating for the expansion of democracy and human rights in Iran and more generally in the Middle East. VA is the successor of a pioneer Iranian CSO, the Iranian Civil Society, Training and Research Centre, founded in 2001 and based in Tehran until 2007.

  What is the situation in Iran one year on from the start of the protest wave?

  The situation in Iran is complex. While last year’s massive protests made people hope for change, the crackdown on the protests caused hopelessness. The authorities were mostly able to suppress the protests and regain control of the streets, forcing people back into their homes.

  Moreover, while the ‘Women, Life, Freedom’ protest movement had an appealing chant and vision, it lacked a long-term plan that could lead to change. Over the past year, it has been unable to translate its slogan into a political programme and was therefore unable to mobilise other social and political forces around its goals.

  But despite the authorities’ success in regaining control, we have continued to see acts of civil disobedience across Iran. Activists, artists and academics express themselves through social media and make public displays of protest not wearing hijab. The fact that the voices of protesters have not been silenced sustains hope for change.

  A concerning development, however, is the increasing gap between established civil society and the protest movement. CSOs were hesitant to participate in the protests when they began, and this gap has only increased since. There is even a lack of a common vocabulary in calling for mobilisation and articulating demands. Established CSOs disagree with what they view as radical moves by the protest movement, as they have a more conservative view of society and the future. A possible explanation for this divergence may be the generation gap, as the protest movement is formed by much younger activists.

  To reassert control, the authorities have imposed stricter control over media, universities, unions and other associations. In essence, civic space has shrunk dramatically over the past year, with the authorities purging most sectors of everyone who disagrees with them.

  Internationally there was a huge wave of support for the protest movement from governments, civil society and media, particularly early on. This was extremely helpful for echoing the voices of Iranian protesters and pressuring the authorities to meet their demands. But as the authorities regained control of the streets, we have seen a change in the approach of western governments. They are returning to diplomacy and negotiations with Iran, slowly normalising their relations. This has boosted the Iranian regime’s confidence, re-legitimising it and giving it space to spread its propaganda.

  What tactics has the government used to limit further mobilisation?

  The number one tactic of the regime to crack down on protests has been to arrest protesters. Over the past year, thousands have been arrested, including over 20,000 who were arrested during the protests. Some have been given long jail sentences.

  The second tactic has been the prevention of organising and networking. Even small communities have been actively prevented from getting together. Online networking has been limited by censorship, filtering and hacking. Leaders and activists trying to establish any form of group are arrested and their work is disrupted. They threaten activists with jail and even death. They also target their personal life by demanding that they be fired or suspended from work or university. Many teachers and professors who supported the protest movement have been fired and students expelled.

  To reach those who may not have joined the protest yet, the authorities spread propaganda, fake news and conspiracy theories that delegitimise the protest movement. Some communities fear the protest movement as a result.

  To prevent the development of a political alternative to the regime, the authorities have targeted the opposition within and outside Iran. Their main aim seems to be to sow division among opposition groups and force them to deal with issues internal to the opposition movement instead of focusing on developing an alternative coalition. Iranian cyber forces have supported these efforts through hacking and social media manipulation.

  What forms has resistance taken in response?

  Iranian activists have pursued two strategies in response. First, the protest movement sought to widen its scope to increase its resilience. By mobilising excluded ethnic groups such as Baloch and Kurdish people, the protest movement expanded to more cities and communities, making the crackdown more difficult. Second, the protest movement tried to stay on the streets for as long as possible, hoping to create division among crackdown forces.

  Internationally, the movement’s main strategy was to try to isolate the regime by forcing the severance of as many diplomatic connections as possible. For example, it successfully advocated for Iran to be removed from the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women and it also sought to force the closure of Iranian embassies in western states.

  How have Iranian organisations from the diaspora or in exile supported the protest movement in Iran?

  We have observed two phases in the involvement of the diaspora and exiled Iranian organisations in the protest movement. In the first phase, they organised large-scale solidarity mobilisations and projects in support of the ‘Women, Life, Freedom’ protests in Iran. Over 80,000 Iranians from the diaspora participated in the solidarity protest in Berlin in Germany, for example.

  After this initial phase, however, each political group in exile tried to present itself as the leader of the protest movement. This broke the solidarity and unity of the movement. Instead of fighting against the regime, some diaspora groups mostly fought each other. Independent activists and organisations in the diaspora that didn’t want to be caught in this fight decreased their involvement. For the protest movement to succeed, opposition groups and political movements need to get better at resolving their conflicts, reaching compromises and building a unified anti-regime coalition.

  Has the crackdown intensified as the first anniversary approaches?

  Civil society activists have continued to be arrested and organisations put under pressure and shut down. But as the first anniversary approaches, we are seeing repression increase, particularly in universities and among journalists. Universities have recently fired more lecturers and professors and expelled more students who participated in last year’s protests. Student associations have been shut down long ago and any form of student organising is banned.

  Journalists are also being heavily repressed. The authorities are disrupting reporting and coverage of protest actions and calls for protests around 16 September. They are threatening and arresting journalists, prosecuting them and handing them heavy sentences.

  Independent lawyers, who have been instrumental in supporting arrested and imprisoned activists, are also being threatened. Lawyers have played key roles in defending activists in court and spreading information about their trials, informing the public on the authorities’ repression. As a result, they are being threatened with losing their licences or being arrested.

  Is Iran closer to change now than a year ago?

  I think we are multiple steps closer to change than before. Iranians are less scared of the consequences of their activism. They dare to take action against the regime. The voice of protest is louder and the severity of the crackdown only shows how scared the regime is of the protest movement. The regime understands it won’t be easy to shut down this protest movement, which threatens the legitimacy and therefore the existence of the regime.

  We also see a major lifestyle change. People on the streets are now dressed differently and are less afraid of showing their lifestyle in public. Although political change is minimal, cultural change following last year’s protests is clearly visible. This change shouldn’t be underestimated.

  What needs to happen for political change to take place?

  Iranians need to realise the power of being together. Change comes from power, and power comes from organising and acting together. To bring about change, we need social power and to create social power, organising is essential. By forming associations, organisations and networks, Iranians can demand and achieve change.

  For this to happen, three types of changes are required. First is a change in attitude. Iranian activists need to think positively and constructively instead of negatively and destructively. Second is a change in behaviour. We will only achieve democracy if we also act democratically and use democratic tools. This means avoiding any form of violence and understanding that democracy does not rise from bloodshed and fire. Third is a change in context. It is key to empower society to say no and resist the regime.

  The international community could support change by helping to increase the resilience of the social movement and its activists, both online and offline. The pursuit of meaningful and sustainable change is a marathon and it’s instrumental to echo the voices of activists and provide sustainable support. A coalition of international civil society organisations could help by providing strategic support to Iranian activists.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with Volunteer Activists through itswebsite.

• IRAQ: ‘We've submitted many bills, but parliament refuses to adopt a law against GBV’

  CIVICUS speaks about International Women’s Day and civil society’s role in combatting gender inequalities and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Iraqi women and girls with Alyaa Al Ansari, executive director of Bent Al-Rafedain Organisation (BROB).

  Founded in Iraq’s southern Babylon province in 2005, BROB is a feminist civil society organisation (CSO) that works to ensure the protection of women and children and promotes women’s integration in all spheres of society. Since its foundation, BROB has extended its activities to eight provinces across Iraq. 

  

  How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted on women and girls in Iraq?

  The pandemic has affected many different groups of Iraqi society, but women and girls have been the most affected of all. Since before the pandemic, Iraqi women were socially compelled to have the biggest share of care responsibilities within their families: they are the main caregivers for children and older people. When a full lockdown was imposed in Iraq for four months, these responsibilities grew even more.

  Additionally, many women were financially affected as the pandemic swept away countless businesses, including hotels, restaurants and shops, because they lost their jobs in the private sector. Without a stable income, their families suffered, particularly when they were the family’s main breadwinner.

  The situation was even worse for female healthcare professionals. Some of them made the tough decision to remain separate from their families for a prolonged period to avoid spreading the virus to their family members. Further, the government did not issue any additional regulations on the working conditions of pregnant medical staff during the pandemic. They too were forced to continue working and risk their lives and those of their unborn children; several of them miscarried.

  Another dramatic effect of the full lockdown was the spike in domestic violence. For four long months, abused women had no way out. They had to continue to live under the same roof with their abusers. There were more femicides and more attempted suicides were reported as some women could not bear the pressure and the violence they were subjected to.

  How has civil society, and BROB in particular, responded to the devastating impacts of the pandemic on women?

  During the pandemic, civil society efforts focused on providing humanitarian aid to affected women and their families. For instance, charity organisations covered essential needs of poor families and helped women who lost their jobs due to the pandemic.

  As for feminist CSOs, some set up online programmes to provide psychological support. Other organisations shifted their face-to-face activities online and took to social media platforms such as Facebook to reach women who had to stay at home for unusually long periods. BROB’s phone number was posted across social media platforms, so women and families who needed urgent help were able to reach us.

  Fortunately, BROB staff were able to continue to work at full capacity during the pandemic. We had freedom of movement once the Iraqi authorities issued permits allowing us to circulate during curfew in the eight provinces where we work. They gave us permission because we were providing essential services to families under lockdown. For instance, our team was distributing food supplies twice a month. 

  We maintained our social and psychological support programme for women but we moved it fully online via mobile and communications apps such as WhatsApp. Remote work is one of the new tactics we adopted during the pandemic. Our staff was creative and developed several new tactics we had never thought of before the pandemic, which allowed us to meet the urgent needs of women and their families.

  Financially, BROB sustained its activities through donations from members as well as from the local community. Moreover, as public health institutions were struggling and the Ministry of Health was overwhelmed, we crowdfunded and sought donations to acquire additional medical equipment for the public health sector. This was a successful campaign that could have the positive side effect of strengthening the relationship between civil society and government institutions in the public health sector.

  What are the main women’s rights issues in Iraq and how is civil society working to make change happen?

  There are many relevant issues, but the one that if adequately tackled would make the most meaningful change in the lives of Iraqi women is that of gender-based violence (GBV). There is an urgent need for a law criminalising domestic violence in Iraq. CSOs have advocated for this for more than a decade. They have submitted several bills, but parliament has so far refused to discuss and adopt a law to protect women, girls and families from violence.

  Given the importance of such legislation in promoting and protecting women’s rights at the national level, we will continue to put pressure on decision-makers through advocacy and campaigns combined with media support.

  It is also key to change current laws that are unequal and unfair to provide women much-needed legal protection. Personal status laws in particular contain articles that discriminate against women in terms of the rights they recognise or don’t recognise, and the obligations and penalties they impose.

  At the very least, Iraq should have laws to guarantee equal access to education, healthcare and public services overall. Such laws will contribute to gender equality as they become an integral part of the Iraqi legislative system. A law criminalising incitement of violence against women in the media and by religious leaders is also very much needed.

  To make change happen, CSOs will continue raising awareness on gender equality, advocating with decision-makers, orchestrating public opinion campaigns, fighting legal battles and fostering leadership capabilities among women and girls. It is mostly up to us, because when it comes to official response, decision-makers do nothing besides issuing positive press releases to capitalise on CSO campaigns. 

  The International Women’s Day (IWD) theme for 2022 is #BreakTheBias. How did you organise around it?

  Most of our projects have always focused on breaking the bias to combat gender inequalities. Every year we plan events on IWD to shed light on an issue that is critical to local communities. In 2019, for instance, we celebrated disabled sportswomen in Babylon province and supported their training programmes.

  As usual, there are plenty of urgent issues this year, but we decided to focus on discrimination in the workplace, in both the private and the public sector. Women deserve safe and fair working conditions everywhere.

  Civic space in Iraq is rated ‘closed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Bent Al-Rafedain Organisation through its website orFacebook page. 

• JAPAN: ‘Each victory brings backlash, but LGBTQI+ people will keep fighting for equality and dignity'

  CIVICUS speaks about the struggle for LGBTQI+ rights in Japan withAkira Nishiyama, Deputy Secretary General of the Japan Alliance for Legislation to Remove Social Barriers based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (Japan Alliance for LGBT Legislation, J-ALL).

  Founded in 2015, J-ALL seeks to remove social barriers based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI). It does so by convening consultations, producing research, developing policy proposals, raising awareness among the public and lobbying government officials and legislators.

  What are the implications of recent court rulings on same-sex marriage in Japan?

  In 2019, five lawsuits were filed at Japanese district courts addressing same-sex marriage. Four out of five court rulings were positive. Nagoya and Sapporo district courts declared that not allowing same-sex marriage was against the Constitution, while Fukuoka and Tokyo district courts ruled that it was ‘in a state of unconstitutionality’.

  The Osaka court was the only one to rule negatively on the three constitutional clauses in question. Clause 1 of article 24 says that marriage shall be based on the mutual consent of both sexes, and the court argued that this clause pertains to heterosexual couples only and doesn’t guarantee same-sex marriage. The court affirmed that legal protection for same-sex relationships hasn’t been fully discussed yet and therefore the Civil Code and Family Register Act, which doesn’t recognise same-sex marriage, is not against clause 2 of article 24, which upholds individual dignity and the essential equality of sexes in matters of marriage and family. Finally, the court argued that there are now minimal differences in the treatment of heterosexual and same-sex couples, and so the lack of recognition of same-sex marriage doesn’t violate article 14, which guarantees equality under the law.

  Have you seen any positive change in public attitudes to LGBTQI+ people?

  Since the lawsuits were filed, there have been significant societal changes. Various surveys indicate public support for same-sex marriage, and over 300 municipalities have introduced a partnership system for same-sex couples.

  According to the 2019 research led by Professor Kazuya Kawaguchi from Hiroshima Shudo University, almost 65 per cent of the population supports same-sex marriage, with the percentage reaching 80 per cent among people in their 20s and 30s. Also, almost 88 per cent support legislation prohibiting bullying and discrimination against sexual minorities. Similar results have been observed in other studies.

  How positive is the recently adopted law against discrimination?

  The law passed in June 2023 is not an anti-discrimination law based on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), because it lacks the tools to address actual cases of discrimination. It should be understood as a ‘SOGI Understanding Law’: it primarily aims to promote public awareness of sexual and gender diversity. It mandates the government to create a basic implementation plan and operational guidelines, publish an annual white paper to monitor progress, conduct academic research and establish a liaison council to coordinate policy implementation. It also encourages ‘efforts’ by national and local governments, employers and schools to promote understanding through awareness-raising, setting up consultation services, educational activities and other necessary measures.

  LGBTQI+ groups are concerned that article 12, which states that in implementing the measures each actor shall pay attention to ensure that all citizens can live with ‘peace of mind’ regardless of SOGI, may be interpreted by right-wing groups intentionally to mean that if one person raises concerns, local government cannot implement those measures. However, during the legislative session it was clarified that article 12 was added to emphasise a guiding principle stipulated in article 3, which declares that all citizens, irrespective of their SOGI, are respected as irreplaceable individuals who share basic human rights equally, and unjust discrimination based on SOGI is inexcusable.

  Japanese civil society is still uncertain whether this law will have a positive impact, given that the implementation plan and guidelines are yet to be formulated. We hope that the law will be interpretated and applied in accordance with the guiding principles based on a thorough understanding of the legislator’s intention.

  Have these legal changes been met with an anti-rights backlash?

  This year, anti-LGBTQI+ remarks made by a former secretary of the prime minister in February and Japan’s hosting of the G7 Summit in May accelerated a social movement urging anti-discrimination legislation. As a result, there has been heightened criticism from some conservative members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and religious groups.

  Anti-transgender discourse has surged by exploiting women’s anxieties. It has gone along the lines of ‘if the law is passed, men claiming to be women will be able to come into women’s public toilets and baths (‘Sento’ in Japanese)’. A new caucus was formed within the LDP, allegedly to protect the peace of mind and safety of women and the fairness of women’s sports. Members of this caucus submitted a request to the Ministry of Justice to keep the ‘compulsory sterilisation’ requirement for legal gender recognition. The LGBTQI+ community must continue discussions on how to counter this backlash.

  What are the next steps in your struggle?

  Three crucial steps should be taken. First, a proper anti-discrimination law banning discrimination on the basis of SOGI must be enacted. Second, marriage equality must be recognised.

  And third, inhumane requirements for legal gender recognition must be removed through the revision of the Act on Special Cases in Handling Gender Status of Persons with Gender Identity Disorder or the approval of new legislation. The compulsory sterilisation requirement has been criticised both domestically and internationally. Recommendations to eliminate it were formulated by various states at Japan’s Universal Periodic Review by the United Nations Human Rights Council in January 2023. However, the Japanese government did not accept these recommendations. A Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of this requirement is expected by the end of this year, and we hope it’ll mark the beginning of a movement to amend Japan’s gender recognition law.

  While many other things must be done to protect the human rights of LGBTQI+ people in Japan, we believe it’s crucial to first amend and enact laws on these three issues.

  What international support do you receive, and what is needed?

  At the international level, LGBTQI+ organisations from G7 member states, including us, have formed a new civic engagement group named ‘Pride7’ (P7) to highlight human rights violations related to SOGI globally and propose policy recommendations at G7 summits. In March, we organised the P7 summit with activists from G7 and global south countries and, as a result, handed the P7 communiqué to the governments of Japan, the UK and the USA. Additionally, 15 embassies in Japan released a joint video message ahead of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima, urging protection for the rights of LGBTQI+ people and expressing intolerance towards discrimination. With substantial support from the international community, we aim to pass on the P7 presidency to Italy, the host of the 2024 G7 summit.

  We would appreciate your support to inform wider audiences about the current situation in Japan. Please follow our activities on our website or social media, and contribute through either a one-time or a monthly donation. If you represent a private company, we invite you to cooperate by adhering to the Declaration of Business Support for LGBT Equality in Japan, which we promote as a part of our global campaign called ‘#EqualityActJapan‘.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with J-ALL through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@lgbtourengokai on Twitter.

• JAPAN: ‘Links between politics and the religious right have impeded progress on LGBTQI+ rights’

  CIVICUS speaks with Akira Nishiyama, executive officer of the Japan Alliance for Legislation to Remove Social Barriers based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (Japan Alliance for LGBT Legislation, J-ALL).

  J-ALL was founded in 2015 to advocate for legislation to remove the barriers LGBTQI+ people experience due to their sexual orientation or gender identity in Japan. It focuses on raising awareness among the public, producing research and convening consultations, developing policy proposals and lobbying with government officials and legislators.

  What is the situation of LGBTQI+ people in Japan?

  LGBTQI+ people are estimated to make up between three and 10 per cent of Japan’s population. Many are closeted for fear of discrimination and prejudice. According to recent research, over half of teenagers who identify as LGBTQI+ have been bullied, and only about 10 per cent of LGBTQI+ people are able to come out at their workplace. The rate of LGBTQI+ people who have considered suicide is about twice as high as among their heterosexual counterparts and the rate of those who attempt suicide is six times higher – and 10 times higher among transgender people.

  Such a vulnerable status is caused by the absence of a law at the national level that prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) and raises awareness of LGBTQI+ and SOGI issues. We believe that an anti-discrimination law would enable us to solve social problems such as bullying and SOGI-based discrimination due to prejudice or misunderstanding and effectively deter and remedy human rights violations. It would force governmental agencies, educational institutions and private companies to prepare preventive schemes so that SOGI-related human rights violations would not take place, and make consultation services available.

  Additionally, Japan’s Act on Special Cases in Handling Gender Status of Persons with Gender Identity Disorder sets strict conditions to change one’s legal gender status. Under this law, a person with a so-called ‘gender identity disorder’ must be diagnosed by two or more psychiatrists and must fulfil five conditions to request the family court to make a ruling towards change of their gender status, which is still thought of in binary terms: they must be above 18 years of age, not be married at the time of the gender change, have no children who are still minors, have no reproductive glands, or only reproductive glands that have permanently lost their function, and have body parts that appear to resemble the genitals of the other gender.

  These conditions are considered too strict compared to those of other countries. In 2015, 12 United Nations organisations issued a joint statement asking the Japanese government to ensure the legal recognition of the gender identity of transgender people without such abusive requirements, but the Japanese government has not yet made any moves in that direction.

  What work does J-ALL do?

  J-ALL was established in April 2015 in response to a call from politicians and the LGBTQI+ community to reach a consensus and make effective policy recommendations. For the previous decade or so, civil society organisations (CSOs) in Japan had been lobbying separately on LGBTQI+ and SOGI-related issues.

  J-ALL is an umbrella organisation with 96 member CSOs from throughout Japan. It is run by directors who are leaders of CSOs in various regions. Its secretariat is managed by executive officers who specialise in lobbying, public relations and international affairs, as well as student interns.

  Our lobbying activities have succeeded in pushing forward several SOGI-related laws. For instance, in October 2018 the Tokyo Metropolitan Government adopted an ordinance that protects LGBTQI+ people from SOGI-based discrimination in line with the Olympic Charter. This ordinance clearly stipulates anti-discrimination based on SOGI and was the first ordinance of its kind at the prefectural level.

  In addition, in May 2019 the Japanese government amended the law on harassment. The amended version requires private entities and municipal governments to set guidelines to prohibit harassment and outing based on SOGI in the workplace.

  As the only CSO aimed at proposing SOGI-related bills, J-ALL is pushing politicians and governmental officers at both national and municipal levels by working together with Rengo – the Japanese Trade Union Confederation and a member of the International Trade Union Confederation – eminent scholars and researchers of labour law and international human rights law, and activists fighting to eliminate all kinds of discrimination, including discrimination against women. In recent years, around 40 companies have signed a statement to support the LGBT Equality Law, which would ban anti-LGBTQI+ discrimination. Economic federations have also declared the necessity for legislation on SOGI.

  Have you faced any anti-rights backlash?

  As the social movement to promote the rights of LGBTQI+ people has grown, backlash by religious right-wing groups, ultra-conservative politicians and trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERF) groups has also grown. For instance, several politicians gave discriminatory speeches against LGBTQI+ people in response to discussions regarding the anti-discrimination bill agreed on by LGBT Giren, a nonpartisan political caucus set up to discuss SOGI-related human rights violations in 2021. Bashing against transgender women and LGBTQI+ people based on heteronormativity, conventional understandings of the family and stereotypical images of women are prevalent in both the real world and the internet.

  Japan has not made much progress on gender inequality, let alone LGBTQI+ rights and SOGI-related issues. This is because the Japanese government is closely connected with religious right-wing groups based on the values of male chauvinism and a patriarchal view of the family. Because of these close ties, ruling politicians have long ignored the existence of people with diverse sexualities and gender identities and have sustained a social system that lacks SOGI-related education and allows for SOGI-based human rights violations. As a result, LGBTQI+ people face wide-ranging challenges such as prejudice, bullying and harassment, and victims of SOGI-related human rights violations are not protected by the law.

  We believe that Japanese civil society needs to recognise this connection between mainstream politics and the religious right in order to tackle human rights issues in earnest. It is also important to learn about which groups of people are marginalised by the current social systems built by the majority and what kind of human rights violations they face, and to take actions such as electoral participation and making public comments based on these concerns.

  How is civil society working to achieve marriage equality, and what was the significance of the recent verdicts of the Sapporo and Osaka district courts?

  There is a CSO, Marriage For ALL Japan, that has been working actively and specifically to achieve the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Japan. In 2019 this organisation filed lawsuits in five districts – Fukuoka, Nagoya, Osaka, Sapporo and Tokyo – and has been conducting awareness-raising activities across the nation.

  In March 2021, the Sapporo District Court ruled that not allowing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. After a careful scrutiny of the scientific and medical arguments currently used to deny legal benefits to same-sex couples, the Sapporo District Court reasoned that the failure to allow ‘even a certain degree’ of legal benefits to same-sex couples based on their sexual orientation is against Article 14 of the Constitution, which stipulates equality under the law. Although the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim for compensation, its verdict was viewed as a step that would surely accelerate the movement to legalise same-sex marriage in Japan.

  But then in June 2022, the Osaka District Court concluded that not allowing same-sex marriages does not violate Article 14, given that the legal disadvantages faced by same-sex couples can be compensated by wills or other means. In addition, the court emphasised that the gap between the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual and same-sex couples has been minimised by the recognition of same-sex partnerships at the municipal level. This, however, overlooks the fact that the municipal system of partnership recognition is not legally binding.

  The Osaka District Court also claimed that the ‘true’ elimination of discrimination and prejudice should be achieved by constructing a social system through the democratic process of free discussion by the people. This was criticised by civil society as an abdication of the judiciary’s crucial role as the bastion of human rights. Also under fire is the court’s claim that marriage is purely for the purpose of reproduction.

  How can the international community support LGBTQI+ people fighting for their rights in Japan?

  Since 2020 J-ALL has been running a global campaign, Equality Act Japan (EAJ), alongside Human Rights Watch and other global human rights organisations. We would like you to sign the petition found in our website to ask the Japanese government to enact the LGBT Equality Act.

  If you are a private company, we will appreciate your cooperation in adhering to the Declaration of Business Support for LGBT Equality in Japan, which we promote as a part of the EAJ campaign.

  Last but not least, we would be happy if you could join us by checking out the current situation in Japan, follow our activities through our website or social media, and support us through a one-time or a monthly donation.

  Civic space in Japan is rated as ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with J-ALL through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@lgbthourengokai on Twitter. 

• JAPAN: ‘The vulnerability of the homeless is the result of contemporary society’s built-in social exclusion’

  CIVICUS speaks to Tsubasa Yuki ofMoyai Support Centre for Independent Living about the situation of homeless people amid the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. Founded in 2001, the Moyai Support Centre supports homeless people by creating a community space and providing advice and rent guarantees for those seeking housing.

  In Japan it is illegal to beg on the streets and there is little sympathy for homeless people, who are commonly stereotyped as running away from gambling debts. Tokyo’s preparations for the Olympic Games, originally planned for 2020 and now postponed to 2021, prompted the removal of homeless tents around railway stations and parks. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Moyai Support Centre started an online petition to request permission from the Tokyo Olympic organisers and the city government to use the Olympic Village as a homeless shelter. 

  

  Can you tell us about the work of the Moyai Support Centre for Independent Living?

  Our programmes for supporting homeless people are threefold, and most of them are not exclusive for people in homelessness. Firstly, we have a consultation service, Seikatsu-Soudan. Every Tuesday, around 20 people visit our office asking for immediate help. In most cases, they are seriously impoverished and need public assistance. In those cases, we provide them with accurate information about social welfare services and support their application processes.

  Secondly, we provide rent guarantees for homeless people seeking secure housing. After applying for public assistance, people are usually allocated to shelters and then start searching for apartments, and this is where we come in. We have provided rent guarantees for more than 2,000 people in total. However, insurance issued by private companies has recently become more common. So we advise our visitors to use those private companies if they can, and often our representative provides his phone number as an emergency contact when they apply for private insurance.

  Thirdly, we have a community space. It is often the case that even after getting secure housing, formerly homeless people do not have any place to be when they go out. So we have a café, Salon de Café Komorebi, which opens every Saturday. This café is managed by our staff alongside many volunteers, including formerly homeless people. Unfortunately, the café is currently closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

  What was the situation of homeless people in Japan before the pandemic?

  Some general trends can be identified. In Tokyo, and probably in other Japanese cities, there are at least 1,000 rough sleepers, most of whom are male and relatively old, with an average age around the mid-50s. They usually combine multiple strategies for survival: they are day labourers, seek other informal jobs, scavenge and eat at soup kitchens. In the case of Tokyo, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) has a public employment programme through which rough sleepers can gain a monthly cash income of around 20,000 yen (approx. US$190). Rough sleepers are mostly single males, but many of them form some kind of community in which they share useful information and, less frequently, jobs.

  In addition to rough sleepers, at least 4,000 people use cyber cafés and other facilities to spend the night in. Most of them are employed in the most insecure part of the labour market – they are cleaning staff, security officers, construction workers, or have transportation jobs. While they may seem to have relatively more secure housing than rough sleepers, the truth is that cyber cafés are segregated into compartments and as a result, these people usually don’t have any communities they belong to.

  What specific challenges have homeless people faced during the pandemic?

  The most striking point is that many community-based and faith-based organisations and other groups suspended soup kitchens due to fear of spreading the virus. This has made it really hard for rough sleepers to get enough food and vital information about the virus and the public services available to them.

  In addition, public employment services stopped in April 2020 and as a result, rough sleepers have lost their major source of cash income. Cash incomes from the informal economy, including scavenging, also declined because of the lockdown and stay-at-home policies.

  In April, the TMG requested that many enterprises in the service economy suspend their business. Cyber cafés and similar facilities were also requested to stop operating. Although this was not mandated by law, many enterprises followed the policy. As a result, people living in cyber cafés lost their places to sleep. Many of them also lost their jobs and incomes due to economic decline prompted by the lockdown policy.

  How have the Moyai Support Centre and other civil society organisations (CSOs) responded to the situation? 

  Many CSOs have had to stop their activities as well. We closed our café in April 2020. But at the same time, we extended our consultation services. Currently, in addition to the Tuesday consultation service, we have set up a soup kitchen and provide consultation services in front of the TMG office, together with another civil society group, Shinjuku Gohan Plus. In April alone, we distributed more than 600 packages of food and provided consultation services to more than 150 people.

  As well as providing direct services to people in need, we have started a petition so we can use the Olympic Village set up for the 2021 Tokyo Olympics as a shelter during the COVID-19 pandemic. So far, the petition has collected more than 50,000 signatures.

  Under the pandemic, the TMG made 2,000 hotel rooms available as shelter for those expelled from cyber cafés, and more than 800 people have been using them. But it is not clear whether this policy will be extended after the state of emergency ends. The Olympic Village can be the next place to accommodate them.

  In July and August 2020, we will have elections for the TMG. We are trying to tackle the shortage of decent shelters for people facing homelessness by making the issue one of the major topics in the coming election for Tokyo’s governor. As it is connected both to issues of the Olympics and COVID-19, it is now attracting a great deal of attention from people inside and outside Tokyo. So we are now planning to submit a petition and deliver an open questionnaire letter to candidates in the election. They will be obliged to express their stance and opinions on the issue of homelessness in Tokyo. 

  But we understand these are only temporary solutions. Be it at hotels or the Olympic Village, these are only temporary shelters at best. The next step for us is to support homeless people to find secure housing, that is, get their own apartment. This is challenging even for people who have successfully applied for and received public assistance. We are trying to reach them in shelters and support them in finding apartments.

  But this cannot be done solely by CSOs like us. This mass transition from shelters to apartments can only be successfully accomplished with the help of willing and conscientious owners and landlords. The next goal for both CSOs and public entities should be to gain their support.

  What lessons have you learned so far around the COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on homeless people?

  The current situation reveals that soup kitchens and other voluntary activities played a vital role as an information centre for homeless people, and especially for rough sleepers. People in that situation have scarce access to important information about COVID-19 and related policies and services. Some of them gain information from radio and newspapers but these media are not available to all rough sleepers. Thus, for many of them, voluntary activities are almost the only source of accurate information.

  Further, while it might be common knowledge that homeless people are particularly vulnerable to disasters, it is worth noting that homeless people and those working in insecure jobs have been the first to be affected by the pandemic, and the hardest hit. Stay-at-home policies might be one of the most effective strategies against the pandemic, but they presuppose that people have secure housing and a certain amount of savings. For those people with no secure housing, employment status and savings, it is almost impossible to follow the policy. In addition, homeless people are not eligible for any of the compensation or temporary income support that is available to other people. The vulnerability of the homeless is the result of contemporary Japanese society’s built-in social exclusion.

  Civic space inJapan is rated as ‘narrowed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with the Moyai Support Centre for Independent Living through itswebsite.

• JAPÓN: ‘La vulnerabilidad de las personas en situación de calle es el resultado de la exclusión incorporada en la sociedad contemporánea’

  CIVICUS conversa con CIVICUS Tsubasa Yuki, del Centro de Apoyo Moyai para la Vida Independiente (Moyai Support Centre for Independent Living) sobre la situación de las personas en situación de calle durante la pandemia del COVID19 en Japón. Fundado en 2001, el Centro de Apoyo Moyai apoya a personas en situación de calle creando un espacio comunitario y proporcionando asesoramiento y garantías de alquiler para quienes buscan vivienda.

  En Japón es ilegal pedir dinero en la calle y hay poca simpatía hacia las personas sin hogar, que a menudo son vistas en forma estereotipada, como personas que huyen de deudas de juego. En Tokio, los preparativos para los juegos Olímpicos, originalmente planeados para 2020 pero ahora postergados para 2021, resultaron en el desmantelamiento de las carpas de personas en situación de calle ubicadas cerca de estaciones de trenes y parques. En el contexto de la pandemia del COVID-19, el Centro de Apoyo Moyai lanzó un petitorio en línea para pedir autorización a los organizadores de las Olimpíadas de Tokio y al gobierno de la ciudad para usar la Villa Olímpica como refugio para personas en situación de calle.

• Joint Letter to UN Human Rights Council: More attention needed on human rights violations in China

  To: Permanent Representatives of Member and Observer States of the UN Human Rights Council

  RE: Sustaining attention to human rights violations in China

  Excellency,

  After another year marked by enforced disappearances, denial of due process, and continued efforts to suppress human rights, we call on your delegation to join with other States to take collective, coordinated action at the 34th session of the UN Human Rights Council to hold China accountable for its human rights record.

  One year ago today, the High Commissioner released a statement  calling on China to address a wide range of human rights violations. The concerns he raised were echoed by many States at the March 2016 Human Rights Council, including through a strong cross-regional statement delivered on behalf of twelve States.  These States reiterated the High Commissioner’s call for China to uphold its own laws and international commitments, and urged China to release lawyers and other human rights defenders detained for their human rights work.

• Judicial harassment of human rights defender Muhammed Ismail persists amid pandemic

  The Pakistan authorities must halt their judicial harassment of human rights defender Muhammed Ismail and his wife Uzlifat Ismail and drop all charges against them, said CIVICUS, FIDH, the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and Front Line Defenders. The human rights defender faces charges under the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act and is currently on conditional bail, which Pakistan’s Federal Investigative Agency has sought to revoke. His next hearing to determine bail is scheduled for 18 May 2020 before the Peshawar High Court.

• KAZAJISTÁN: “La cuarentena se convirtió en una suerte de excusa del gobierno para perseguir a la sociedad civil”

  CIVICUS conversa con Asya Tulesova, una defensora de los derechos cívicos y ambientales de Kazajstán. El 8 de junio de 2020 Asya fue arrestada y detenida tras participar en una manifestación pacífica en la ciudad de Almaty. Fue liberada el 12 de agosto de 2020, pero bajo libertad condicional. El caso de Asya fue parte de la campaña de CIVICUS #StandAsMyWitness, lanzada el 18 de julio, el Día de Nelson Mandela, para exigir la liberación de las personas defensoras de derechos humanos que están encarceladas o son perseguidas o acosadas por defender la libertad, los derechos y la democracia y denunciar la corrupción de gobiernos y compañías multinacionales.

  

  ¿Nos contarías un poco acerca de tu historia y tu activismo ambiental?

  Durante los últimos años he trabajado para una organización de la sociedad civil, la Fundación Cívica Sentido Común, enfocada en el desarrollo comunitario. Trabajamos en proyectos ambientales y educativos orientados a mejorar la calidad de vida de las comunidades locales. En 2015 lanzamos nuestro proyecto de monitoreo de la calidad del aire en Almaty con el objetivo de brindar a la gente acceso a información gratuita y actualizada sobre la calidad del aire en la ciudad. El proyecto mejoró considerablemente la comprensión de la gente sobre la importancia del tema.

  Cuando me di cuenta de que la calidad del aire era un problema político, intenté postularme para el consejo local. Sin embargo, mi candidatura fue rechazada debido a discrepancias menores en mi declaración de ingresos fiscales. Este mismo razonamiento se utilizó para excluir a cientos de candidatos y candidatas que se postulaban como independientes en todo Kazajistán. Demandamos a la comisión electoral central, pero no pudimos persuadir al tribunal para que restableciera mi candidatura, a pesar de de que teníamos todas las pruebas que respaldaban mi reclamo. Mi caso ahora está siendo examinado por el Comité de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas.

  Continuamos nuestro activismo ambiental mediante la publicación de artículos, investigaciones sobre la contaminación del aire, la participación en eventos públicos y la organización de charlas públicas sobre el tema. En abril de 2019 mi compañero, el activista Beibarys Tolymbekov, y yo fuimos arrestados por sostener una pancarta en la maratón anual de Almaty; nuestros amigos Aidos Nurbolatov, Aigul Nurbolatova y Suinbike Suleimenova fueron multados por filmarnos sosteniendo el cartel. En tanto que integrantes de un movimiento de activistas jóvenes, queríamos llamar la atención de la gente sobre el carácter injusto de las siguientes elecciones presidenciales y la falta de candidatos independientes. Beibarys y yo recibimos 15 días de arresto administrativo; mientras estaba detenida hice una huelga de hambre para protestar contra la decisión del tribunal, y en un momento mi compañera de celda me dio un puñetazo en el estómago por negarme a cumplir con su reclamo de poner fin a mi huelga de hambre. Nuestra detención resultó en una serie de protestas en todo el país y en un aumento de la participación política de los jóvenes. Continuamos nuestro trabajo con la esperanza de que nuestros esfuerzos atrayeran más candidaturas independientes a la competencia electoral.

  La condición de activista en Kazajistán está asociada a un cierto grado de presión constante por parte del gobierno y las autoridades policiales. Muchas personas activistas y defensoras de derechos humanos, así como periodistas, viven bajo un intenso escrutinio y bajo constante vigilancia e intimidación por parte de los organismos encargados de hacer cumplir la ley o de otros que actúan en su nombre.

  ¿Qué fue lo que ocurrió durante la protesta de junio de 2020 en la que te arrestaron?

  Durante la protesta del 6 de junio de 2020 presencié actos de brutalidad policial hacia manifestantes pacíficos. No era la primera vez; cada manifestación pacífica “no autorizada” que hemos tenido hasta ahora ha ido acompañada del uso excesivo de la fuerza por parte de la policía. Pero en esta oportunidad decidí pararme frente a una de las camionetas policiales cargadas de personas detenidas ilegalmente para evitar que se las llevaran. Varios policías me atacaron, me sacaron a rastras de la camioneta y, cuando intenté regresar, me tiraron al suelo. En ese estado emocional le quité la gorra a un oficial de policía, a modo de protesta por las acciones policiales ilegales y la detención de manifestantes pacíficos. Es difícil articular lo que pasaba por mi cabeza en ese momento. Definitivamente estaba en estado de shock.

  Esto fue capturado en video y fui acusada de “insultar públicamente a un representante de las autoridades” en virtud del artículo 378, parte 2 del Código Penal, y de “infligir daño no grave a un representante de las autoridades”, en virtud del artículo 380, parte 1.

  ¿Cómo fue estar presa? ¿Tuviste miedo de contraer COVID-19?

  Estuve en prisión durante más de dos meses. El centro de detención adonde me llevaron está ubicado en el extremo norte de Almaty. Me llevaron por la noche y primero me pusieron en una celda de cuarentena para los detenidos recién llegadao, donde pasé más de diez días familiarizándome con las normas internas de la institución. Después de eso me trasladaron a una celda diferente.

  Debido a la pandemia de COVID-19, las visitas de familiares y amigos estaban prohibidas. Solo pude hablar con mi madre dos veces por semana durante diez minutos por videollamada y recibir visitas de mis abogados cada dos semanas. Las condiciones en esta institución eran mucho mejores que en el centro de detención temporario ubicado en la estación de policía donde antes había pasado dos días. La celda estaba relativamente limpia y tenía dos literas para cuatro personas, un lavabo y un inodoro. Nos turnábamos para limpiar la celda. Dos de mis compañeras de celda fumaban en el baño. Nos alimentaban tres veces al día, principalmente guisos y sopas. Nos llevaban a “pasear” cinco veces por semana, a una instalación especialmente diseñada para ello, que era básicamente una celda sin ventanas ni techo. Nuestros paseos por lo general duraban de 15 a 20 minutos, por lo que tuve que escribir una queja a las autoridades de la institución para que cumplieran con sus propias regulaciones internas y nos dieran una hora completa para caminar. Nos duchábamos una vez a la semana, durante 15 minutos por persona.

  Varias veces a la semana recibía paquetes procedentes de familiares y amigos. Su apoyo fue muy útil para mantener alto mi ánimo. Recibí una radio que me mandó otro activista, Marat Turymbetov, cuyo amigo Alnur Ilyashev había estado detenido en el mismo centro por sus críticas al partido gobernante, Nur Otan. Pasábamos mucho tiempo escuchando la radio a la espera de noticias, pero la mayoría de las noticias eran sobre la pandemia de COVID-19. Ocasionalmente también escuchábamos rumores acerca de casos de COVID-19 en la institución, pero no había nada seguro, así que no tuve demasiado temor a contraer el virus. Mi madre, sin embargo, estaba muy preocupada por eso y cada tanto me enviaba medicamentos. La pandemia ha sido muy dura para nuestro país y se ha cobrado muchas vidas.

  Esta vez, personalmente no he experimentado ninguna violación importante mientras estaba detenida, más allá del incumplimiento de algunas reglas internas por parte del personal. Sé que otras personas detenidas pasaron meses en la institución sin recibir visitas de la persona que investigaba su caso, su abogado o sus familiares. En un principio tuve sospechas cuando, en el centro de detención temporaria, me colocaron en una celda con la misma mujer que había estado conmigo en el centro de detención especial para faltas administrativas un año atrás.

  No puedo decir que sienta que he estado detenida durante mucho tiempo, pero fue suficiente para que aumentaran mi aprecio y mi compasión hacia los activistas y otras personas que han pasado meses y años en prisión. Por ejemplo, el defensor de derechos humanos Max Bokayev ha estado en prisión durante más de cuatro años por apoyar una manifestación pacífica contra la venta ilegal de tierras a empresas chinas. Durante la cuarentena, muchos activistas y líderes políticos fueron sometidos a registros y detenciones, por lo que la cuarentena se convirtió en una suerte de excusa del gobierno para perseguir a la sociedad civil. Entre los activistas detenidos se contaron Sanavar Zakirova, que ha sido perseguida por sus intentos de registrar un partido político, los activistas Abay Begimbetov, Askar Ibraev, Serik Idyryshev, Askhat Jeksebaev, Kairat Klyshev y muchos otros.

  ¿Qué piensas sobre la sentencia que recibiste?

  No estoy de acuerdo con mi sentencia, por eso vamos a apelar. El tribunal debe tener en cuenta el grado de peligro para la sociedad que suponen las faltas que cometí, que difícilmente constituyen un delito. Sin embargo, sí lamento la falta de autocontrol y la mala educación que exhibí. Creo firmemente en la protesta no violenta y mi caso es una gran oportunidad para que tanto nosotros como el gobierno condenemos la violencia procedente de ambos lados.

  ¿Qué apoyos necesitarían los activistas como ustedes de la comunidad internacional?

  Estoy muy agradecida de que mi caso haya recibido atención y apoyo internacionales. Fue un honor estar representada en la campaña de CIVICUS, #StandAsMyWitness. También estoy muy agradecida hacia mi madre, mis abogados, mi familia, amigos y simpatizantes de Kazajistán y de todo el mundo, a quienes se les ocurrieron muchas ideas creativas para crear conciencia pública y atraer la necesaria atención a mi caso y al problema de la brutalidad policial en Kazajistán. Personalmente, me inspiré mucho en una de las iniciativas lanzadas por mis buenos amigos Kuat Abeshev, Aisha Jandosova, Irina Mednikova y Jeffrey Warren, Protest Körpe, una forma simple y visualmente bella de presentar demandas de justicia y derechos humanos de una manera agradable y cariñosa. Es fácil unirse a ella. La mayoría de los mensajes de Protest Körpe son universales y tienen relevancia para muchos países. ¡Hagamos oír nuestros mensajes! Siento que podemos aprender nuevas tácticas creativas de Protest Körpe y de otras iniciativas y adaptarlas a nuestro contexto local. ¿No sería fantástico si esas campañas y movimientos pudieran conformar una red para que todos podamos compartir y aprovechar las experiencias de los demás?

  El espacio cívico enKazajistán es calificado como “obstruido” por elCIVICUS Monitor.
  Contáctese con Asya a través deFacebook.

• KAZAKHSTAN: ‘No economic or social reform will bring real change unless there is also serious political reform’

  CIVICUS speaks about the recent protests in Kazakhstan and the state’s repressive response with Yevgeniy Zhovtis, a prominent human rights lawyer and director of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law (KIBHR).

  Founded in 1993, KIBHR is a human rights civil society organisation aimed at promoting civil and political rights, democratic freedoms, the rule of law and the development of civil society through education, data collection, analysis and dissemination of information, and advocacy to harmonise domestic legislation with international standards. Yevgeniy is also a member of Panel of Experts on Freedom of Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute Council.

  

  What caused the recent protests in Kazakhstan?

  The demands expressed in the recent protests have deep roots in processes that go back to the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, when former Soviet republics started to transition towards a capitalist system based on private property. The problem in Kazakhstan was that members of the nomenklatura, the ruling class in Soviet times, and especially those in positions of authority in state-owned companies, became the owners of a big portion of the economy. These elites then started to incorporate elements of authoritarian political control to match their economic power, and gained control of the political space, independent media and public life in general.

  As a result, Kazakhstan turned into an authoritarian and oligarchic state, with much of the economy concentrated in the hands of a small group of people close to First President Nursultan Nazarbayev, his clan and his family, and ridden with social inequality.

  Unsurprisingly, over the years dissatisfaction grew. People were unhappy about illegal practices that bypassed institutions, corruption, social injustice and inequality, among other things. A protest movement grew in 2011 but ended in massacre. Residents of Zhanaozen, a city in southwest Kazakhstan, went on a hunger strike and set up a protest camp in the city’s main square for months, demanding higher salaries and better working conditions. In December 2011, the police opened fire on them and, according to official data, killed 17 and injured more than a hundred people.

  This became to some extent a moment of great symbolic power.

  As protests erupted in 2022, what were their demands?

  Ten years later, at the very start of 2022, the Ministry of the Economy freed the market for liquefied gas, which is the most important fuel for local cars. Prices went up by 100 per cent. 

  But the trigger for the 2022 protests was strikingly similar to that of the 2011 protest. People were angry not only because of rising gas and oil prices, but also because of economic mismanagement and corruption. It started with several thousand protesters in Zhanaozen on 2 January and within two or three days it spread to more than 60 cities all around the country. When anger reached a tipping point, many thousands took to the streets.

  Initially, protests in many places were driven by groups of political opposition, civic activists who were joined by workers and marginalised groups. It was not a situation in which the mass of the people mobilised against the government. Generally speaking, having lived under an authoritarian state for the past 17 years, people in Kazakhstan have no real political culture or a political voice. Public protests are illegal: people are not allowed to gather in central squares or in any place near a government building, so anyone who protests in the streets is committing an administrative offence.

  But people don’t seem to be so afraid anymore. By mid-January 2022, the protests that started in the west had spread out to other regions, and masses of diverse people joined, including not only big crowds of young people but also criminals, militants close to local elites and even some Islamic radicals.

  President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev tried to control the situation, replaced some security authorities and put himself at the head of the security council, replacing the First President, who was supposed to occupy this position for life. The government also shut down internet access for several days.

  Most protests were spontaneous, and Kazakhstan is a very diverse country, so there was no consolidated leadership. People kept protesting and adding more social and economic demands, which in turn ended up giving way to political demands, including the resignation of the government and removal of the First President and his clan from all positions in politics and the economy. There are no real opposition political parties but those that are close to having that role called out their supporters to protest.

  Protests were also mostly peaceful, but some aggressive young people, militant groups close to local elites and Islamic groups clashed with the police. They tried to seize government buildings and, in some cities, they ran out of control.

  How did the government respond?

  The government reacted with deadly violence, to the point that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had to urge it to end the violence towards protesters.

  As well as having control of the national security forces, President Tokayev resorted to Russian Security Forces as part of the Collective Security Treaty Organization forces. He brought in more than 2,000 Russian troops, joined by Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan units. These also had a political purpose: to show that Russian president Vladimir Putin had his back.

  More than 220 people were killed and more than 10,000 were arrested during the protests. Between 8,000 and 9,000 of them were later released, but some continue in detention. Among them are some people who were violent and committed looting but many others who did not. For almost a week they didn’t have access to basic rights such as communicating with their families or a lawyer, and there have been many cases of torture and cruel treatment in detention. Only by 14 or 15 January, when they regained control, did the authorities start to provide information regarding places of detention and people detained. But judicial procedures continue and the outcome of the trials is uncertain.

  Once President Tokayev regained control, Russian security forces left Kazakhstan. The president then moved to consolidate his power. On 11 January he addressed a statement to parliament in which he promised to introduce economic and social reforms aimed at bringing a measure of social justice, reducing inequalities, combatting corruption and improving the economy. He also promised that in September he will announce a set of political reforms. 

  Did anything change as a result of the protests?

  The number of people who took the streets was incredibly high, and that in and by itself was an important positive change. In the medium term we might see an impact in terms of economic and social changes. But we need institutional changes regarding the prison system and the security forces, the police and prosecutor’s office and judiciary. All these institutions must be radically reformed.

  And Kazakhstan also needs political reform. I do not expect the government to hold democratic elections anytime soon, but I am concerned about the space for independent media and journalists, for the growth of a democratic opposition and for the development of civil society. At some point there will be a need for political pluralism, party competition and citizen participation.

  I think these protests gave the government some food for thought. No economic or social reform will bring real change unless it there is also serious political reform. Otherwise, the story will repeat itself following the same pattern.

  What can the international community do to improve civic space in Kazakhstan?

  I participated in a meeting with the European Union External Action Service people and have close communications with western embassies regarding civic space and human rights issues. But unfortunately, Kazakhstan is not relevant in the international agenda, and the international community is currently absorbed with the pandemic. Additionally, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is also keeping the world busy. There are some foreign journalists who are being allowed to work in Kazakhstan who will hopefully publish their coverage in popular newspapers, but that’s about it.

  At this point, the only way to help is to look at the situation as a systemic problem that has existed for many years, concerning the nature of the political regimes that have been established in the region, lacking in democratic freedoms. High-level advocacy is needed to slowly move the government towards an understanding of the need to open up the space for civic freedoms. Another, more immediate way to help is to work on a case-by-case basis on the situation of human rights activists, journalists and civil society staff who are being prosecuted. International assistance in investigations on human rights violations would also be very valuable.

  Civic space in Kazakhstan is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with KIBHR through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@bureau_kz on Twitter.

• KAZAKHSTAN: ‘The quarantine became a sort of cover for the government to persecute civil society’

  CIVICUS speaks to Asya Tulesova, anenvironmental and civic rights defender from Kazakhstan. On 8 June 2020, Asya was arrested and detained after taking part in apeaceful rally in thecity of Almaty. She was released on 12 August 2020, but with restrictions on her freedom. Asya was profiled in CIVICUS’s#StandAsMyWitness campaign, launched on Nelson Mandela Day, 18 July, to call for the release of human rights defenders who areimprisoned, persecuted, or harassed for standing up for freedom, rights and democracy and calling out corrupt governments and multinational companies.

  

  Would you tell us about your background and your environmental activism?

  For the past few years, I have worked for a civil society organisation, the Common Sense Civic Foundation, that focuses on community development. We work on environmental and educational projects aimed at improving the quality of life of local communities. In 2015 we launched our air quality monitoring project in Almaty with the aim of giving give people access to free, up-to-date air quality information in the city. The project had a considerable effect on people's understanding of the importance of the issue.

  As I realised that air quality is a political issue, I tried running for the local council. However, my candidature was withdrawn due to minor discrepancies in my tax income declaration. This same reasoning was used to take down hundreds of independent self-nominated candidates all over Kazakhstan. We sued the central election commission but were unable to persuade the court to restore my candidacy regardless of the fact that we had all the evidence to support my case. My case is now being considered by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

  We continued our environmental activism by publishing articles, doing research on air pollution, participating in public events and organising public talks on the issue. In April 2019 my companion, activist Beibarys Tolymbekov, and I were arrested for holding a banner at the annual Almaty marathon; our friends Aidos Nurbolatov, Aigul Nurbolatova and Suinbike Suleimenova were fined for filming us holding the banner. As a part of a young activist movement, we wanted to draw people’s attention to the unfairness of the upcoming presidential elections and the lack of independent candidates. Beibarys and I received 15 days of administrative arrest; while under arrest I went on a hunger strike to protest against the court’s decision, and at some point I was punched in the stomach by my cellmate for refusing to comply with her demands to end my hunger strike. Our detention resulted in a series of protests around the country and a rise of youth political engagement. We continue our work in the hope that our efforts will bring more independent candidates to the elections. 

  Being an activist in Kazakhstan is associated with a certain degree of constant pressure from the government and so-called law enforcement authorities. Many activists and human rights defenders, as well as journalists, live under intense scrutiny and are under constant surveillance and intimidation by or on behalf of law enforcement agencies.

  What happened during the protest in June 2020 that led to your arrest? 

  During the protest on 6 June 2020 I witnessed police brutality towards peaceful protesters. This wasn’t the first time; every ‘unauthorised’ peaceful rally we have had so far has been accompanied by the excessive use of force by the police. But this time, I decided to stand in front of one of the police vans filled with people unlawfully detained by the police in an attempt to prevent the van from leaving. I was attacked by several officers, who dragged me away from the van and, after I attempted to return, pushed me down to the ground. In such emotional state, I then knocked off a police officer’s cap in protest against the unlawful police actions and detention of peaceful protesters. It’s hard to articulate what was going through my head at that moment. I was definitely in a state of shock.

  This was captured on video, and I was charged with “publicly insulting a representative of the authorities” under Article 378, part 2 of the Criminal Code, and with “non-dangerous infliction of harm to a representative of the authorities” under Article 380, part 1.

  What was it like to be imprisoned? Were you afraid of contracting COVID-19?

  I was in prison for more than two months. The detention facility I was placed in was located on the northern edge of Almaty. I was brought in at night and first placed in a quarantine cell for newly arrived detainees, where I spent over 10 days getting acquainted with the internal rules of the facility. After that I was relocated to a different cell.

  Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, visits from family members and friends were forbidden. I was only able to speak to my mother twice a week for 10 minutes through a video call and receive visits from my lawyers every other week. The conditions in the facility were much better than those in the temporary detention facility at the police department where I spent two days prior to that. The cell was relatively clean and had two bunk beds for four people, a washbasin and a toilet. We would take turns cleaning the cell. Two of my cellmates smoked, in the toilet. We were fed three times a day, mostly porridge and soup. We were taken for ‘strolls’ five times a week in a specially designed facility, a cell with no windows and no roof. Our strolls would usually last 15 to 20 minutes so I had to write a complaint to the facility authorities so they would comply with their own internal regulations and allow a full hour for our strolls. We took showers once a week, 15 minutes per person.

  A few times a week I would receive care packages from family and friends. Their support was very helpful in keeping my spirits up. I received a radio from Marat Turymbetov, also an activist, whose friend, activist Alnur Ilyashev, had been detained in the same facility for his criticism of the ruling party, Nur Otan. We would spend a lot of time listening to the radio waiting for news, but most news was about COVID-19. We would also hear occasional rumours about COVID-19 cases in the facility but nothing certain, so I wasn’t particularly afraid of contracting the virus. My mother, however, was very concerned about it and would send medicine to me every now and then. The pandemic has been very tough on our country, taking the lives of many.

  This time around I personally haven’t experienced any major violations while in detention, apart from the non-observance of some internal rules by staff. I know other detainees spent months in the facility with no visits from their investigator, lawyer, or family members. I was suspicious at first when in the temporary detention facility, I was placed in a cell with the same woman who was with me in the special detention facility for administrative detainees a year earlier.

  I can’t say that I feel I have been detained for a long time, but it was long enough for me to grow appreciation and compassion for activists and other people who have spent months and years in prison. For instance, human rights defender Max Bokayev has been in prison for over four years for supporting a peaceful rally against an illegal land sale to Chinese companies. During the quarantine, many activists and politicians were subjected to searches and detention, so the quarantine became a sort of cover for the government to persecute civil society. Among the detained activists were Sanavar Zakirova, who has been persecuted for her attempts to register a political party, and activists Abay Begimbetov, Askar Ibraev, Serik Idyryshev, Askhat Jeksebaev, Kairat Klyshev and many others.

  What is your reaction to the outcome of your case?

  I do not agree with the sentence I received, which is why we are going to appeal. The court should take into account the degree of danger to society that the acts I committed pose, which hardly constitute a criminal offence. I am, however, sorry for the lack of self-control and rudeness I showed. I am a firm believer in non-violent protest and my case is a great opportunity for us and the government to condemn violence on both sides.

  What sort of support do activists like yourself need from the international community?

  I am very grateful that my case has received international attention and support. It was an honour to be represented in the CIVICUS #StandAsMyWitness campaign. I am also very grateful to my mother, my lawyers, my family, friends and supporters from Kazakhstan and around the world, who came up with a lot of creative ideas to raise public awareness and bring much-needed attention to my case and the issue of police brutality in Kazakhstan. I personally was very inspired by one of the initiatives launched by my good friends Kuat Abeshev, Aisha Jandosova, Irina Mednikova and Jeffrey Warren, Protest Körpe, a simple and visually beautiful way of showing one’s demand for justice and human rights in a very gentle, caring and loving way. It is easy to join. Most of Protest Körpe messages are universal and relevant to many countries. So let’s make our messages heard! I feel that we can learn new creative tactics from Protest Körpe and other initiatives and adapt them to our local context. Wouldn’t it be great if such campaigns and movements could establish a network to share and build on each other’s experience?

  Civic space inKazakhstan is rated as ‘obstructed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Asya throughFacebook.

   

• KIRGUISTÁN: “La decisión de la ciudadanía en el referéndum será clave para nuestro futuro”

  CIVICUS y la Asociación Internacional para los Derechos Humanos (International Partnership for Human Rights) conversan con Ulugbek Azimov, experto legal de la Fundación para la Prosperidad Jurídica (Legal Prosperity Foundation), acerca de las protestas que tuvieron lugar en Kirguistán en octubre de 2020 y los acontecimientos políticos que se produjeron a continuación. La Fundación para la Prosperidad Jurídica (ex Grupo Juvenil de Derechos Humanos) es una organización de la sociedad civil (OSC) independiente que desde 1995 promueve los derechos humanos y los principios democráticos en Kirguistán. La organización lleva a cabo programas educativos, realiza un monitoreo de derechos humanos, interactúa con los mecanismos internacionales de derechos humanos y promueve el respeto de los derechos humanos en el contexto de las reformas legales.

  A menudo se habla de Kirguistán como la única democracia de Asia Central. ¿Qué tan cerca de la verdad está esta caracterización?

  Es cierto que a principios de la década de 1990, es decir, en los primeros años de independencia, la democracia brotó y comenzó a desarrollarse en Kirguistán. En comparación con otros países de la región, Kirguistán se caracterizó por tener un mayor nivel de participación ciudadana, una sociedad civil más desarrollada y condiciones más favorables para el funcionamiento y la participación de los partidos políticos en el proceso político. Por este motivo, Kirguistán fue calificado como una “isla de democracia” en Asia Central.

  Sin embargo, en los 30 años transcurridos desde la independencia, Kirguistán ha enfrentado graves problemas. Los intentos de los expresidentes de preservar y reforzar su poder presionando a la oposición, persiguiendo a los medios de comunicación y al periodismo independiente, restringiendo la libertad de expresión, utilizando los recursos públicos en su beneficio, sobornando a los votantes y falsificando los resultados de las elecciones, han provocado grandes convulsiones políticas en varias oportunidades. En los últimos 15 años, el gobierno ha sido derrocado tres veces, en las llamadas revoluciones de los Tulipanes, de abril y de octubre, producidas en 2005, 2010 y 2020, respectivamente. Dos expresidentes se vieron obligados a huir del país, y el tercero debió dimitir antes de tiempo.

  Desgraciadamente, a cada revuelta le siguió un proceso que socavó los logros democráticos anteriores. Por lo tanto, no es de extrañar que Freedom House haya calificado sistemáticamente a Kirguistán como “parcialmente libre” en su índice anual de Libertad en el Mundo. Además, en la última medición publicada este año, Kirguistán fue degradado a la categoría de “no libre” debido a las consecuencias de las elecciones parlamentarias de octubre de 2020, que se vieron empañadas por graves violaciones. Así, Kirguistán se encuentra ahora en la misma categoría en la que se hallaban otros países de Asia Central desde hacía muchos años.

  ¿Se impusieron restricciones relacionadas con la pandemia en el período que precedió a las elecciones de 2020?

  En respuesta al rápido aumento de los casos de COVID-19 en la primavera de 2020, las autoridades kirguisas adoptaron medidas de emergencia e impusieron el confinamiento en la capital, Bishkek, y en varias otras regiones del país, lo cual redundó en restricciones del derecho a la libertad de circulación y otros derechos relacionados. Se prohibieron todos los actos públicos, incluidos los de naturaleza política.

  Las medidas adoptadas en el contexto de la pandemia también suscitaron preocupación porque impusieron restricciones a la libertad de expresión y al acceso a la información. Las autoridades apretaron fuertemente las tuercas a las voces críticas en respuesta a las críticas generalizadas a los gobernantes, incluido el entonces presidente Sooronbai Jeenbekov, por su incapacidad para luchar eficazmente contra la pandemia. Las autoridades policiales persiguieron a blogueros y comentaristas de las redes sociales con posiciones críticas, los visitaron en sus domicilios y mantuvieron con ellos conversaciones “profilácticas”. En algunos casos, se detuvo a usuarios de redes sociales por publicar información supuestamente falsa sobre la pandemia y se les obligó a disculparse públicamente bajo la amenaza de ser procesados.

  La ley sobre “manipulación de la información”, que el Parlamento aprobó en junio de 2020, es especialmente preocupante. Aunque los promotores de la ley afirmaron que su único objetivo era abordar el problema de las cuentas falsas en redes sociales, desde el principio quedó claro que se trataba de un intento de las autoridades de introducir la censura en internet y clausurar sitios molestos en vísperas de las elecciones. Tras una avalancha de críticas por parte de la comunidad de medios de comunicación y de personas defensoras de derechos humanos, el entonces presidente Jeenbekov se negó a firmar la ley y en agosto de 2020 la devolvió al parlamento para que la revisara. Desde entonces, la ley ha permanecido en el parlamento.

  ¿Qué fue lo que desencadenó las manifestaciones postelectorales de octubre de 2020? ¿Quiénes protestaron y por qué?

  El principal motivo de las protestas de octubre de 2020, que volvieron a provocar un cambio en el poder, fue el descontento de la población con los resultados oficiales de las elecciones parlamentarias celebradas el 4 de octubre.

  De los 16 partidos que competían por escaños en el parlamento, sólo cinco superaron el umbral electoral del 7%, requerido para entrar en el parlamento. Aunque el entonces presidente Jeenbekov declaró públicamente que no apoyaba a ningún partido, el más votado, Birimdik (Unidad), estaba vinculado con él, ya que entre los candidatos se contaban su hermano y otros integrantes de la élite gobernante. El partido que quedó en segundo lugar, Mekenim Kirguistán (Patria Kirguisa), también era considerado progubernamental y estaba asociado a la familia del ex alto funcionario del servicio de aduanas Raiymbek Matraimov, implicado en una investigación mediática de alto nivel sobre corrupción, publicada en noviembre de 2019. El gobierno de Jeenbekov ignoró las conclusiones de esta investigación y no inició una causa penal contra Matraimov, a pesar de los llamamientos públicos en este sentido.

  Era previsible que Birimdik y Mekenim Kirguistán obtuvieran buenos resultados en las elecciones, dado el uso de recursos públicos y la aparente compra de votos a favor de sus candidatos. Estos dos partidos, que competían en las elecciones parlamentarias por primera vez, obtuvieron casi la mitad de los votos y, por lo tanto, la mayoría absoluta de los escaños parlamentarios. Los métodos utilizados por los dos partidos ganadores para asegurarse el control del parlamento provocaron la indignación de otros partidos políticos que compitieron en las elecciones, de sus votantes e incluso de personas sin identidad partidaria.

  Las elecciones se celebraron en un contexto de creciente descontento con las dificultades sociales y económicas causadas por la pandemia, así como de un creciente sentimiento antigubernamental entre la ciudadanía.

  Las elecciones “sucias”, caracterizadas por un nivel de violaciones sin precedentes, se convirtieron en un catalizador de los acontecimientos posteriores. Las protestas comenzaron inmediatamente después del anuncio de los resultados provisorios al final de la jornada electoral, el 4 de octubre, y continuaron durante todo el día siguiente. La juventud desempeñó en ellas un rol decisivo: la mayoría de quienes salieron a la calle a protestar y se reunieron en la plaza central de la capital eran jóvenes. Por desgracia, la mayoría de las personas heridas, así como el manifestante que murió durante las manifestaciones de octubre, también eran jóvenes.

  ¿Cuál fue la reacción del gobierno frente a las protestas?

  Las autoridades tuvieron la oportunidad de tomar el control de la situación y resolverla pacíficamente, pero no la aprovecharon. Recién en la noche del 5 de octubre el entonces presidente Jeenbekov anunció que se reuniría con los líderes de los diferentes partidos que habían participado de las elecciones. Fijó una reunión para la mañana del 6 de octubre, pero resultó ser demasiado tarde, ya que en la noche del 5 de octubre las protestas pacíficas en Bishkek se convirtieron en enfrentamientos entre los manifestantes y las fuerzas de seguridad, que terminaron con la toma de la Casa Blanca, sede de la presidencia y el parlamento, y otros edificios públicos por parte de los manifestantes. Durante los enfrentamientos, las fuerzas de seguridad utilizaron balas de goma, granadas de aturdimiento y gases lacrimógenos contra los manifestantes. Como consecuencia de los enfrentamientos, murió un joven de 19 años y más de 1.000 personas, entre manifestantes y miembros de las fuerzas del orden, requirieron atención médica; más de 600 policías resultaron heridos. Durante los disturbios también sufrieron daños coches de policía, ambulancias, cámaras de vigilancia y otros bienes materiales, por un valor estimado de más de 17 millones de soms (unos 200.000 dólares estadounidenses).

  ¿Lograron las elecciones presidenciales anticipadas celebradas en enero de 2021 resolver los problemas planteados por las protestas?

  La principal demanda de las protestas era la anulación de los resultados de las elecciones parlamentarias de octubre de 2020 y la celebración de nuevas elecciones justas. Esta demanda se satisfizo en parte el 6 de octubre de 2020, cuando la Comisión Electoral Central (CEC) declaró inválidos los resultados de las elecciones. Sin embargo, hasta ahora no se ha fijado nueva fecha para las elecciones parlamentarias. La CEC las programó inicialmente para el 20 de diciembre de 2020, pero el parlamento respondió adoptando rápidamente una ley que suspendía las elecciones a la espera de una revisión de la Constitución y ampliaba el mandato de los miembros del parlamento saliente hasta el 1º de junio de 2021.

  En su evaluación de esta ley, la Comisión de Venecia -un órgano consultivo del Consejo de Europa, compuesto por personas independientes expertas en derecho constitucional- concluyó que durante el actual periodo de transición el parlamento debería ejercer funciones limitadas y abstenerse de aprobar medidas extraordinarias, tales como reformas constitucionales. Sin embargo, el parlamento saliente ha continuado su labor con normalidad y ha convocado a un referéndum constitucional a celebrarse en abril de 2021. El presidente recientemente electo, Sadyr Japarov, ha sugerido la celebración de nuevas elecciones parlamentarias en otoño de 2021, lo cual significaría que los integrantes del parlamento saliente continuarían en sus puestos incluso después del 1º de junio de 2021.

  En respuesta a otras demandas de los manifestantes, en octubre de 2020 se modificó la legislación electoral del país para reducir el umbral electoral para obtener representación parlamentaria de siete a tres puntos porcentuales y se redujo la tarifa de inscripción de candidatura de cinco millones a un millón de soms (unos 12.000 dólares). Estas modificaciones apuntaron a facilitar la participación de un mayor número de partidos, incluidos los más nuevos, y para promover el pluralismo y la competencia.

  Los manifestantes también expresaron resentimiento por las inadecuadas medidas adoptadas para luchar contra la corrupción. Reclamaron que las autoridades llevaran ante la justicia a los funcionarios corruptos, y en particular a Matraimov, y exigieran la devolución al Estado de los bienes robados. En su discurso para los manifestantes antes de ser presidente, Japarov prometió que Matraimov sería detenido y castigado.

  A decir verdad, Japarov cumplió su palabra. Después de que Japarov llegara al poder, en octubre de 2020, Matraimov fue detenido en relación con una investigación sobre tramas de corrupción en el servicio de aduanas, se declaró culpable y aceptó compensar el daño devolviendo más de 2.000 millones de soms (unos 24 millones de dólares). Posteriormente, un tribunal local lo condenó, pero le impuso una pena atenuada bajo la forma de una multa de 260.000 soms (unos 3.000 dólares) y levantó las órdenes de congelamiento de sus bienes, por haber cooperado con la investigación. Esta sentencia extremadamente indulgente provocó la indignación de la opinión pública. El 18 de febrero de 2021, Matraimov fue otra vez detenido bajo nuevas acusaciones de lavado de dinero, pero al cabo de unos días fue trasladado desde el centro de detención preventiva donde se encontraba a una clínica privada para recibir tratamiento por problemas de salud. Tras ello, muchos calificaron a las medidas anticorrupción del actual gobierno como “populistas”.

  En enero de 2021 la ciudadanía kirguisa también votó en un referéndum constitucional. ¿Cuáles fueron sus resultados y qué consecuencias tendrán para la calidad de la democracia?

  Según los resultados del referéndum, que tuvo lugar el mismo día que las elecciones presidenciales de enero de 2021, el 84% de los votantes apoyó la transición de un sistema de gobierno parlamentario a uno presidencialista.

  Sobre la base de la experiencia comparada, muchos abogados y activistas de la sociedad civil no ven este cambio como algo negativo per se, siempre que vaya acompañado de un sistema de frenos y contrapesos que funcione bien. Sin embargo, les preocupa seriamente que las autoridades intenten llevar a cabo la transición a un ritmo injustificadamente rápido utilizando enfoques y métodos cuestionables que no se corresponden con principios generalmente aceptados ni con las normas y procedimientos legales establecidos.

  El primer proyecto de constitución que preveía un sistema de gobierno presidencial, presentado en noviembre de 2020, fue apodado “khanstitución”, en referencia a los históricos gobernantes autocráticos de Asia Central. Sus críticos acusaron a Japarov, que ha defendido este cambio desde que asumió el cargo en octubre de 2020, de intentar usurpar el poder.

  El proyecto de constitución otorgaba al presidente poderes prácticamente ilimitados, al tiempo que reducía al mínimo el estatus y los poderes del parlamento, poniendo en peligro los frenos y contrapesos y aumentando el riesgo de abusos del poder presidencial. También preveía un complicado procedimiento de destitución mediante juicio político que sería imposible de aplicar en la práctica. Además, aunque no mencionaba el principio del Estado de Derecho ni una sola vez, el texto se refería repetidamente a valores y principios morales. Se excluyeron muchas disposiciones de la actual Constitución que garantizan los derechos humanos y las libertades públicas.

  Debido a las duras críticas que recibió el proyecto constitucional, las autoridades se vieron obligadas a abandonar sus planes iniciales de someterlo a referéndum el mismo día de las elecciones presidenciales de enero de 2021 y acordaron organizar un debate más amplio. Para ello, convocaron a una llamada conferencia constitucional, cuyos miembros trabajaron durante dos meses y medio, a pesar de las acusaciones de que sus actividades eran ilegítimas. A principios de febrero de 2021, la conferencia constitucional presentó sus recomendaciones al parlamento.

  Hay que reconocer que, como resultado del debate y las propuestas presentadas por la conferencia constitucional, se mejoraron algunas partes del proyecto original. Por ejemplo, se restableció la referencia al principio del Estado de Derecho y se introdujeron importantes modificaciones en las secciones sobre derechos humanos y libertades, incluso en lo que respecta a la protección de la libertad de expresión, el papel de los medios de comunicación independientes y el derecho de acceso a la información. Pero el borrador se mantuvo prácticamente sin cambios en lo que respecta al otorgamiento de poderes ilimitados al presidente.

  En marzo de 2021, el parlamento aprobó una ley sobre la celebración de un referéndum sobre el proyecto constitucional revisado, fijando la fecha para el 11 de abril de 2021. Esto desató una nueva ola de indignación entre políticos, abogados y activistas de la sociedad civil, que señalaron que esto iba en contra del procedimiento establecido para la reforma constitucional y advirtieron nuevamente que la concentración de poder en manos del presidente podría dar lugar a un gobierno autoritario. Estas preocupaciones también fueron expresadas en un dictamen conjunto de la Comisión de Venecia y la Oficina de Instituciones Democráticas y Derechos Humanos de la Organización para la Seguridad y la Cooperación en Europa, emitido en marzo de 2021 a petición de la Defensoría del Pueblo de Kirguistán.

  El proyecto de constitución contiene otras dos disposiciones problemáticas. Una de ellas permite imponer restricciones a toda manifestación que contradiga los “valores morales y éticos” o “la conciencia pública del pueblo de la República Kirguisa”. Estos conceptos no están definidos ni regulados, por lo que podrían interpretarse de forma diferente en cada caso, lo que crea el riesgo de una interpretación excesivamente amplia y subjetiva y de una aplicación arbitraria. Esto, a su vez, podría dar lugar a restricciones excesivas de los derechos humanos y las libertades públicas, incluidos los derechos a las libertades de reunión pacífica y de expresión.

  La otra disposición obliga a partidos políticos, sindicatos y otras asociaciones públicas a garantizar la transparencia de sus actividades financieras y económicas. En el contexto de recientes intentos de intensificar el control sobre las OSC, es preocupante que esta disposición se utilice para presionarlas. El mismo día en que el parlamento votó a favor de la celebración de un referéndum sobre el proyecto de constitución, algunos legisladores acusaron a las OSC de socavar los “valores tradicionales” y de suponer una amenaza para el Estado. 

  Los y las activistas de la sociedad civil siguen reclamando que se disuelva el actual parlamento, que a su juicio ha perdido su legitimidad, y que el presidente convoque rápidamente nuevas elecciones. Con este fin están movilizándose en este momento y, si no se satisfacen sus demandas, planean recurrir a los tribunales con una demanda por usurpación de poderes.

  El presidente, sin embargo, ha desestimado todas las preocupaciones expresadas sobre la reforma constitucional. Ha asegurado que Kirguistán seguirá siendo un país democrático, que se respetará la libertad de expresión y la seguridad personal de los periodistas, y que no habrá más persecuciones políticas.

  La ciudadanía de Kirguistán debe tomar una decisión. El próximo referéndum sobre el actual proyecto de constitución puede convertirse en un nuevo punto de inflexión en la historia de Kirguistán, y la decisión que tome la ciudadanía será clave para las perspectivas futuras de estabilidad y prosperidad.

  El espacio cívico en Kirguistán es calificado como “obstruido” por elCIVICUS Monitor.
  Póngase en contacto con la Fundación para la Prosperidad Legal a través de su página deFacebook y siga alpf_kg en Instagram.

   

• KYRGYZSTAN: ‘Civil society realises the importance of joint actions to protect rights and freedoms’

  CIVICUS speaks about the potential approval of aLaw on Foreign Representatives that would further restrict civil society in Kyrgyzstan with Murat Karypov, Project Coordinator of the legal programme of Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan.

  Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan is a human rights organisation and one of Kyrgyzstan’s oldest and largest civil society organisations (CSO). Founded in 1999, it works to protect and promote human rights and freedoms, particularly freedoms of association and expression. It provides legal help to civic activists, people from excluded groups and torture victims. It also promotes human rights through arts, including through its annual International Documentary Film Festival on Human Rights.

  How is civil society changing in Kyrgyzstan?

  Civil society in Kyrgyzstan has changed significantly in recent years. More and more young people are involved in processes to protect and promote human rights and freedoms, and young activists are particularly interested in raising the level of legal consciousness, awareness of international law and international treaties and agreements to which Kyrgyzstan is a party. A large number of young people are interested in improving the situation in the country and openly talk about their proposals and ideas for the socio-economic and political development of Kyrgyzstan. Projects by international organisations aimed at promoting women’s leadership and increasing the level of participation of local communities in decision-making processes at the national level are gaining popularity.

  Since 2018, Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan has successfully implemented a study in partnership with the Global Association for Disaster Risk Reduction on promoting the voices of local communities to decision-makers from local to global and reducing gaps between communities. The resulting methodology was effectively applied by Bir Duino to train women community deputies to increase their participation in decision-making processes.

  Today, civil society realises the importance of joint actions to protect rights and freedoms in Kyrgyzstan. Activists are more united.

  What is the Law on Foreign Representatives?

  A new law on CSOs, the Law on Foreign representatives, is making its way through parliament. Its main purpose is to increase the national authorities’ monitoring and evaluation of CSOs.

  It’s a version of laws adopted in different countries known as foreign agents’ laws. It’s much like the law in Russia. The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law did a comparative analysis and found that these two laws are very similar.

  Already all CSOs regularly provide many mandatory reports in electronic and written form, every month and annually. So the requirement to provide some additional reports is not a challenge for us. But the main issue is how the law will be implemented, and whether it leads to more control over CSO activities.

  Some members of parliament say the main reason for this new law is because a lot of CSOs don’t provide sufficient information about their activities, particularly their budgets. They further accuse CSOs of hiding their real purposes, saying some are involved in political lobbying and creating political instability.

  As a CSO, we’re responsible for every dollar we receive from international donors. We’re open to providing any kind of information about activities within a funded project. International donors are very strict in their requirements about how funding should be used. I think it’s almost impossible to spend even one dollar for other purposes. That’s why for our organisation and a lot of CSOs, we’re absolutely sure we’re transparent and accountable for any kind of funding we receive from international donors.

  How could the new law affect civil society in Kyrgyzstan?

  The question is still open. Will this law be accepted or not? Because even after the results of the third stage of consideration, we have some hope the president will use his veto power to refuse this law.

  Even after the acceptance of this law, our organisation and partners, and a lot of other CSOs, will go on with our activities and our project implementation, but it will definitely affect our activities, particularly those on human rights. A lot of activities could be classed as political activities, meaning they will be restricted.

  Activists have joined efforts to inform international organisations and financial institutions about the need for the president to veto the law due to its inconsistency with human rights principles and standards under the key UN guidelines and the Aarhus Convention, an environmental rights treaty.

  Joint appeals on this bill were made on behalf of local CSOs, international organisations and international financial institutions. Domestically, almost 100 local CSOs issued a statement on their position, and over 30 international CSOs published a statement on the new law, including some from the Russian Federation as well as other European countries. They are showing solidarity with our position.

  The next steps are to wait for the president’s final decision. There is nothing more the international community can do in this matter.

  How might international donors respond?

  Even if international donors can no longer implement projects that are seen as political, there are many fields of work they can support. If human rights funding is going to be limited, attention could be given to implementing projects, for example, in the sphere of education, public health or environment.

  For example, our organisation closely and actively works with local communities in distant and mountainous regions. People at the local level are not very well informed about the activities of international donors. That’s why their opinions can be manipulated. More conservative groups will tell them that international donors or CSOs are involved in political issues. It can be difficult for us to change their mind and explain we are not involved in political issues. But just imagine if, for example, an organisation supports the construction of a hospital or school of some kind, or reconstruction work, then people in the community will understand that international donors provided support. And nobody will have opportunity to say it’s a political issue or some kind of foreign influence.

  Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan has been targeted for pressure and discrimination by conservative groups. Nevertheless, we continue to work to engage with local communities, raise their awareness of the importance of advancing international principles of human rights and freedoms, along with disaster risk reduction, and promote community voices to local to global decision makers.

  ---

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

  Get in touch withBir Duino Kyrgyzstan through itswebpage orFacebook page, and follow@birduino_kg on Instagram.

• KYRGYZSTAN: ‘The citizens' choice in the referendum will be decisive for our future’

  CIVICUS and the International Partnership for Human Rights speak to Ulugbek Azimov, legal expert at the Legal Prosperity Foundation, about the protests that took place in Kyrgyzstan in October 2020 and subsequent political developments. The Legal Prosperity Foundation (previously the Youth Human Rights Group) is an independent civil society organisation that has worked to promote human rights and democratic principles in Kyrgyzstan since 1995. The organisation carries out educational programmes, conducts human rights monitoring, interacts with international human rights mechanisms and promotes respect for human rights in the context of legal reforms.

  Kyrgyzstan is often referred to as Central Asia’s only democracy. How close to truth is this depiction?

  It is true that in the early 1990s, that is, in the first years of independence, democracy sprouted and began developing in Kyrgyzstan. Compared to other countries in the region, Kyrgyzstan was characterised by a higher level of citizen participation, a more developed civil society and more favourable conditions for the functioning and participation of political parties in the political process. For this reason, Kyrgyzstan was called an ‘island of democracy’ in Central Asia.

  However, during the 30 years since independence, Kyrgyzstan has faced serious challenges. Attempts by former presidents to preserve and strengthen their hold on power by putting pressure on the opposition, persecuting independent media and journalists, restricting the freedom of expression, using public resources in their favour, bribing voters and falsifying the results of elections have resulted in major political upheavals on several occasions. In the past 15 years, the government has been overthrown three times during the so-called Tulip, April and October revolutions, in 2005, 2010 and 2020, respectively, with two former presidents being forced to flee the country, and the third forced to resign ahead of time.

  Each upheaval has, unfortunately, been followed by developments undermining previous democratic gains. It is therefore not surprising that Freedom House has consistently rated Kyrgyzstan as only ‘partially free’ in its annual Freedom in the World survey. Moreover, in the most recent survey published this year, Kyrgyzstan’s rating deteriorated to that of ‘not free’ because of the fall-out of the October 2020 parliamentary elections, which were marred by serious violations. Thus, Kyrgyzstan is now in the same category in which other Central Asian countries have been for many years. 

  Were pandemic-related restrictions imposed in the run-up to the 2020 elections?

  In response to the rapid increase in COVID-19 cases in the spring of 2020, the Kyrgyzstani authorities adopted emergency measures and introduced a lockdown in the capital, Bishkek, and in several other regions of the country, which led to restrictions on the right to the freedom of movement and other, related rights. All public events, including rallies, were banned.

  Measures taken in the context of the pandemic also gave rise to concerns about restrictions on the freedom of expression and access to information. The authorities seriously tightened the screws on critical voices in response to widespread criticism of those in power, including then-President Sooronbai Jeenbekov, for their failure to fight the pandemic effectively. Law enforcement authorities tracked down inconvenient bloggers and social media commentators, visited them in their homes and held ‘prophylactic’ discussions with them. In some cases, social media users were detained for allegedly posting false information about the pandemic and forced to apologise publicly under threat of prosecution.

  The law on ‘manipulation of information’, which parliament passed in June 2020, is of particular concern. Although the initiators of the law claimed that it was solely intended to address the problem of fake online accounts, it was clear from the start that this was an attempt by the authorities to introduce internet censorship and close down objectionable sites on the eve of the elections. Following an avalanche of criticism from the media community and human rights defenders, then-President Jeenbekov declined to sign the law and returned it to parliament for revision in August 2020. Since then, the law has remained with parliament. 

  What triggered the post-election demonstrations in October 2020? Who protested, and why?

  The main reason for the October 2020 protests, which again led to a change in power, was people’s dissatisfaction with the official results of the parliamentary elections held on 4 October. 

  Out of the 16 parties running for seats in parliament, only five passed the seven per cent electoral threshold required to get into parliament. Although then-President Jeenbekov publicly stated that he did not support any party, the one that received most votes – Birimdik (Unity) – was associated with him since his brother and other people from the ruling elite were running on its ticket. The party that ended up second, Mekenim Kyrgyzstan (Motherland Kyrgyzstan), was also viewed as pro-government and was associated with the family of former high-ranking customs service official Raiymbek Matraimov, who was implicated in a high-profile media investigation into corruption published in November 2019. Jeenbekov’s government ignored the findings of this investigation and failed to initiate a criminal case against Matraimov, despite public calls to this end.

  It was predictable that Birimdik and Mekenim Kyrgyzstan would fare well in the elections given the use of public resources and reported vote-buying in favour of their candidates. These two parties, which took part in parliamentary elections for the first time, received almost half of the votes and therefore an absolute majority of the seats in parliament. The methods used by the two winning parties to secure control over parliament caused indignation among other political parties that participated in the elections, their voters and even apolitical people.

  The elections took place against the backdrop of growing discontent with the social and economic difficulties caused by the pandemic, as well as growing anti-government sentiments among the population.

  The ‘dirty’ elections, characterised by an unprecedented scale of violations, became a catalyst for subsequent events. Protests began immediately after the announcement of the preliminary results on the evening of election day, 4 October, and continued throughout the next day. Young people played a decisive role in them: most of those who took to the streets to protest and gathered in the central square of the capital were young people. Unfortunately, most of those who were injured, as well as the protester who died during the October events, were young people too.

  What was the government’s reaction to the protests?

  The authorities had the opportunity to take control of the situation and resolve it peacefully, but they did not take it. Only in the evening of 5 October did then-President Jeenbekov announce that he would meet with the leaders of the different parties that competed in the elections. He set up a meeting for the morning of 6 October, but this turned out to be too late, as in the night of 5 October the peaceful protests devolved into clashes between protesters and law enforcement officials in Bishkek, ending with the seizure of the White House (the seat of the president and parliament) and other public buildings by protesters. During the clashes, law enforcement authorities used rubber bullets, stun grenades and teargas against the protesters. As a result of the clashes, a 19-year-old young man was killed and more than 1,000 people needed medical attention, including protesters and law enforcement officials, with over 600 police officers injured. During the unrest, police cars, ambulances, surveillance cameras and other property were also damaged, to an estimated value of over 17 million Som (approx. US$200,000).

  Did the snap presidential elections held in January 2021 solve the problems raised by the protests?

  The main demand of the protesters was to cancel the results of the October 2020 parliamentary elections and hold new, fair elections. This demand was partly satisfied on 6 October 2020, when the Central Election Commission (CEC) declared the election results invalid. However, up to now, no date has been fixed for the new parliamentary elections. The CEC initially scheduled them for 20 December 2020 but parliament responded by promptly adopting a law that suspended the elections pending a revision of the constitution and extended the terms in office of the members of the outgoing parliament until 1 June 2021.

  In its assessment of this law, the Venice Commission – an advisory body of the Council of Europe, composed of independent constitutional law experts – concluded that during the current transitional period parliament should exercise limited functions and refrain from approving extraordinary measures, such as constitutional reforms. However, the outgoing parliament has continued its work as usual and approved the holding of a constitutional referendum in April 2021. Newly elected President Sadyr Japarov has suggested holding new parliamentary elections in the autumn of 2021, which would mean that members of the outgoing parliament would continue in their positions even after 1 June 2021.

  In accordance with other demands of the protesters, the country’s electoral legislation was amended in October 2020 to reduce the electoral threshold from seven to three percentage points for parties to gain representation in parliament and to reduce the electoral fee from 5 to 1 million Som (approx. US$12,000). These amendments were made to facilitate the participation of a larger number of parties, including newer ones, and to promote pluralism and competition.

  The protesters also expressed resentment about the inadequate measures taken to fight corruption. They demanded that the authorities bring to justice corrupt officials, particularly Matraimov, and return stolen property to the state. Speaking in front of the protesters before he became president, Japarov promised that Matraimov would be arrested and punished.

  To be fair, Japarov kept his word. After Japarov rose to power in October 2020, Matraimov was arrested in connection with an investigation into corruption schemes within the customs service, pleaded guilty and agreed to compensate the damage by paying back more than 2 billion Som (approx. US$24 million). A local court subsequently convicted him, but handed him a mitigated sentence in the form of a fine of 260,000 Som (approx. US$3,000) and lifted freezing orders on his property, since he had cooperated with the investigation. This extremely lenient sentence caused public outrage. On 18 February 2021, Matraimov was arrested again on new charges of money laundering, but after a few days he was transferred from the pre-trial detention facility where he was being held to a private clinic to undergo treatment for health problems. After that, many labelled the anti-corruption measures of the current authorities as ‘populist’.

  In January 2021 Kyrgyz citizens also voted in a constitutional referendum. What were its results, and what consequences will they have for the quality of democracy?

  According to the results of the referendum, which took place on the same day as the presidential election in January 2021, 84 per cent of voters supported a transition from a parliamentary to a presidential system of government.

  Based on comparative experience, many lawyers and civil society activists do not view this change as negative per se, provided that a well-functioning system of checks and balances is put in place. However, they are seriously concerned that the authorities are attempting to push through the transition at an unjustifiably quick pace using questionable approaches and methods that do not correspond to generally accepted principles and established legal rules and procedures.

  The first draft constitution providing for a presidential system of governance, put forward in November 2020, was dubbed a ‘khanstitution’ in reference to the historic autocratic rulers of Central Asia. Critics accused Japarov, who has advocated for this change since taking office in October 2020, of trying to usurp power.

  The draft constitution granted the president practically unlimited powers, while reducing the status and powers of parliament to a minimum, thereby jeopardising checks and balances and creating the risk of presidential abuse of power. It also provided for a complicated impeachment procedure that would be impossible to implement in practice. Moreover, while it did not mention the principle of the rule of law even once, the text repeatedly referred to moral values and principles. Many provisions of the current constitution that guarantee human rights and freedoms were excluded.

  Because of harsh criticism, the authorities were forced to abandon their initial plans to submit the draft constitution to referendum on the same day as the presidential election in January 2021 and agreed to organise a broader discussion. To this end, a so-called constitutional conference was convened and its members worked for two and a half months, in spite of facing accusations that their activities were illegitimate. At the beginning of February 2021, the constitutional conference submitted its suggestions to parliament.

  It should be acknowledged that as a result of the discussion and proposals submitted by the constitutional conference, parts of the draft constitution were improved. For example, the reference to the principle of the rule of law was restored, and significant amendments were made to the sections on human rights and freedoms, including with respect to protecting the freedom of expression, the role of independent media and the right to access information. But it remained practically unchanged with respect to the provisions that set out unlimited powers for the president.

  In March 2021, parliament adopted a law on holding a referendum on the revised draft constitution, setting the date for 11 April 2021. This sparked a new wave of indignation among politicians, lawyers and civil society activists, who pointed out that this was against the established procedure for constitutional change and warned again that the concentration of power in the hands of the president might result in authoritarian rule. Their concerns were echoed in a joint opinion of the Venice Commission and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, issued in March 2021 at the request of the Ombudsman of Kyrgyzstan.

  The draft constitution has two other problematic provisions. One allows for restrictions to be imposed on any events that contradict ‘moral and ethical values’ or ‘the public consciousness of the people of the Kyrgyz Republic’. These concepts are not defined or regulated, so they might be interpreted differently in different cases, creating the risk of overly broad and subjective interpretation and arbitrary application. This, in turn, might lead to excessive restrictions on human rights and freedoms, including the rights to the freedoms of peaceful assembly and expression.

  The other provision requires political parties, trade unions and other public associations to ensure the transparency of their financial and economic activities. Against the background of recent attempts to step up control over civil society organisations (CSOs), there are concerns that it might be used to put pressure on them. On the same day that parliament voted in favour of holding a referendum on the draft constitution, some legislators accused CSOs of allegedly undermining ‘traditional values’ and posing a threat to the state. 

  Civil society activists continue to call on the current parliament, which in their eyes has lost its legitimacy, to dissolve and on the president to call new elections promptly. Activists are holding an ongoing rally to this end and, if their demands are not met, they plan to turn to the courts on the grounds of the usurpation of power.

  The president, however, has rejected all concerns voiced about the constitutional reform. He has assured that Kyrgyzstan will remain a democratic country, that the freedom of expression and the personal safety of journalists will be respected, and that there will be no further political persecution. 

  The citizens of Kyrgyzstan must make their choice. The upcoming referendum on the current draft constitution may become another turning point in the history of Kyrgyzstan, and the choice made by citizens will be decisive for the future development towards stability and prosperity.

  Civic space in Kyrgyzstan is rated as ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with the Legal Prosperity Foundation through itsFacebook page and followlpf_kg on Instagram.

• LEBANON: ‘Abuses against women are the direct product of the gender imbalances of a patriarchal society’

  CIVICUS speaks about the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on Iraqi women and girls and civil society’s role in combatting gender inequalities in Lebanon with Ghida Anani, founder and director of ABAAD – Resource Centre for Gender Equality.

  ABAAD is a women-led civil society organisation (CSO) that strives for gender equality as a key condition for sustainable social and economic development in the Middle East and North Africa. Its work is organised around three pillars: providing direct services, building capacity and developing resources, and advocating for policy reform.

  How has COVID-19 impacted on women and girls in Lebanon?

  Even before the pandemic, women and girls in Lebanon suffered from a vicious cycle of gender-based violence (GBV) and discrimination that deprived them of the opportunity to participate meaningfully in social, economic and political life.

  Most of the abuses and discriminatory acts experienced by women and girls in Lebanon are the direct product of imbalances between women and men in the patriarchal Lebanese society, which are codified into law. Domestic violence is a longstanding problem due to deeply engrained gender social norms that permeate the entire societal system, policies and legislation. So far the government has failed to recognise and therefore address the problem and has not allocated dedicated resources to tackle GBV.

  COVID-19 lockdowns and the ensuing economic downturn did nothing but exacerbate already existing GBV risks both at home and in public spaces. Self-isolation, misuse of power, heightened tensions, financial uncertainties and the disruption of life-saving services were key factors that worsened the situation.

  During the pandemic, ABAAD noticed an increase in the severity of the violence women were subjected to at home. Some women reached out to tell us they were struggling with mental health issues and suicidal thoughts. At least two women said they had received death threats from family members after showing flu-like symptoms consistent with COVID-19 infection.

  How has civil society in general, and ABAAD in particular, responded to this situation?

  Since the initial stages of the outbreak, we put together a response to ensure the continuity of life-saving services. We prioritised the best interests of rights-holders by putting them at the centre of the response.

  We had to suspend some in-person activities, such as outreach, community events and awareness and training sessions. But on the positive side, our focus on maintaining life-saving services helped us develop new internal case management guidelines for crisis counselling and emergency support services by phone, along with face-to-face services for high-risk cases.

  We also provided community-based awareness sessions on COVID-19 and psychosocial support sessions via conference calls and WhatsApp groups. Our helpline continued to function 24/7, including for services provided by ABAAD’s Emergency Temporary Safe Shelters across the country and its Men Centre. Moreover, as the three safe shelters operated by ABAAD were at full capacity, we worked to create additional capacity by renting new spaces. 

  We led several campaigns, such as #LockdownNotLockup and #TheRealTest, to fight the stigma surrounding COVID-19, show solidarity with women and let them know that they were not alone. We also worked closely with relevant ministries, United Nations (UN) agencies and CSOs to advocate for enhanced-quality coordinated response at a national level. In partnership with the Lebanese Ministry of Social Affairs, we recently launched a series of workshops about national mechanisms to report GBV and special units dedicated to supporting survivors.

  On International Women’s Day, we held digital activism activities and sessions for women and girls through ABAAD’s Women and Girls Safe Spaces. There are 23 such centres across Lebanon, providing a safe, non-stigmatising environment for women and girl survivors of GBV and their children to receive comprehensive and holistic care services.

  How is civil society working to bring women’s rights concerns into the policy agenda?

  Civil society is working hard to bring gender equality to the top of the policy agenda. As Lebanon approaches its first parliamentary election following the popular uprising of late 2019, Lebanon’s Feminist Civil Society Platform, a group of 52 feminist CSOs and activists first convened by UN Women in the aftermath of the 2020 Beirut explosion, has launched a series of demands for candidates running for parliament to commit to achieving gender equality goals.

  Our statement to future members of parliament details the laws that need to be reconsidered from a gendered perspective, including various laws to criminalise sexual violence in the Lebanese Penal Code. This is a demand that CSOs have long advocated for.

  Civic space in Lebanon is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS monitor.
  Get in touch with ABAAD through itswebsite orFacebook page, and follow@AbaadMENA on Twitter. 

• LEBANON: ‘The political youth movement was a major pillar of the opposition to the ruling class’

  CIVICUS speaks about the recent general election in Lebanon with Marwan Issa, research assistant with the Asfari Institute for Civil Society and Citizenship at the American University of Beirut.

  The Asfari Institute seeks to bridge academia and civil society activism. It does so through knowledge production, convenings and the creation of safe spaces for learning, dialogue and exchange. Located at the heart of the American University in Beirut, it functions as a regional hub for civil society working for diversity, inclusion, equality, accountability and sustainability.

  What was the political and economic context of Lebanon’s 15 May general election?

  The election was held while Lebanon faced one of its worst economic crises in recent history. People were experiencing severe hardship due to lack of essential items, including medicines. On election day, the currency exchange rate skyrocketed, with the US dollar going from 1,515 to around 30,000 Lebanese pounds. Not surprisingly, the majority held deep-seated anger against traditional ruling parties. This led many voters, and especially those in the diaspora, to elect new independent opposition parties and candidates.

  However, the intensity of the crisis also led many people to despair and crippled their desire or motivation for action. As a result, the revolutionary feelings stirred by the protests of 17 October 2019 largely died down, and many people felt their vote would not make any difference, which explains the low turnout.

  But this did not mean that people were not searching for alternatives: in fact, a solution-focused, rational debate has also emerged that is clearly different from the tribal methods of traditional political parties, which instrumentalise sectarianism, clientelism and fearmongering. New opposition groups have developed that criticise the traditional division between those who blame all the country’s problems on the presence of Hezbollah as an armed militia, and those who believe the presence of resistance against a potential threat from Israel is necessary. Both are viewed as serving the interests of the current political elite.

  In the face of this, the new opposition offers an alternative discourse focused on both sovereignty and economic justice. This debate about alternative economic and social solutions is very promising for the years ahead.

  How did youth-led groups engage with the election process?

  There are plenty of youth-led political groups in Lebanon, but the main one is Mada, the Network of Secular Clubs. The first secular clubs were formed in universities as an alternative to the domination of ruling class parties on campus and started to take part in university student council elections. Over the past few years, these secular clubs won more than two-thirds of the seats in student council elections, breaking the hegemony of traditional political parties. As a result, they have paved the way for a new type of discourse on and outside campuses. Now the Network has 21 clubs throughout the country – not just in universities but also in unions and regions – and continues to have a clear youth-led political discourse.

  In preparation for the election, Mada engaged in negotiations with other groups to form coalitions. In Beirut, Mada members were active in the creation of Beirut Tuqawem (Beirut Resists), a grassroots participatory campaign that included individuals and groups from various progressive circles. Those volunteering in these campaigns were mostly university students working alongside other Mada members who were a bit older – but still young, around 25 on average.

  Mada members were also active in launching campaigns in other parts of Lebanon, including al Janoub Youwajeh (The South Confronts), Jil al Teghyir (The Generation of Change), and the 17 October Coalition.

  So-called apolitical young people – young people not active in any political group – also mostly leaned towards voting for new independent opposition groups. They also encouraged those around them to do the same, which boosted the opposition movement. Had the voting age been 18 instead of 21, we could confidently say that the elections would have brought many more new faces to parliament.

  How free and fair was the election?

  The electoral process was plagued with violations that made the competition unfair. For instance, although there are strict caps on campaign spending, ruling class candidates violated the law and poured millions of dollars into their campaigns. This huge financial advantage allowed them to reach vast audiences, while opposition campaigns had much more limited resources.

  Bribery and clientelism were also rampant. In addition, smear campaigns and direct threats on opposition candidates were widely noticed. One of them, Ali Khalife, received direct threats following a smear campaign by pro-Hezbollah electronic armies. A few days before the election there were attacks by Tashnag party supporters on opposition groups in Metn and the beating of volunteers.

  On election day many violations were recorded, but they were highly dependent on the context. In the southern region, for example, violations included brawls, fights, and politically affiliated electoral assistants going inside voting booths alongside voters. In areas controlled by armed or powerful parties, such as Hezbollah and the Amal movement in the south, many people did not dare turn up to vote.

  How do you assess the election results?

  All the above combined, plus the fact that the ruling class also very carefully crafted the electoral law to suit its sectarian and partisan quota system, made for a tilted playing field. Under the circumstances, the results were promising and can be built upon.

  The election resulted in around 12 or 13 new opposition faces in parliament, plus a couple more who could be counted as part of the opposition but were in parliament already. The presence of 15 opposition, mostly new, legislators is great news. They have clear views regarding both the presence of an armed militia and the responsibility of banks and bank owners in the economic crisis. For instance, newly elected member of parliament Ibrahim Mneimneh, of Beirut Tuqawem, who got the most preferential votes among all new opposition candidates, has a progressive economic and social discourse and took a clear stand on issues related to security and arms.

  In contrast, candidates traditionally linked with the Syrian regime lost their seats, including Assaad Herdan in the south, Weeam Wahhab and Talal Erslan in Mount Lebanon, and Elie Ferzli in Bekaa. This was a huge victory against people who were puppets in the hands of the Syrian regime during the period in which Syria maintained a military presence in Lebanon, between the 1990s and 2005.

  Following the election, pro-change political forces must continue pushing for change in and outside parliament, supporting the newly elected members of parliament and holding them accountable for the implementation of their programme.

  What kind of international support does Lebanese civil society need?

  Youth-led groups have been at a significant financial disadvantage, and I believe they are the ones that need the most support. It only makes sense that the new generation be supported since waves of emigration keep rising as students and young people more generally lose hope in Lebanon. Financial support, however, should be conditional on the credibility of the opposition group receiving it; it must be directed towards groups with a proven commitment to democracy, social justice, and non-sectarian values.

  International organisations, embassies, and other entities could also express their support by including the perspectives of opposition groups in designing policies and humanitarian aid mechanisms because Lebanon’s ruling class has proven highly skilled at transforming aid into clientelism and perpetuating the cycle of violence and poverty for political gain.

  Civic space in Lebanon is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS monitor.
  Get in touch with the Asfari Institute through itswebsite and follow@AsfariInstitute on Twitter. 

• LEBANON: ‘This election has brought to the forefront new voices speaking about rights’

  CIVICUS speaks about the recent general elections in Lebanon with Lina Abou Habib, director of the Asfari Institute for Civil Society and Citizenship at the American University of Beirut.

  The Asfari Institute seeks to bridge academia and civil society activism. It does so through knowledge production, convenings and the creation of safe spaces for learning, dialogue and exchange. Located at the heart of the American University in Beirut, it functions as a regional hub for civil society working for diversity, inclusion, equality, accountability and sustainability.

  What change resulted from the 15 May general election?

  Despite taking place in an extremely complicated, uncertain and turbulent political and economic context, the process resulted in the election of many new independent candidates coming from civil society and calling for change. These new voices have political agendas that are very different from those of traditional ruling parties: they call for a new, more accountable governance system and for women’s rights, among other issues. These agendas include road maps for overcoming the ongoing deep economic crisis. And most importantly, they focus on how to stop the political race to the bottom that’s been happening in Lebanon.

  Most of the independent candidates who were elected are linked to the 17 October protests, the uprisings that took place in 2019, when people clearly said that they had enough of the political elite that had become – and continues to be – outrageously corrupt. The 17 October Revolution was a unique moment because protesters had such diverse, inclusive and feminist voices – feminist demands became an integral part of the political demands of the revolution. For instance, sexual harassment became a political issue because the voices of the LGBTQI+ community and migrant women domestic workers were also represented. No demand was compromised or put aside.

  By that time, it became clear to us what system of governance we aspired to. It must be based on equality, inclusion, diversity and respect for human rights. The revolution also gained momentum because the same thing was happening in Chile and other countries where people were rising up. Hence, I do not exaggerate when I say that the feminist voices of the 17 October Revolution inspired political participation in the 2022 election.

  It is important to note, however, that some independent members of the new parliament do not share the agenda of the 17 October Revolution and have quite regressive rhetoric. For instance, newly elected member of parliament Cynthia Zarazir called for the death of Syrian refugees on social media. Having people like her in parliament represents a new challenge. Aside from that, I would say that this election has brought to the forefront new voices speaking about rights and pointing the way forward out of the current crisis.

  How did the feminist movement work collectively in preparation for the election?

  There was rallying behind feminist candidates such as Zoya Jureidini Rouhana, who pushes for an compulsory egalitarian family law, a top priority for Lebanon’s feminist movement. Rouhana is the founder of KAFA (‘enough’) Violence and Exploitation, a feminist civil society organisation that was behind several legal reforms in Lebanon. Moreover, it champions political discourse on gender-based violence. Her electoral campaign was in line with that. It is a rare moment when you have a feminist candidate running on a feminist agenda in a general election – and this was partly possible thanks to the voices that became heard in October 2019. The political movement took shape and gained more feminist voices during those uprisings.

  Feminists mobilising around the elections forced candidates to state their position on gender equality, including the rights of the queer community. In return, independent candidates who sided with gender equality were attacked by the regime and conservative forces. One way for government officials and supporters to disparage and attack somebody is to say they are going to endanger the family. This is very unfortunate, but at the same time, it is fantastic that this important conversation is taking place in the public sphere and these issues are being discussed as part of the overall social and political dialogue.

  In sum, the inclusive and intersectional feminist movement of Lebanon has succeeded in elevating feminist discourse to the public and political arena. But there is still a long way to go: the new parliament includes only two additional female members compared to the previous one, as only eight women were elected, out of 115 candidates nominated by traditional parties, opposition groups, and civil society. These results are still lacking in terms of reaching a critical mass to exercise feminist influence in parliament.

  What’s next for the civil society movement following the election?

  The real battle is just about to begin. The election showed that change is possible, but it is still not enough. The next step for us is to figure out how we will hold independent members of parliament accountable. They must be accountable because they won as a result of our collective movement.

  We will still be facing a corrupt and oppressive regime and serious issues such as illegal arms and a heavily militarised society, economic downfall, destroyed livelihoods, broken public institutions and irresponsible and unaccountable policymaking. As such, civil society in its diversity, and especially the intersectional feminist movement, should remain vigilant.

  The conversation we started must continue, and we need our international allies to help keep it going, and certainly not be complicit with the regime. We have a collective responsibility to monitor human rights violations, talk to feminist activists and help amplify the voices of Lebanon’s intersectional young feminists.

  Civic space in Lebanon is rated ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS monitor.
  Get in touch with the Asfari Institute through itswebsite and follow@AsfariInstitute on Twitter.

• LGBTQI RIGHTS: ‘There is an ongoing desire among many to more closely regulate morality’

  As part of our 2019thematic report, we are interviewing civil society activists, leaders and experts about their experiences of backlash from anti-rights groups and their strategies to strengthen progressive narratives and civil society responses. CIVICUS speaks to T King Oey, an Indonesian capacity development expert and a founder and board member ofArus Pelangi, the Indonesian Federation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual and Intersex Communities.

  How does your network work, and what are the challenges you are addressing?

  Our organisation, Arus Pelangi, which means the Flow of the Rainbow, was established in 2006. This was during the Reformasi era that followed the ousting of President Suharto in 1998 after three decades in power. After this there was much more freedom and many repressive laws were revised. At this time LGBTQI people felt we should come together to stand for our rights. Before then the only context in which people talked about LGBTQI people was in relation to the mitigation of HIV/AIDS. So we decided to form an organisation purely to advocate for the rights of LGBTQI people.

  Arus Pelangi is a coalition of national and local groups of LGBTQI people. We network a lot with other human rights organisations, including those working on other aspects of diversity and legal reform. We have also been instrumental in the formation of a network across the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member countries – the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus. It is based in the Philippines and Arus Pelangi is an important member. At the same time we are reaching out to local communities around the huge country of Indonesia. There are still capacity challenges in enabling far-distant communities to make their voices heard.

  What challenges have you faced in recent years?

  The space for democracy in Indonesia is becoming more restricted, and it is harder for us to be visible. When we started in 2006 we saw it as strategic to raise our visibility as much as possible, so people could see and understand LGBTQI people and know who we are. So we took part in demonstrations, held flash mobs, held public discussions, made media appearances – anything to make us visible as a group.

  From the very beginning there were all kinds of groups attacking us. But things got much worse in 2016, when all of a sudden there was this massive wave of attacks. Persecutions also began from 2016 onwards. The trigger was a pronouncement by the Minister of Research, Technology and Higher Education, Muhammad Nasir, that LGBTQI people should be banned from university campuses. Suddenly everyone joined in, saying that LGBTQI people should be banned from everywhere, that we should be criminalised.

  These attacks came especially from hardline religious groups. These groups had always advocated for criminalisation, but suddenly they had momentum because of what the minister had said.

  From then on it was no longer possible to be visible as an organisation, and to some degree even as individuals.

  How have extremist groups been able to organise, and how have they mobilised support?

  The Reformasi era created all kinds of freedoms for people to organise themselves, but the fundamentalists had the same freedoms, and they did very well in organising themselves. They have received lots of funding from Saudi Arabia.

  There has been a two-track development in Indonesia. Indonesia has become more part of a global society, more integrated in terms of technology, but at the same time people’s minds have become more conservative, due to the influence of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists have had more chances to preach, and to organise in all kinds of groups and organisations. One of the most well-known is Islam Defenders Front (Front Pembela Islam, FPI), which has been very vocal in attacking us, and they have been able to stop some of our activities.

  The attitude of the police has been ambivalent. They haven’t stopped the FPI from attacking us. Rather they have said that for our safety it would be better if we disband. They always use this argument of safety. Since 2016 the police have also been proactive in outing and arresting people. People are arrested, paraded in front of the media and then released without charge.

  This has had a huge effect on the whole community. People have become afraid. Since 2016 we have held hardly any public events. We have to keep things secret and do everything underground. We have also had to learn to take security measures. Many of our people became depressed and closed themselves away, stopped going out. It’s just like being back in the Suharto era. We aren’t free any more.

  Fundamentalists reached the level of power that in 2017 they were able to put Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, the Christian governor of our capital city, Jakarta, into jail for blasphemy. This was when the network of fundamentalist groups reached the height of their power. They were able to work together to do this. Indonesia has a blasphemy law, and once someone has been indicted, it is certain they will be convicted. I haven’t heard of any case when someone charged with blasphemy has walked free.

  How has the government responded?

  What is interesting is that this level of fundamentalism got to the point where it was threatening the position of President Jokowi. Only then did we see a concerted effort from the government to push back, and this process is still going on. The government has banned one of the fundamentalist groups, an international Muslim network that calls for the establishment of the caliphate, on the grounds that it does not adhere to the national ideology, known as Pancasila.

  A law the government recently passed on civil society organisations enabled it to do this. Human rights organisations criticised this law for being too loose and flexible. It could potentially enable the government to ban any group. This is the first time it has been used. The same law could be used against any group. It’s a double-edged sword.

  The government is considering banning the FPI. The government is also saying that it is coming to realise how many campuses have been infiltrated by fundamentalist groups, but it’s hard to know what’s going on behind the scenes.

  Has the April 2019 presidential election brought any changes?

  President Jokowi won re-election in April, but it seems he felt he couldn’t do it without the support of the moderate Muslims, as he took an Islamic cleric, Ma’ruf Amin, as his running mate. Ma’ruf is a fairly conservative cleric who has made all kinds of negative pronouncements against LGBTQI people. It’s a mystery for many people, even for supporters of President Jokowi, why he was chosen over all other candidates.

  For LGBTQI people, now President Jokowi has won re-election, it remains to be seen whether the coming five years will bring any improvement. We don’t believe President Jokowi is against LGBTQI people, and on some occasions, he has said that the rights of LGBTQI people should be protected. But this is the kind of thing he has said when he has been interviewed by the BBC. It is a message for the outside world, rather than for a domestic audience.

  What is also disappointing is that in his first term, President Jokowi prioritised a focus on the investment climate, emphasising massive infrastructure projects, such as ports, roads and power plants, and reforming the bureaucracy to remove obstacles against investment. Just recently he has announced that his second-term priorities are the same. He said nothing about human rights. Many were hoping that he would be less cautious in his second term. It remains to be seen how committed he will be to human rights.

  As well as LGBTQI groups, which other communities are subject to persecution?

  Other groups particularly vulnerable to human rights abuses are minority Muslim sects, which have been heavily persecuted over the years, and communists and those associated with them. This goes way back to the mass killings of 1965-1966. Survivors and second and third-generation family members are still suffering from discrimination and threats.

  The struggle for gender equality goes back many decades. Women are targeted by conservative groups. Shariah law applies in the province of Aceh, and they have introduced and are applying draconian punishments such as caning and stoning to death. Several LGBTQI people have been the victim of caning. There are attempts to criminalise non-normative sexuality elsewhere in Indonesia.

  There is an ongoing effort and desire among many to more closely regulate morality. It is a continuous battle to try to prevent more repressive measures. For example, parliament is currently debating a law on domestic violence, and conservative law-makers are asserting that many things we would consider as sexual violence, like marital rape, are not included. The dividing line is between following a hardline interpretation of the Quran or not. Despite its secular appearance, Indonesia has become a de facto religious state.

  How is civil society responding to these challenges, and what support could the international community and international civil society best offer to Indonesia’s LGBTQI community?

  Civil society has been trying to respond through networking, joint statements, lobbying parliament and campaigning, including through Change.org. But it can feel like fighting an impossible war, because the conservatives always seem to be more powerful, better organised and better resourced.

  We have to be careful when considering outside assistance, because one of the arguments that fundamentalists always use is about foreign influences and attempts to make Indonesia a liberal country. LGBTQI is characterised as a western concept that is incompatible with the culture. Of course if you look at the culture and history of Indonesia you see all kinds of expressions of non-binary gender, including in dances, songs, literature and rituals. This culture has been denied consistently by conservatives who say that the only culture is hardline Islam. The conservatives forget that Islam itself is an imported religion.

  In 2015, when the US Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage, this created quite an uproar in Indonesia. Conservative groups always point to this and say that once they give in to one thing, this is what will happen. The global debate about same-sex marriage works both ways for us, because LGBTQI people in Indonesia have never suggested this – it seems too far away to even contemplate this, and we need to have our fundamental rights respected first – but at least it tells us we’re not alone.

  So you have to be careful, but solidarity helps. It helps LGBTQI people here to know they are not alone and have not been abandoned. If people have any chance to speak to government officials from Indonesia, they should use that opportunity to speak up for LGBTQI people and other vulnerable groups.

  At Indonesia’s United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review session in 2017, many shadow reports pointed to the severe situation of LGBTQI people. There was quite a bit of criticism. The usual attitude of the Indonesian government is to cite social conservatism, but this time it was forced to acknowledge the need to take steps and it committed to hold a dialogue with the LGBTQI community. This was a concession that came because of international pressure. Of course, it remains to be seen what will happen on the ground. We have to keep the pressure on.

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

  Get in touch with T King Oey throughArus Pelangi‘s website.

• MALASIA: ‘Los migrantes están entre los primeros victimizados y discriminados durante la pandemia’

  

  CIVICUS conversa con Adrian Pereira, Director Ejecutivo de Iniciativa Norte Sur (North South Initiative, NSI) sobre la situación de las personas trabajadoras migrantes en Malasia en el contexto de la pandemia causada del COVID-19.

  NSI ayuda a construir capacidades de incidencia y liderazgo entre las personas migrantes, refugiados y apátridas, más allá de su estatus legal, para que puedan reclamar sus derechos. También monitorea los abusos laborales y migratorios cometidos por autoridades, empleadores y trabajadores locales, asegurando que las organizaciones de migrantes estén conectadas con una fuerte red de solidaridad y que sean capaces de cooperar con otras organizaciones de la sociedad civil (OSC) y con sindicatos.

  Se estima que en Malasia hay entre tres y seis millones de personastrabajadoras migrantes. Estas personas generalmente son explotadas por una combinación de factores: agentes de reclutamiento y empleadores inescrupulosos, duras políticas migratorias, cadenas de suministro sin controles, el uso de multas como forma de castigo, altas tarifas de reclutamientoy deudas contraídas con las agencias de reclutamiento y los empleadores, trabajo forzado, tráfico de personas y deducciones salariales. Uninforme sobre la capacidad de las personas migrantes y refugiadas para ejercer sus libertades cívicas, elaborado por CIVICUS y el Centro de Solidaridad en colaboración con NSI, mostró que en Malasia el derecho a las libertades de asociación, reunión pacífica y expresión de esas minorías vulnerables se encuentra fuertemente restringido.

  ¿Cuál era la situación de las personas trabajadoras migrantes en relación con el acceso a servicios de salud antes de la pandemia?

  En 2016 Malasia eliminó los subsidios que permitían a las personas trabajadoras migrantes acceder a los servicios de salud pública. Dado que las personas migrantes se apoyan mucho en los servicios médicos públicos, esta medida trajo aparejada una disminución de la calidad y el acceso a los servicios de salud de las personas migrantes, tanto documentadas como indocumentadas, dado que el alto costo de las opciones privadas usualmente las disuade de buscar una alternativa. A pesar de que cada año las personas migrantes, sus empleadores y agentes pagan billones de dólares malayos en gravámenes, impuestos y otros tipos de pagos, las personas migrantes no están recibiendo la atención médica que les corresponde en contrapartida.

  Las que están indocumentadas solo pueden acceder a la salud privada, porque si intentan acceder a la salud pública las autoridades migratorias serán informadas y las arrestarían. Con el paso de los años, la brutal represión hacia las personas migrantes indocumentadas por parte de la policía, las autoridades migratorias y aduaneras y el Cuerpo de Voluntarios del Pueblo ha provocado cada vez más temor en esa categoría de migrantes, disuadiéndolos de buscar tratamiento médico.

  También hay brechas de competencias culturales entre los profesionales de la salud y las personas migrantes, que dificultan aún más la obtención de servicios médicos adecuados. Las personas empleadas en el trabajo doméstico que no tienen días libres y están encerradas entre cuatro paredes experimentan incluso mayores dificultades para acceder a los servicios de salud.

  En 2019 se dio un paso positivo: se incluyó a las personas migrantes con papeles legales en el sistema nacional de seguridad social, lo cual les asegura una compensación más alta y un mejor servicio de salud en caso de accidentes o enfermedades vinculadas con sus labores. Pero en lo que se refiere a accidentes y lesiones no laborales, las aseguradoras privadas ofrecen una cobertura mínima.

  ¿Qué desafíos adicionales han enfrentado las personas trabajadoras migrantes desde durante la pandemia del COVID-19?

  Muchas personas trabajadoras migrantes, especialmente las indocumentadas o informales, han perdido su fuente de ingreso. En consecuencia, no pueden costear alimentos, alquiler o medicamentos, a menos que hayan dado positivo en la prueba del COVID-19, en cuyo caso los gastos de su cuarentena y de los cuidados requeridos son cubiertos por el gobierno. Solo las personas migrantes que proveen “servicios esenciales” estipulados por el gobierno pueden trabajar. Sin embargo, su seguridad depende de si las compañías que tienen permiso para operar obedecen las reglas establecidas por el gobierno. Las reglas están hechas para darle al trabajador seguridad frente al riesgo de contraer el virus, de modo que pueda continuar trabajando. Sin embargo, generalmente nadie monitorea la situación.

  El gobierno ha anunciado el lanzamiento de un paquete de estímulo económico que lamentablemente ha excluido a las personas trabajadoras migrantes. Hay un subsidio para el salario del trabajador que busca asegurar que las empresas no tengan que despedir empleados, pero esto no se aplica a las personas trabajadoras migrantes. Anteriormente, las personas trabajadoras migrantes también estaban excluidas del Plan de Seguro de los Trabajadores bajo el organismo nacional de seguridad social, que proporciona una red de seguridad a los trabajadores que han sido despedidos. Las Órdenes de Control del Movimiento (OCM), impuestas por el gobierno para restringir los traslados, que entraron en vigencia el 18 de marzo, han hecho mucho más difícil que las personas migrantes puedan desplazarse para acceder a servicios básicos, alimentos, servicios bancarios y otros bienes o servicios esenciales. En las áreas de OCM ampliadas los proveedores de servicios no pueden siquiera ingresar. Los sectores informales de la economía están despidiendo y abandonando a quienes solían trabajar en ellos, y en particular a personas migrantes indocumentadas y a personas refugiadas.

  Los empleadores están obligando a sus empleados migrantes a renunciar o a tomar licencia sin goce de sueldo. Los empleadores se están aprovechando de las OCM para no pagarles a sus empleados. NSI recibió informaciones referidas a por lo menos dos casos de sueldos no pagados antes de la imposición de las OCM. Una de estas personas no recibía su sueldo desde diciembre de 2019, mientras que la otra no lo recibía desde febrero de 2020.

  También se está infundiendo temor a través de mensajes falsos y desinformación en internet, que ponen a las personas migrantes en peligro porque pueden generar reacciones violentas de la población malaya. El gobierno prometió no arrestar o detener a las personas migrantes que vayan a realizarse la prueba de COVID-19. Sin embargo, las personas migrantes siguen teniendo mucho miedo, por lo que muchas no se presentan. Algunos sectores que son económicamente más agresivos están presionando al gobierno para que les permita retomar las actividades y los trabajadores puedan volver a trabajar. Esto ha ocurrido, por ejemplo, en el sector productor de aceite de palma del estado de Sabah.

  La Unión Europea (UE) también está colocando tanto a los trabajadores migrantes como a los trabajadores malayos en riesgo de ser sometidos a trabajos forzados al pedir a los fabricantes de equipos de protección personal (EPP) de Malasia que garanticen la continuidad de la producción durante la pandemia. La UE ha ofrecido incentivos fiscales a las compañías malayas que proveen EPP. Asimismo, pequeñas y medianas empresas que durante muchos años han contratado trabajadores indocumentados ahora han abandonado a sus empleados alegando que les falta dinero.

  ¿Como han respondido a esta situación NSI y otras OSC?

  Estamos entrenando a líderes migrantes para asegurar que sus comunidades tengan acceso a las redes que proveen servicios y puedan compartir información precisa sobre las necesidades existentes a quienes proveen esos servicios. Algunas redes públicas, como el grupo Care Mongering Malaysia, están proporcionando a la población malaya una plataforma para que pueda ayudar a las persnas migrantes y refugiadas necesitadas. Esta es una plataforma en línea que une a quienes necesitan ayuda con quienes pueden pagar por el servicio. Asimismo, los templos Sikh están ofreciendo alimentos y almuerzos para llevar.

  Otras OSC que están trabajando duramente en el terreno para repartir alimentos son BRESH 1.0, Beyond Borders, Dapur Jalanan, Engage, Geutanyoe Foundation, HOPE, Liga Rakyat Demokratik, Malaysian Trades Union Congress, Our Journey, The Patani, Refuge for the Refugees, Tenaganita,y otras organizaciones comunitarias de personas refugiadas y migrantes. Los trabajadores migrantes pueden llamarlas cuando necesita ayuda para conseguir alimentos.

  Estamos formando una red para asegurar la provisión de servicios en el largo plazo, ya que consideramos que la situación se va a prolongar muchos meses. Muchas personas trabajadoras migrantes se van a quedar y van a necesitar ayda, así que estamos desarrollando una cadena de suministro para apoyarlos.

  Nos estamos asegurando de que los migrantes reciban información correcta de agencias globales como la Organización Internacional para las Migraciones, el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD) y la Agencia de la ONU para los Refugiados, así como de diferentes agencias gubernamentales relacionadas con la salud, el trabajo, la seguridad y el bienestar. Entre otras cosas, proporcionamos información en diferentes idiomas con infografías sobre servicios de asesoramiento y temas de salud.

  También estamos luchando contra la desinformación relacionada con las personas trabajadoras migrantes y refugiadas. Ha habido mucho temor porque se las ha culpado de esparcir en virus.

  Por otro lado, también estamos alentando a las personas migrantes a buscar tratamiento médico si están enfermas y estamos monitoreando a los empleadores que toman ventaja de la situación actual y cometen violaciones de los derechos laborales, especialmente porque en parte las OCM impidieron que los abogados les provean de representación y asesoramiento legal.

  Otras OSC están proporcionando asesoramiento, distribuyendo alimentos, recaudando fondos, monitoreando el tráfico de personas, ofreciendo servicios con perspectiva de género y en el área de maternidad y atendiendo las necesidades de las mujeres.

  ¿Qué clase de apoyo necesita en este momento la sociedad civil malaya?

  Necesitamos dinero para apoyar las necesidades de los migrantes, por ejemplo para comprar alimentos, pagar las cuentas y el alquiler y repatriarse en forma segura a sus hogares cuando se revoquen las OCM. También estamos buscando oportunidades de financiamiento, porque mientras sigan vigentes las OCM, no podemos realizar reuniones físicas y la mayoría de las campañas de recaudación de fondos se basan en esos encuentros. Asimismo, necesitamos servicios de asistencia legal para las personas que están siendo injustamente despedidas y detenidas.

  ¿Qué lecciones han aprendido hasta ahora de la pandemia?

  Hemos visto que el gobierno apenas ha consultado a las OSC antes de implementar políticas, lo cual no está en línea con los principios de buena gobernanza. Además, se castiga en exceso a quienes violan las OCM, inclusive a quienes se ven obligados a incumplirlas para resolver problemas de subsistencia. Además, la perspectiva cada vez más centrada en la seguridad adoptada frente a la migración a lo largo de los años ha provocado represalias contra los migrantes, quienes han sido marginalizados.

  Los migrantes están entre los primeros victimizados y discriminados durante la pandemia, ya que son excluidos y no tienen fuertes redes de apoyo. Un sistema capitalista que opera sobre la base de cadenas de suministro globales y enormes corporaciones no tiene un plan de manejo de riesgos adecuado para asegurar la transparencia y la rendición de cuentas. Malasia también tiene problemas con las estadísticas, ya que ha estado dibujando los números de personas en situación de pobreza, y no ha afrontado los problemas resultantes de la enorme cantidad de trabajadores indocumentados debido a la injerencia del llamado “Estado profundo”.

  Bajo las OCM and las OCM ampliadas los derechos civiles de las personas migrantes han sido suspendidos, y esto ha debilitado su poder de negociación para obtener derechos. Tampoco ha habido suficiente cooperación entre los países de origen de los migrantes y Malasia para asegurar la repatriación segura de quienes desean volver a sus países, lo cual genera altos riesgos de infección para todos. Nos han llegado informaciones que muestran que bajo las OCM las personas migrantes y refugiadas son forzadas a utilizar vías irregulares para regresar a sus hogares. Las embajadas han recurrido a los malayos para que briden asistencia a sus ciudadanos.

  Las OSC no están tan unidas como yo había supuesto para construir un consenso que permita afrontar los problemas, ya que también han tenido sus propias dificultades para enfrentarlos. Al mismo tiempo, algunos malayos que solían tener actitudes negativas contra los migrantes han actuado con compasión y respondieron con solidaridad ante los problemas de los migrantes en este tiempo de necesidad. Como ha quedado claro, en el largo plazo las contribuciones económicas de los migrantes han acabado beneficiándonos a todos, menos a los propios migrantes.

  El espacio cívico enMalasia es clasificado como obstruido por elCIVICUS Monitor

  Contáctese con la Iniciativa Norte Sur a través de susitio web o a través de su perfil deFacebook, y siga a@nsinitiative11 en Twitter.

• MALASIA: “El gobierno debería haber asistido a los refugiados durante la pandemia”

  CIVICUS conversa con Htoon Htoon Oo, refugiado y activista de Myanmar, actualmente residente en Malasia. En 2007 era estudiante de Química en la Universidad de Yangon Oriental y, en calidad de activista, participó en la llamada Revolución Azafrán, una serie de protestas desencadenadas por un aumento de los precios del combustible en 2007, las cuales fueron duramente reprimidas. También estuvo activo durante la transición de Myanmar de la dictadura militar a un gobierno cuasi civil en 2010.

  Consciente de estar bajo la vigilancia del Estado y temiendo que sus familiares y seres queridos sufrieran represalias y acoso a causa de su activismo, huyó de Myanmar en 2011 y desde entonces vive como refugiado en Malasia.

  

  ¿Cuál es la situación de las personas refugiadas en Malasia?

  La vida de las personas refugiadas de Myanmar en Malasia sigue siendo difícil, ya que supone diversas luchas y sufrimientos. A menudo nos sentimos indefensos, desesperados y desprotegidos. En mayo de 2021, había unas 179.570 personas refugiadas y solicitantes de asilo registradas en la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados (ACNUR) en Malasia. La mayoría -un total de 154.840- procedían de Myanmar, incluidas unas 102.950 de etnia rohingya, 22.490 de etnia china y 29.400 de otros grupos étnicos que huían de la persecución o de zonas afectadas por el conflicto.

  Malasia aún no ha ratificado la Convención sobre el Estatuto de los Refugiados de 1951. La ausencia de un marco legal para reconocer a las personas refugiadas y solicitantes de asilo ha creado condiciones problemáticas y de explotación porque las personas refugiadas y solicitantes de asilo carecemos de derechos formales para trabajar, no tenemos estatus legal y seguimos corriendo el riesgo de ser arrestadas, detenidas y devueltas, y no nos beneficiamos de ninguna protección legal.

  También tenemos libertades cívicas limitadas. Aunque hay muchas organizaciones de personas refugiadas de diversos orígenes, a la hora de expresar nuestras preocupaciones y organizar nuestras luchas, la realidad es que no podemos hacerlo libremente. Existe un temor común entre las personas refugiadas respecto de las consecuencias de hablar sobre nuestras luchas, expresar nuestras preocupaciones y reclamar por nuestros derechos.

  Por ejemplo, según el artículo 4(a) de la Ley de Reuniones Pacíficas, el derecho a manifestarse pacíficamente está reservado exclusivamente a quienes tienen ciudadanía malaya. Además, en Malasia hay muchas leyes que tienen un efecto amedrentador que evita que las personas refugiadas se manifiesten, tales como la Ley de Inmigración, que criminaliza a los inmigrantes indocumentados, así como a los refugiados, dado que no estamos reconocidos por la ley. La Ley de Inmigración también expone a las personas refugiadas a severas formas de castigo, como la flagelación. La falta de reconocimiento de las personas refugiadas y solicitantes de asilo en Malasia nos expone a la detención, a la cárcel y a diversos abusos.

  ¿Qué desafíos adicionales han enfrentado las personas refugiadas en el marco de la pandemia?

  Desde que estalló la pandemia de COVID-19 en Malasia, en marzo de 2020, las personas refugiadas han enfrentado numerosas dificultades. El confinamiento, conocido como Orden de Control de Movimientos (OCM), que se implementó en todo el país, ha tenido un gran impacto sobre los refugiados.

  Aunque según la legislación malaya no pueden trabajar, algunas personas refugiadas buscan trabajos informales para sobrevivir. Durante la pandemia, hemos visto casos de empleadores que obligan a personas refugiadas a trabajar por salarios inferiores a los normales o a tomar licencias no remuneradas o a renunciar solamente por su condición de refugiados. Muchas personas refugiadas han perdido sus empleos debido a la pandemia. Nada nos protege de estos abusos.

  Durante la pandemia también hemos temido por nuestra seguridad porque ha habido varios casos de personas refugiadas que han sido blanco de la policía y de los funcionarios de inmigración debido a la falta de políticas claras y de conciencia de lo que es un refugiado entre los funcionarios encargados de hacer cumplir la ley. Algunas personas refugiadas fueron multadas por la policía, y algunas incluso permanecieron detenidas en comisarías durante varios días.

  También hay quienes nos tachan de inmigrantes ilegales aunque tengamos tarjetas o documentos completos y auténticos del ACNUR que nos acreditan como refugiados.

  La mayoría de las personas refugiadas que enfrentan estas dificultades también hacen frente a la depresión y están mentalmente agotadas de tanto pensar en cómo sobrevivir y mantenerse a salvo.

  ¿Han recibido las personas refugiadas algún tipo de apoyo del gobierno malayo o del ACNUR durante la pandemia?

  No hemos recibido ningún apoyo del gobierno de Malasia; más bien hemos experimentado más redadas y mayores restricciones. Esto es lo contrario de lo que debería haber ocurrido: deberían habernos facilitado el acceso a información sobre tratamientos y pruebas de diagnóstico del COVID-19 y debería haber habido otros programas de apoyo para refugiados durante la pandemia.

  En cambio, en mayo de 2020 el departamento de inmigración y la policía de Malasia llevaron a cabo redadas de inmigración en Kuala Lumpur. Mientras que las personas inscritas en el ACNUR se libraron en gran medida de ser detenidas, las personas solicitantes de asilo no inscriptas fueron detenidas junto con los trabajadores migrantes indocumentados. Además, algunas quedaron atrapadas en zonas bajo confinamiento estricto, rodeadas de alambre de púa, donde se prohibía a los residentes salir de sus casas, lo que hizo que la situación fuera muy difícil. Muchos de nosotros no nos hemos recuperado de esto.

  Durante la pandemia también ha habido en internet una oleada de discurso de odio hacia las personas refugiadas, y en particular hacia las rohingya, acompañada de anuncios y políticas gubernamentales hostiles hacia las personas migrantes y refugiadas.

  El ACNUR envió mensajes directos a aquellas personas refugiadas cuyos documentos habían caducado, informándoles que seguirían siendo válidos hasta que el ACNUR pudiera reanudar sus operaciones normales, interrumpidas por la pandemia. Sin embargo, esto no supuso ninguna diferencia para la autoridad de aplicación de la ley, y muchas personas han sido multadas e incluso detenidas.

  ¿Cuál es la situación de las personas refugiadas en materia de acceso a la vacuna contra la COVID-19?

  El gobierno de Malasia ha alentado a las personas refugiadas a inscribirse para la vacunación, pero no ha proporcionado información clara, y los sistemas existentes no son accesibles para las personas refugiadas.

  Por ejemplo, la inscripción para la vacunación exige documentos específicos. El sistema exige a refugiados y solicitantes de asilo que introduzcan un documento de identidad o número de pasaporte, dos documentos a los que no tenemos acceso. El sistema debería ser más inclusivo para todas las personas que viven en Malasia, incluidas las refugiadas, solicitantes de asilo e inmigrantes indocumentadas, porque las vacunas deberían ser la primera barrera contra el contagio de la COVID-19. Si nos detienen las cosas solo empeorarán, porque es sabido que en los centros de detención se producen cadenas letales de contagio. En la raíz de este problema está la criminalización de la inmigración.

  ¿Cuáles son las demandas de las comunidades de refugiados hacia el gobierno malayo y la comunidad internacional?

  Nos gustaría que el gobierno malayo concientizara a la opinión pública sobre la condición de las personas refugiadas como tales, no como inmigrantes ilegales, grupos de riesgo o incluso delincuentes. Se ha impuesto una percepción negativa de las personas refugiadas, como si sólo se beneficiaran de la sociedad y no contribuyeran nada a ella, lo cual es falso.

  La verdad es que queremos contribuir a Malasia en todo lo que podamos. Instamos al gobierno de Malasia a que dé a las personas refugiadas acceso legal al trabajo y a que reconozca el estatus legal de las personas refugiadas. Actualmente no podemos encontrar empleo formal, y la ausencia de reconocimiento nos expone a la explotación. Esperamos que el gobierno genere conciencia sobre las verdaderas razones por las que las personas refugiadas están aquí.

  Espero que el gobierno pueda trabajar mano a mano con el ACNUR y la sociedad civil para resolver los problemas de las personas refugiadas de forma más adecuada y eficaz y no deporte a ninguna persona detenida de regreso a Myanmar, actualmente bajo un régimen militar. En cambio, deberíamos encontrar soluciones, tales como un programa de reasentamiento. También debería haber políticas e información claras sobre la vacunación que sean accesibles para todas las personas refugiadas.

  El espacio cívico en Malasia es calificado de “obstruido” por el CIVICUS Monitor.