freedom of assembly

• Critical need to support right to protest, says new report

  Protest movements around the world are finding themselves on the frontlines of a global attack on democracy and human rights, according to a new report by CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance. In the face of acute restrictions on democratic dissent at the national level, there is worryingly little support for protest movements from international stakeholders, including other protest movements, foreign states, UN  bodies and international civil society organisations.   This study concludes that such support is important to uphold the international human rights framework, of which the right to peacefully express democratic dissent is a key component. 

  The report, Keeping up the Pressure: Enhancing the Sustainability of Protest Movements, explores factors that contribute to or undermine the sustainability of contemporary protest movements. The research examines these issues in three countries, Bahrain, Chile and Uganda, drawing from a series of surveys of and interviews with leaders of contemporary protest movements.

  “With formal spaces for participation closing across the globe, citizens are more likely to take to the streets to have their voices heard and press for change,” said Tor Hodenfield, Policy and Research Analyst at CIVICUS, and author of the report. “This study shows that the international community and national stakeholders must foster a safer and more enabling environment for people to engage in public protests.”

  Recent years have seen the world swept by new waves of citizen protest. In countries around the world, large numbers of people have marched, demonstrated, occupied and blockaded to call attention to governance failures, demand democracy, stand against autocracy, claim human rights and urge that their fundamental needs are met. While the triggers of protests vary, the new protest movements that have sprung to life in many parts of the globe in have much in common, including the imaginative and creative tactics they employ, their ability to connect local and immediate issues to larger and longer-term concerns, and their determination to sustain action over time.

  “Governments must recognise that protest movements play an essential role in shaping democratic life and addressing public concerns,” said Sebastián Vielmas, Chilean right to education activist, “We must forge broad alliances at home and abroad with international civil society and human rights bodies to ensure the sustainability of protest movements and enable the fundamental right to peaceful assembly.”

  This study concludes that such support is essential for enhancing the sustainability of national protest movements, across all three contexts. 

  Additional key findings include:

  •     The states covered by the research are failing to facilitate the right to peaceful assembly.
  •    The major ways in which states undermine the sustainability of protest movements are excessive use of force, arbitrary arrest of protesters and imposition of legal restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly.
  •    Civil society organisations at the national level need to play a larger role in mobilising support for protest movements through networking.
  •    The sustainability of protest movements would be enhanced if legal and extra-legal restrictions on the right to the freedom of assembly are removed or eased. 
  •    Protest movement leaders believe that they and their movements have capacity enhancement needs that are currently not being met.

  For more information, contact:

  CIVICUS Media 
   

  Tor Hodenfield 
  Policy & Advocacy Officer 
  

  Deborah Walter
  Communication Manager
  

  Editor’s Notes

  CIVICUS can organise interviews with research partners in Bahrain, Chile, and Uganda. 

  ###

• CROATIA: ‘The longer this government remains in power, the weaker democracy and the rule of law become’

  CIVICUS speaks about ongoing anti-government protests in Croatia with Oriana Ivković Novokmet, Executive Director of Gong.

  Gong is a think-do tank whose work focuses on promoting democratic processes and institutions and developing a democratic political culture in Croatia.

  What triggered recent protests?

  On 17 February, thousands of people took the streets of the capital, Zagreb, todemand early parliamentary elections. Organised by 11 left and liberal opposition parties, this massive anti-government demonstration was triggered by the appointment of former judge Ivan Turudić as the new state attorney amid media reports linking him to corruption. The opposition fears this appointment will further deteriorate the already compromised reputation of the Croatian judiciary.

  According to a report by one of the most influential Croatian newspapers, Jutarnji list, between 2016 and 2020,Turudić, then the president of the Zagreb County Court, exchanged messages with the then state secretary of the ministry of justice, accused in another corruption case. The messages clearly showed they had a romantic relationship. Opposition members argue that Turudić lied to the Parliamentary Committee for the Judiciary when questioned about the meetings they had, claiming their relationship was superficial.

  Additionally, President Zoran Milanović accused Turudić of meeting as president of the Zagreb County Court with Zdravko Mamić, a football manager sentenced for tax evasion and embezzlement who is currently a fugitive in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mamić allegedly met with Turudić while a suspect and later when he was under investigation, as noted by the Security Intelligence Agency.

  In a context of increasing frustration with the government of the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) party, which is plagued with corruption accusations, the February protests helped the opposition gain momentum. It subsequently announced plans to stage further protests in several major cities on 23 March.

  What’s the state of democracy and civic freedoms in Croatia?

  Turudić’s appointment was yet another example of Prime Minister Andrej Plenković’s habit of capturing independent institutions, which he’s done since reaching office. The longer the HDZ and Plenković remain in power, the weaker the rule of law and liberal democracy become. Plenković vowed to reform the HDZ but he has failed to change his party and also reversed progress made in upholding the rule of law in Croatia.

  Under Plenković, Croatia is drifting away from the principles it adopted on joining the European Union. During his two terms, institutions such as the Commission for the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest have been significantly weakened. The Commissioner for Information was appointed as a fig leaf so the justice minister could hide the real authors of theLaw on Constituencies, which redrew the boundaries of electoral districts to suit the ruling party. This key electoral law was crafted by the HDZ without involving experts, civil society or the opposition. Arbitrary district boundaries were traced on the basis of an unreliable voter registry. This move has undermined public trust in elections and could also result in an even lower voter turnout.

  Are protesters able to voice their demands freely?

  The government has imposed restrictions on protest rights, including by closing St Mark’s Square, home to key government institutions. Full access to the square is now restricted to government and parliamentary staff, and the area where people are allowed to protest is demarcated with fences. Recent demonstrations like the one on 17 February, however, have​​seen an expansion of the available space for protesters.

  Plenković reacted to these protests by accusing the opposition of being pro-Russian, despite the fact that its only reference to Russia was to mourn Alexei Navalny’s death. On its official Facebook page, the HDZ insulted the opposition and people who supported the protest by labelling them ‘backward leftists’, ‘rampant angry revolutionaries’, ‘Russophiles’, ‘Putinophiles’ and ‘destructive and anti-patriots’. Many members of the government also endorsed this hostile narrative. In this crucial electoral year, Gong’sanalysis revealed the use of numerous bots – automated programs that mimic human activity – supporting insults against the opposition on Facebook and attempting to manipulate citizens.

  Plenković has tried to silence the media and their sources by adding provisions to the Criminal Code to criminalise leaking of information during the non-public phase of criminal proceedings. The bill however triggered protests by journalists and in response the government amended it to clarify that leaks deemed to be ‘in the public interest’ wouldn’t be criminalised. What is or is not in the public interest will however be determined by judges and Turudić.

  What’s at stake in the 2024 elections?

  President Milanović shocked Croatia when he announced he would run in parliamentary elections, scheduled for 17 April, as the Social Democratic Party’s (SDP) prime ministerial candidate, entering the ring against Plenković. The Constitutional Court says Milanović can only run for prime minister if he resigns as head of state first. Milanović called them gangsters and continued the campaign with the slogan ‘The rivers of justice are coming’. The SDP’s support grew strongly in the polls, but it now has a furious rhetorical populist at its head, openly saying he will not respect the Constitutional Court.

  Campaigns will likely be plagued by offensive speech, contributing to the erosion of democratic values and the integrity of the electoral process. The HDZ is still by far the strongest party, but people are increasingly dissatisfied with the direction of the government and the constant corruption scandals. With Milanović’s entry into the race, the election result has become uncertain.

  What are the main challenges for civil society?

  Croatian civil society organisations (CSOs) operate in a context marked by a backsliding in liberal democracy, with attacks on activists, the media and independent experts, and challenges to the rule of law. Civic space has significantly contracted, and CSOs face administrative burdens, financial constraints, overwork and underpayment. As a result, many organisations are retreating from the public sphere, decreasing their engagement and doubting if they should continue to question thosein power.

  Moreover, changes in 2020 to theCouncil for Civil Society Development reduced the participation of CSOs in decision-making processes, undermining the legitimacy of the body and leading to the government outvoting CSOs and completely dominating law-drafting working groups. We have warned the public and the European Commission (EC) about token CSOs being used to shape anti-corruption laws. Instead of consulting widely with civil society, the government includes these CSOs that have been established to support its agenda rather than promote the public interest. 

  In this challenging environment, Gong is set on remaining an active democratic watchdog,using a range of strategies to achieve social impact and foster positive change. These include analysis, research, proposing democratic innovations, advocacy, education, networking and collaboration with diverse stakeholders, including the academic community, civil society, media, politicians, government institutions and society in general.

  A recent successful advocacy effort involved the EC unveiling new guidelines for the participation of its members in elections. This initiative was prompted by Gong’sreport on EC President Ursula Von Der Leyen’s involvement in a pre-election campaign video for the HDZ. Gong raised this issue with both the EC and the European Ombudsman during Croatia’s 2020 parliamentary election.

  For doing this work, we are constantly targeted with defamation campaigns by politicians, particularly those in power. This raises concerns for our safety and must immediately stop.

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

  Get in touch with Gong through itswebsite orInstagram page, and followGong andOriana Ivković Novokmet on Facebook, and@GONG_hr and@OrianaIN on Twitter.

• Denmark: Reject discriminatory "Security for all Danes” Act and respect freedom of assembly

  Members of the Danish Parliament Folketinget

  Christiansborg 1240 Copenhagen K

  Tel.: +45 3337 5500

  E-mail:

  ---

  URGENT: Reject discriminatory "Security for all Danes” Act and respect freedom of assembly.

  Dear Members of the Danish Parliament,

  The undersigned civil society organisations wish to express our serious concerns over restrictive provisions in the proposed “Security for all Danes” Act which we believe could potentially limitcivic freedoms in Denmark and undermine the country’s commitments to international human rights standards and European Union Law. Submitted to parliament in January 2021, the draft law follows previous measures by the government intended to address insecurity in vulnerable areas but which, in reality, sow division and inflame discrimination against excluded groups.

  Concerns over harsh and disproportionate draft law

  We are particularly concerned that the draft law “Security for All Danes” seriously contravenes the basic democratic right to peaceful assembly. We believe this law to be excessively strict; the introduction of Section (6b) to the Act of Police Activities empowers police to unilaterally issue a broad ban on peaceful assembly in a specific place for up to 30 days with the possibility of a 30-day extension.

  Additionally, the bill proposes penalties of imprisonment of up to one year for those who are deemed to violate the law and a fine of a minimum of DKK 10,000 (USD 1600). The fines proposed are harsh and the threat of detention is a disproportionate response to the right to freely assemble. We are equally concerned about the absence of clarity on effective remedy for those whose fundamental rights are violated. International law says the authorities should provide some form of independent and transparent oversight panel that can determine if the person received timely access to legal help and if they were offered remuneration for any wrongs committed against them.

  Impact on Denmark’s human rights record

  Denmark is rated ‘open’ by the CIVICUS Monitor, an online platform that measures the state of civic freedoms in over 196 countries across the world. Only 3.4%of the world’s population live in ‘open’ countries where democratic rights, such as the freedoms of speech, assembly and association, are recognised. The publication of the draft law may affect Denmark's reputation as a robust advocate for human rights in the international community. There are also serious concerns from civil society that the law may be used to justify unlawful actions by people who violate human rights.

  Denmark has historically advocated for the promotion and protection of human rights in different countries across the world, making a difference in many communities. We urge the Danish government not to tarnish its human rights record by implementing this bill.

  Potential to incite hate and division

  If implemented in its current form, the Act would incite hate and division and seriously undermine the rights of excluded groups, such as those who are nationally in the minority.

  The Act aims to put an end to citizens’ feelings of insecurity caused by the “appearance and behaviour of young men.” While announcing the law to Parliament on 6 October 2020, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen alluded toa link between criminality and people from so-called “non-Western” backgrounds. This law follows other packages which target “non-Western” neighbourhoods, such as the ‘Ghetto Package,’a law permitting the sale of apartment blocks in areas largely inhabited by immigrants.

  According to the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL),such legislation is at odds with EU ruleson the prohibition of discrimination based on race and ethnic origin and with fundamental rights of freedom of assembly as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which also prohibits discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, social origin, race, and membership of a national minority.

  Ahead of the next sitting in Parliament to discuss this restrictive draft law, we call on Danish Parliamentarians and the government to:

  • Reject the proposal as it stands;
  • Request the Ministry of Justice to carry out a review of the proposal and involve civil society, targeted communities and other interested parties;
  • Assess the impact of this law against international standards and compliance with EU law;
  • Refrain from statements inciting hate and discrimination against minority

  CC/bbc

  Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen

  Minister for Justice, Nick Hækkerup

  Minister of Immigration and Integration, Mattias Tesfaye

  Endorsed by CIVICUS

  • Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties) European Civic Forum
  • ARCI, Italy 
  • New Europeans, Europe Advocates Abroad, Greece Osservatorio Repressione, Italy Peace Institute, Slovenia Obywatele RP, Poland BlueLink Foundation, Bulgaria
  • Legal-Informational Centre for NGOs (PIC), Slovenia Umanotera, Slovenia
  • CNVOS, Slovenia
  • International Institute for Nonviolent Action - Novact, Spain Bulgarian Fund for Women, Bulgaria
  • Ligue des droits de l’Homme, France
  • The Voice of Civic Organizations, Slovakia
  • Nexus (Consulting and support for Alert and Mobilization initiatives), France Spiralis, Network of the development of NGO´s, Czech Republic
  • European Movement Italy, Italy
  • NETPOL - Network for police monitoring, United Kingdom New Europeans Minsk, Belarus
  • Human Rights House Zagreb, Croatia Irídia - Center for Human Rights, Spain Gong, Croatia
  • Netherlands Helsinki Committee, The Netherlands Associazione Antigone, Italy
  • Grup de Periodistes Ramon Barnils (Ramon Barnils Group of Journalists) / Observatori Crític dels Mitjans Mèdia.cat (Mèdia.cat Critical Media Watchdog), Spain
  • Društvo Asociacija, Slovenia
  • Focus, Association for Sustainable Development, Slovenia Institute of Public Affairs (ISP), Poland
  • Europe Section of the National Network for Civil Society (BBE), Germany Òmnium Cultural, Spain
  • Statewatch, United Kingdom Civil Society Advocates, Cyprus ENAR, Europe
• EGYPT: ‘Activists who work from abroad are being targeted through their families’

  

  CIVICUS speaksabout the ongoing repression of dissent in EgyptwithAhmed Attalla, Executive Director of the Egyptian Front for Human Rights (EFHR).

  Founded in 2017 and registered in the Czech Republic, EFHR is a civil society organisation (CSO) that promotes human rights in Egypt, with a specific focus on criminal justice, through advocacy, research and legal support.

  What are the conditions for civil society in Egypt?

  Civic space in Egypt has remained highly restricted for the past decade, with the authorities consistently targeting civil society activists, journalists, political dissidents and human rights advocates.

  The 2019 NGO law restricts the rights of CSOs. It mandates their registration and enables the government and security forces to interfere in their operations and order the cessation of activities deemed sensitive by the government, such as monitoring human rights conditions and denouncing violations. Organisations registered under this law may also face funding restrictions.

  Some CSOs had to shut down because the authorities targeted them with counter-terrorist measures or prosecuted their directors in Case no. 173 of 2011, commonly known as the ‘Foreign Funding Case’. In some instances, the directors of these organisations were prohibited from leaving the country and their assets were frozen. Some courageous organisations have persisted in their work even in the face of attacks against their directors and staff.

  In September 2021, the government launched the National Human Rights Strategy, a propaganda tool aimed at concealing the human rights crisis ahead of hosting the COP27 climate summit in 2022. As part of this initiative, it took steps to release some political prisoners and engaged in a national dialogue that contained a broader spectrum of political actors, including civil society representatives.

  How has Egyptian civil society organised in the face of repression?

  Civil society has adapted to the ongoing repression in various ways. Many CSOs have decided to limit their public engagement and abstain from taking to the streets or limit their work to the provision of legal aid while refraining from undertaking research and international advocacy, especially with international human rights mechanisms. Other organisations have been forced to relocate their operations abroad to safeguard their staff and ensure the continuity and integrity of their work, which has had the opposite effect of facilitating their advocacy efforts with international mechanisms and among European Union (EU) member states.

  In response to the continuous pressure, many organisations have started collaborating more closely. In 2019, EFHR coauthored a joint report with eight other CSOs for the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council and participated in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) session in which Egypt’s human rights record was examined. In 2023, we jointly submitted another report for Egypt’s UPR. We have also engaged in joint campaigns and participated in the formation of coalitions aimed at addressing specific challenges. Egyptian CSOs are increasingly recognising the importance of working together to amplify their impact and advocate for change.

  How does EFHR work in such a repressive context?

  When it was founded in 2017, EFHR was officially registered in the Czech Republic with affiliates in Egypt, where our team of researchers and lawyers provides crucial legal support by attending daily court hearings and working directly with victims of prosecution. We have successfully coordinated work between our overseas office and our colleagues based in Egypt. Our work focuses on issues that are ignored by the Egyptian authorities, including issues concerning criminal justice, detention conditions and gender-based violence.

  We take various security measures to protect the identities of our staff. For instance, our research publications don’t include author names or contact details, and we maintain the anonymity of our legal team. These precautions give us some space to work and leverage our findings and expertise with international mechanisms, by engaging with UN Special Rapporteurs and working groups and collaborating with EU diplomats.

  However, we have also faced some challenges. Three of our lawyers have been implicated in state security cases, facing accusations of affiliating with terrorist groups and potentially engaging in the use of force. We have managed to relocate other at-risk colleagues to ensure their safety. The same is happening to other Egyptian human rights organisations, whose members either managed to flee the country or were arrested and remained in prison for least two years.

  How do you support Egyptian activists under threat?

  We provide legal assistance to those who have been arrested or targeted by the authorities and take measures to ensure activists’ digital security and protect their anonymity, enabling them to continue their work. We collaborate with partners and foreign embassies to put pressure on the Egyptian government, but sometimes this doesn’t work.

  Within Egypt, there are a few tools available to protect our colleagues at risk. Even political parties cannot protect their members in Egypt, so they also face regular detentions. Parties often attempt to exert pressure on the authorities to release arrested politicians but after releasing them the government arrests other members of the same organisations.

  Are Egyptian activists safe in exile?

  Activists who work from abroad are being targeted through their families. For example, the Egyptian-American human rights advocate Mohamed Soltan, who filed a case against former prime minister Hazem el-Beblawi, saw his five family members harassed and arrested as a result of his activism. A German resident, Alaa Eladly, was arrested upon landing in Cairo just because his daughter, Egyptian activist Fagr Eladly, criticised President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi president over human rights abuses at a 2015 press conference between the president and then German chancellor Angela Merkel . The father of Belgium-based journalist and human rights advocate Ahmed Gamal Ziada has recently been detained and accused of misuse of communication, spreading false news and joining a banned group. This strategy aims to silence activists and impose an even higher personal cost for doing their work.

  What can the international community do to support Egyptian civil society?

  To gain a comprehensive understanding of the situation in Egypt it is important to listen to the perspectives of local human rights defenders. Our international allies and partners must exert pressure on the Egyptian government to open civic space, stop targeting journalists, civil society activists and political figures and filing trumped up charges against them, and release all political prisoners detained for defending the fundamental rights to freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression.

  EU member states must revise their terms of cooperation with Egypt to prioritise human rights. For instance, they should include human rights considerations as a conditionality for providing financial aid. It is imperative to strike a balance between the interests of governments and the demands of Egyptian civil society. It is also essential to sustain financial support for Egyptian CSOs, especially now that the economic crisis has also hit civil society.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with EFHR through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@egyptian_front onTwitter.

• Ethiopia: Stop violence against protesters and lift internet restrictions

  (Johannesburg 2 July 2020) CIVICUS calls on the authorities in Ethiopia to stop using violence to disperse ongoing protests and to lift internet restrictions that have been imposed across the country.

  At least 80 people have been killed since protesters started demonstrating against the brutal assassination of prominent musician Hachalu Hundessa on 29 June 2020. Hachalu, whose songs reflected the challenges of the Oromia people during anti-government protests from 2014 to 2018, was killed by unidentified gunmen in Addis Ababa.

  “The Ethiopian authorities have a long history of using brutal force to quell protests, and the ongoing repression of protesters has once again opened divisions and provoked violence among the different ethnic groups. The shutting down of the internet and arrest of prominent political figures bring back memories of the human rights violations perpetrated by previous governments. The authorities should lift restrictions on the internet and implement UN guidelines on managing protests to avoid a further escalation of violence,” said Paul Mulindwa, Advocacy and Campaigns Officer, CIVICUS.

  Background

  More than 80 people have been killed as protesters condemn the killing of popular musician Hachalu Hundessa. The Ethiopian government has failed to provide assurances that those responsible have been identified and will be brought to justice. The number of deaths may be higher as internet restrictions imposed by the authorities in cities affected by the violence make it impossible to obtain credible information on the extent of the unrest. Prominent political figures, including former political prisoner and journalist Eskinder Nega, have also been arrested. CIVICUS is concerned that the government’s violent response may intensify this volatile situation.

  For more information on civic space violations, visit the Ethiopia country page on theCIVICUS Monitor.

  To arrange an interview with CIVICUS or activists in Ethiopia please contact:

   |  

• Groundbreaking tool tracking civic freedoms worldwide to launch 24.10.2016

  French | Spanish

  The CIVICUS Monitor is a new global platform tracking violations of freedoms of assembly, association and expression in real-time.

  Johannesburg, 18 October 2016 - In light of widespread global restrictions on civil society, CIVICUS is launching a new tool to measure the freedoms that people around the world have to protest, organise and speak out. The tool will go online at 00.01 Central Africa Time (CAT) on 24 October 2016 (UN World Development Information Day).

  The CIVICUS Monitor will rate country respect for civic space in five broad categories from Closed to Open, based on how well they uphold the three fundamental rights that allow citizens to come together and demand change: freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of expression. In addition to the 104 country ratings available on launch day, the latest updates on civic space will be available for most countries in the world.

  CIVICUS will also be releasing numbers on which types of violations were most common and the driving forces behind them, based on analysis of more than 200 national-level updates on civic freedoms gathered over the past four months (June – October 2016).

  By signing up to the Sustainable Development Goals last year, world leaders agreed that people must be able to take part in making the decisions that affect their lives, and to ensure access to information (Goal 16). The CIVICUS Monitor will show how the key civic freedoms that should allow for this are coming under sustained assault.

  Ratings are based on a combination of inputs from local civil society advocates, regionally-based research partners and civil society experts, existing assessments, user-generated input and media-monitoring. Local views are prioritised and all users are invited to contribute information on the situation in their countries. The number of countries rated by the CIVICUS Monitor will increase over time and news updates will be added each weekday.

  CIVICUS Monitor

  Launching online at https://monitor.civicus.org/

  00.01 Central Africa Time (CAT), 24 October 2016

  Notes to editors: 

  For advance access to the CIVICUS Monitor web platform under embargo or to set up an interview, please contact CIVICUS’ global press office on . Interviews can be arranged in advance with CIVICUS Secretary General Danny Sriskandarajah and CIVICUS Monitor Researcher Cathal Gilbert, as well as regional researchers.

  A one-minute video explainer on civic space and the CIVICUS Monitor is available here.

  CIVICUS is a global alliance of civil society organisations and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society around the world.

  www.civicus.org 

  www.twitter.com/CIVICUSalliance 

  www.facebook.com/CIVICUS 

   

• Guinea: Civil society calls for the lifting of a ban on assemblies

  The decision made by Guinea's transitional authorities to ban public demonstrations in public spaces for the duration of the transitional period seeks to undermine further the right to protest and prevent Guineans from expressing their views about issues affecting them. 

• HRC50: resolution on freedom of peaceful assembly & association renews the crucial Special Rapporteur mandate & addresses key issues

  Resolution on on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association adopted at the 50th Session of the UN Human Rights Council

  CIVICUS welcomes this new resolution on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, which addresses substantive concerns facing civil society today.

• 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.

• Joint Letter to Bahrain King: Free 400-day hunger striker Dr Abduljalil Al-Singace

  King of Bahrain, Shaikh Hamad bin 'Issa Al Khalifa

  Crown Prince and Prime Minister, Shaikh Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa

  Your Majesties,

  We, the undersigned, are writing to you concerning Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace, an academic, activist and blogger imprisoned in Bahrain whose health is declining rapidly. We respectfully urge you to secure Al-Singace’s immediate and unconditional release, and in the meantime, ensure he receives proper medical care, is protected from torture and other ill-treatment, and that his academic work is transferred to his family.

  Abduljalil Al-Singace, 60, is serving a life sentence for his role in peaceful protests calling for democratic reform in Bahrain in 2011. He has been imprisoned for almost 12 years solely for exercising his human rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

  Al-Singace has been on hunger strike since 8 July 2021 and has now exceeded 400 days without solid food. We are deeply concerned by the current state of his health as his blood sugar has reached an extremely low level. We are especially concerned that in flagrant disregard of his physicians’ orders, the delivery of multiple essential prescribed medicines has either been delayed or denied, including pills necessary for his nervous system and bodily functions, and eye drops.

  Al-Singace suffers from post-polio syndrome and multiple other health problems, including severe intermittent headaches, a prostate problem, arthritis in his shoulder joint, tremors, numbness, and diminished eyesight. In January 2022, his neurologist requested a CT scan, but the authorities have reportedly refused the request to have the procedure performed at the Salmaniya Medical Complex, run by the Health Ministry. Instead, the authorities insist that the test be conducted at the King Hamad Military Hospital. But he does not believe that he would receive adequate and timely healthcare at King Hamad Military Hospital, given that he has yet to be informed of the result of an MRI scan of his shoulder taken there in October 2021. This delay amounts to a deliberate failure to provide healthcare in line with Bahrain’s obligations under international law. Given his fragility and pre-existing health problems, this denial of healthcare puts his life at risk and may lead to irreversible damage. Therefore, we call on the government to immediately provide him with adequate healthcare.

  Al-Singace’s hunger strike is in response to the prison authorities’ confiscation of his book on Bahraini dialects of Arabic that he spent four years researching and writing by hand. 

  On 18 July 2021, the authorities transferred him from Jau prison to the Kanoo Medical Centre, where he continues to be held. The same month, the Bahrain Ministry of Interior Ombudsman declared that his book could not be turned over to his family until a “legal decision” about its contents was made. In November 2021, a legal decision clarified the apolitical nature of the book, but government authorities have yet to return the book to his family. In March 2022, an Ombudsman representative visited Al-Singace, made baseless allegations about the book's content and asked him to edit and resubmit the book for the authorities to review.

  In July 2022, the UN Human Rights Committee repeated its call to the government of Bahrain to release Al-Singace along with other unjustly imprisoned human rights defenders including Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja and Naji Fateel. Today, on 13 August, Al-Singace marks 12 years since his initial arrest in 2010. He was subsequently unjustly re-imprisoned after a brief hiatus of 21 days in early 2011 and was re-arrested on 17 March 2011 during the uprising. Today also marks the 401st day of Al-Singace’s hunger strike.

  We call upon you to release Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace immediately and unconditionally. We also urge you to ensure he receives his medication without delay and has access to adequate healthcare, in compliance with medical ethics, including the principles of confidentiality, autonomy, and informed consent, and is protected from torture and other ill-treatment. We also call on you to ensure that his work is immediately handed over to his family.

  Sincerely,

  1. Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
  2. Amnesty International
  3. Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD) 
  4. ​​Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) 
  5. CIVICUS
  6. Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
  7. Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN)
  8. English PEN
  9. European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)
  10. Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)
  11. Human Rights Watch
  12. Freedom House
  13. PEN International 
  14. Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED)
  15. Scholars at Risk

  Background

  Upon his return from London with his family, Dr. Al-Singace was arrested at the Bahrain International Airport on 13 August 2010. A detailed account of his torture allegations can be found in a report by Human Rights Watch published on 1 September 2010, which states:

  “Al-Singace, who had spent the previous 15 days in incommunicado detention, told al-Buainain of having been handcuffed and blindfolded the entire time. Al-Singace said that his captors beat him on his fingers with a hard instrument, slapped him around, and pulled and twisted his nipples and ears with tongs.”

  When the Arab spring erupted in Bahrain, government authorities released Al-Singace on 24 February 2011. However, he was soon rearrested 21 days later, on 17 March 2011. Since then, Al-Singace has remained in arbitrary detention.

  In November 2011, the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry documented in a report that the police subjected Dr. Al-Singace to nightly beatings for two months while they held him in solitary confinement. The commission said that the  authorities targeted his disability by confiscating his crutches, making him “stand on one leg for prolonged periods” and by pushing his crutch “into his genitals.” The commission also found that the  authorities “threatened him with rape and made sexually explicit comments about his wife and his daughter.”

• Joint Statement: Dozens killed in Nicaragua by state repression of protests

  Spanish

  STATEMENT / More than 300 national and international NGOs condemn the violent repression of the demonstrations held in Nicaragua against the #INSS reforms: https://t.co/XAoeFpMceT #SOSNicaragua #FuerzaNicaragua

  — IM-Defensoras (@IM_Defensoras) April 27, 2018

  We hereby condemn the violent repression of the demonstrations held in Nicaragua against the Social Security reforms, and we demand respect for the legitimate right to protest of Nicaraguan women and men

  Daniel Ortega, President of the Republic of Nicaragua.

  Rosario Murillo, Vice President of the Republic of Nicaragua.

  We, 323 undersigned national, diverse regional and international organizations and networks, hereby condemn the violent repression of the demonstrations held in Nicaragua against the Social Security reforms, and we demand respect for the legitimate right to protest of Nicaraguan women and men.

  Since Wednesday the 18th April, organizations, networks and human rights defenders in Nicaragua have been documenting and denouncing multiple violations of the right to hold peaceful protests, that include: murders, disappearances, arbitrary detentions, physical aggressions; the use of stones, sticks, rubber bullets, and tear gas; threats, acts of intimidation and the infringement of the right to information; in the context of the demonstrations that were organised in response to the Government’s imposition of the Social Security reforms that involve cuts of 5% in pensions, as well as other measures that affect the fundamental rights of Nicaraguan women and men.

  As has been verified, these attacks are being perpetrated by State security forces that repress the population with excessive use of force, and by groups of civilians linked to the Juventud Sandinista (Sandinista Youth Movement) who are acting with total impunity, and with the complicity and consent of the police, causing outbreaks of violence that have already claimed the lives of at least 40 people.1

  Another matter of grave concern are the violations of the right to freedom of expression, manifested in the theft of journalists' professional equipment, assaults and acts of intimidation during repressive actions and the shutting down of the transmission, through digital cable service, of 100% Noticias, channel 12 and channel 23 that were covering the protests.

  These attacks violate the right to freedom of assembly and to peaceful association, the right to freedom of opinion and expression of the Nicaraguan people, and their right to defend the social rights that are threatened by the Social Security reforms that the Government seeks to impose.

  This situation is not an isolated case; in recent times, numerous acts have been documented that infringe the right to social protest - by restricting people’s freedom of movement, through campaigns of criminalization, threats and harassment against organizations and human rights’ defenders, or through the closure of communication spaces, and many other actions that threaten democracy and the human rights of Nicaraguan women and men.

  In the light of the above, we, the organizations and individual signatories to this letter, demand the following actions from the Nicaraguan State:

  • The immediate cease of repression and violence carried out by armed forces, the police and groups of civilians linked to the government. The authorities must fulfil their duty to guarantee Nicaraguan women’s and men’s right to social protest
  • The release of detainees in different parts of the country. Guarantees must be provided that no criminal action will be taken against them.
  • An inclusive national dialogue process, securing the participation and involvement of different sectors that have movilized, victims, networks and civil society organizations, as well as representatives from diverse social movements
  • Respect for the work carried out by human rights defenders, journalists and the media.

  Sincerely yours,

  1. Abogadas y Abogados para la Justicia y los Derechos Humanos

  2. Abriendo Camino A.C.

  3. Académicas en Acción Critica

  4. Acción Solidaria

  5. ACCSI Acción Ciudadana Contra el SIDA

  6. Agrupación Ciudadana por la Despenalización del aborto - El Salvador

  7. AIETI Asociacion de Investigación y Especialización sobrecTemas Iberoamericanos

  8. Aireana, grupo por los derechos de las lesbianas. Asunción. PARAGUAY

  9. Akahata A.C.

  10. Alianza Latinoamericana y Caribeña de Juventudes

  11. Alianza Regional por la Libre Expresión e Información

  12. American Jewish World Service

  13. Americas Program, Center for International Policy

  14. Amigas en Consejos de Desarrollo AMICODE

  15. AMUMRA - Asociación Civil de Derechos Humanos Mujeres Unidas Migrantes y Refugiadas en Argentina

  16. ANC- Peru

  17. Andrea Kraybill Art

  18. APADEIM

  19. APRODEH

  20. Arte para Sanar

  21. Articulação de Mulheres Brasileiras

  22. Asamblea Feminista de Madrid

  23. Asistencia Legal por Derechos Humanos A.C.

  24. Asociación Andaluza por la Solidaridad y la Paz (ASPA)

  25. Asociación Bolivarianos Diversos

  26. Asociación Cepres

  27. Asociación Ciudadana ACCEDER

  28. Asociación Ciudadana por los Derechos Humanos de Argentina

  29. Asociacion Civil De Mujeres Resilientes

  30. Asociación Civil Magdalenas Puerto Madryn

  31. Asociacion de Mujeres Salvadoreñas en Accion del Barrio San Jacinto AMSAB-SJ

  32. Asociación de jóvenes feministas Ameyalli, El Salvador

  33. Asociación Educativa Barbiana

  34. Asociación Entre Amigos LGBTI de El Salvador

  35. Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente, AIDA (Regional)

  36. Asociacion Interpueblos-Cantabria-España

  37. Asociación para una sociedad más justa

  38. Asociación para una vida mejor (Apuvimeh)

  39. Asociación Paz y Esperanza

  40. ASOCIACIÓN PRO DEFENSA DE LA CUENCA DEL RÍO JUAN DÍAZ

  41. Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de España

  42. Associação brasileira de defesa da mulher da infância e da juventude

  43. ATTAC Roanne

  44. AvanzaFem AC

  45. Balance Promoción para el Desarrollo y Juventud, México

  46. Beso Diverso

  47. Bilboko Bilgune Feminista

  48. BILGUNE FEMINISTA (Euskal Herria-Pais Vasco)

  49. Bordamos Feminicidios (México)

  50. Both ENDS

  51. Brigada UNE

  52. Calala Fondo de Mujeres

  53. Campaña 28 de Septiembre - Guatemala

  54. Campaña Convención DSYDR Peru

  55. Campo A.C.

  56. Canas Dignas

  57. Capital Humano y Social Alternativo - CHS Alternativo

  58. CASACIDN

  59. Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir - España

  60. Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir – México

  61. CENDEROS

  62. Centro de Acción y Defensa por los Derechos Humanos - Cadef

  63. Centro de análisis, formación e iniciativa social, CAFIS A.C.

  64. Centro de Derechos de Mujeres CDM

  65. Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña Tlachinollan

  66. Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Universidad Católica Andrés Bello (CDH-UCAB)

  67. Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Universidad Metropolitana (CDH-UNIMET)

  68. Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Francisco de Vitoria OP, A.C. (México)

  69. Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Matías de Córdova (Chiapas, México)

  70. Centro de Documentación en Derechos Humanos "Segundo Montes Mozo S.J." (CSMM)

  71. Centro de Estudios e Investigación sobre Mujeres

  72. CENTRO DE ESTUDIOS HUMANISTAS - Costa Rica

  73. Centro de estudios y capacitación familiar. Cefa

  74. Centro de Iniciativas para la Cooperación Batá (CIC Batá)

  75. Centro de Investigación para la Prevención de la Violencia en Centroamérica – CIPREVICA

  76. Centro de Investigaciones para la Equidad Política Pública y Desarrollo, CIPE.

  77. Centro de Sanación, Formación e Investigación Transpersonal Q'anil

  78. Centro Documentación e Información Bolivia-CEDIB-

  79. Centro Hermanas Mirabal de Derechos Humanos A.C.

  80. Centro Para el Desarrollo Integral de la Mujer

  81. Centro para la Paz y los DDHH de la Universidad Central de Venezuela

  82. Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional (CEJIL)

  83. Cepaz - Centro de Justicia y Paz

  84. CEPROSAF

  85. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

  86. Civilis Derechos Humanos

  87. CLADEM ARGENTINA (Comité de América Latina y el Caribe para la Defensa de los Derechos de las Mujeres)

  88. CLADEM Bolivia

  89. Cladem Nicaragua

  90. Coalicion Todas

  91. Codhez

  92. Codice, Jalisco

  93. Colectiva Actoras de Cambio

  94. Colectiva Amorales

  95. Colectiva Ciudad y Género AC

  96. Colectiva con Letra F (México)

  97. Colectiva Chancha Negra

  98. Colectiva de Mujeres de Masaya

  99. Colectiva Femimista

  100. Colectiva Sororidad Glocal

  101. Colectivas lesbicas

  102. Colectivo de Abogados "José Alvear Restrepo" (Ccajar), Colombia

  103. Colectivo de Mujeres de Matagalpa Nicaragua

  104. Colectivo de Mujeres Sobrevivientes Siempre Resistentes – Chile

  105. Colectivo de Trabajadoras y Trabajadores Sociales de Honduras (CTS-H)

  106. Colectivo de Trabajadores y Trabajadoras de Honduras

  107. Colectivo Estudiantil Pro Derechos Humanos del Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas

  108. Colectivo Josefa Lastiri

  109. Colectivo para la Participación de la Infancia y Juventud

  110. Colectivo PSG

  111. Colectivo Trans del Uruguay

  112. Colectivo Utopía Puebla

  113. Collectif Guatemala

  114. Comisión de Derechos Humanos de Ica

  115. Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos del Estado Monagas de la Federación de Colegios de Abogados de Venezuela

  116. Comité Ambiental en Defensa de la Vida (Colombia).

  117. Comité de América Latina y el Caribe para la Defensa de los Derechos de las Mujeres (CLADEM)

  118. Comité de America Latina y el Caribe para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos de las Mujeres (CLADEM- Mexico)

  119. Comité por los derechos humanos en América latina (CDHAL)

  120. Comunidad de familiares y amigos por los Derechos Humanos de la Diversidad Sexual COFADHIS

  121.Comunidad Xinka

  122.Concertación Interamericana de Derechos Humanos de las Mujeres

  123.Consejo de Mujeres Cristianas

  124. Consejo tiyat tlali

  125. Consorcio para el Diálogo Parlamentario MX

  126. Consorcio para el Diálogo Parlamentario y la Equidad Oaxaca AC

  127. ControlaTuGobierno, A.C.

  128. CONVERGENCIA DE LAS CULTURAS - Costa Rica

  129. Convite A.C.

  130. Cooperacció

  131. Coordinación de Mujeres del Paraguay

  132. Coordinadora 28 de Mayo - Guatemala

  133. Coordinadora Estatal de Organizaciones Feministas

  134. Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos - Perú

  135. Coordinadora Norte Tierra y Libertad - Costa Rica

  136. Córdoba Solidaria

  137. Count Me In! Consortium

  138. Cuerpas Creando Comunidad

  139. Cuerpas Sin Reglas

  140. CuidaTuEspcio 

  141. Defiende Venezuela

  142. Derechos Humanos

  143. Ditsö- Costa Rica

  144. Ecologistas en Acción (España)

  145. Elige Red de Jóvenes por los Derechos Sexuales y Reproductivos AC

  146. Ellas por la igualdad AC

  147. Epistemologías del Sur: Red de pensamiento crítico, respecto de los derechos humanos, la dinámica educativa y el territorio

  148. Equidad de Género, Ciudadanía, Trabajo y Familia

  149. Equipo de Reflexión, Investigación y Comunicación de la Compañía de Jesús en Honduras

  150. Escritorio Juridico Gutierrez Ceballos

  151. Espacio DESCA

  152. Espacio Público - Venezuela

  153. Espiral hacia la Igualdad

  154. Estancia del Migrante González y Martínez, A.C. (Querétaro, México)

  155. Estudiantes por una Política Sensata de Drogas, Costa Rica.

  156. EXCUBITUS derechos humanos en educacion.

  157. Existir al caminar A.C.

  158. Feministas en Marcha - Puerto Rico

  159. Feministas Independientes

  160. FIA capitulo Venezuela Seccional Anzoategui

  161. Fondo Apthapi Jopueti Bolivia

  162. Fondo CAMY

  163. Fondo de Acción Urgente para América Latina y el Caribe FAU-AL

  164. FONDO LUNARIA MUJER COLOMBIA

  165. Foro de Jóvenes con Liderazgo AC

  166. Free Press Unlimited

  167. FRENTE COOPERATIVO Y DE ECONOMÍA SOCIAL - Costa Rica

  168. Frente por los Derechos Igualitarios

  169. FRIDA | The Young Feminist Fund

  170. FRONT LINE DEFENDERS

  171. Fronteras

  172. FUNBIDE

  173. Fundación Acceso

  174. Fundación Arcoiris por el respeto a la diversidad sexual.

  175. Fundación CAUCE, Cultura Ambiental - Causa Ecologista. Paraná. Argentina

  176. Fundación Colectivo Hombres XX, A. C.

  177.  Fundacion PANIAMOR

  178.  Fundación para el Debido Proceso (DPLF)

  179. Fundacion para el Desarrollo Comunitario-FUNDECOM

  180. Fundación para el Desarrollo de la Libertad Ciudadana

  181. Fundación salvadoreña por la diversidad sexual de la Mano Contigo

  182. FUNDECOM

  183. Global Fund for Women

  184. Grupo de Accion Comunitaria. Madrid. Estado Español

  185. Grupo de Educación Popular con Mujeres A.C.

  186. Grupo Visión Nocturna Uruguay

  187. Guatemala citizen

  188. Guatemaltecas por la Defensa del Estado Laico (GDEL)

  189.Hivos

  190. Iacta Sociojuridica SCCLP

  191.ILGALAC

  192. IMDEC AC

  193. INCIDIR, A.C.

  194. Ingeniería Sin Fronteras Aragón

  195. Iniciativas de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo

  196. Institute on Race, Equality and Human Rights

  197. Instituto Caribeño de Derechos Humanos (ICADH)

  198. Instituto de Enseñanza para el Desarrollo Sostenible

  199. Instituto Sur Andino de Investigación y Acción Solidaria-ISAIAS

  200. IRC WASH

  201. JAKILU

  202. JASS-JUST ASSOCIATES/ASOCIADAS POR LO JUSTO

  203. Jóvenes Voceras y Voceros en DSDR, El Salvador.

  204. Juntos por la Vida

  205. Justice and Peace Netherlands 206.Kallpachay Suyu. Ambiente y cultura.

  207. Kentucky Interfaith Taskforce on Latin America and the Caribbean

  208. La Cabaretiza AC

  209. La Casa Mandarina AC

  210. LA COMUNIDAD PARA EL DESARROLLO HUMANO - Costa Rica

  211. Laboratorio de la Máscara

  212. Las Reinas Chulas cabaret y derechos humanos A.C.

  213.Lesbocolectivo las Resueltas

  214. LeSVOZ, AC

  215. Los siempre sospechosos de todo

  216. Mama Cash

  217. Maquila Solidarity Network

  218. MARCHA CENTROAMERICANA POR LA PAZ Y LA NO VIOLENCIA

  219. Margens Clínicas - São Paulo/ Brasil

  220. Marxa Mundial de Dones

  221. Memoria de mujeres

  222. Momundh

  223. Movimiento Autónomo de Mujeres de Nicaragua

  224. Movimiento de Mujeres de Chinandega

  225. Movimiento de Mujeres de Santo Tomás

  226. Movimiento de Mujeres Visitación Padilla

  227. Movimiento Migrante Mesoamericano

  228. Movimiento Vinotinto

  229. Mujer Ideas Desarrollo e Investigación

  230. Mujer y salud en Uruguay MYSU

  231. Mujeres Ambientalistas, El Salvador.

  232. Mujeres de Izabal

  233. Mujeres de Negro Rosario – Argentina

  234. Mujeres Integradas en el Oeste de Rosario Argentina

  235.Mujeres Trabajadoras Unidas, A.C

  236. MUNDO SIN GUERRAS Y SIN VIOLENCIA - Costa Rica

  237. Ni Una Menos

  238. NIMD

  239. Observatorio Etico Caribe y América Central – Obetica

  240. Observatorio Ético Internacional – OBETI

  241. Observatorio Venezolano de Conflictividad Social (OVCS)

  242. ODASA

  243. OFICINA JURIDICA PARA LA MUJER

  244. OMCT - Organización Mundial Contra la Tortura

  245. Organización de Mujeres Tierra Viva

  246. OTRANS ARGENTINA

  247. Otros Mundos A.C./Amigos de la Tierra México

  248. Paro Internaciónal se Mujeres, Polonia

  249. Partido Feminista de España

  250. PARTIDO HUMANISTA - Costa Rica

  251. Perifèries del Món

  252. Pikara Magazine (País Vasco-España)

  253. Plataforma Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Democracia y Desarrollo PIDHDD

  254. Plataforma Internacional contra la Impunidad

  255. Plataforma Salvadoreña de juventudes

  256. Plazandreok

  257. Please remove signature of Kentucky Interfaith Taskforce

  258. Presencia y Palabra: Mujeres Afroperuanas

  259. Pro-Búsqueda

  260. Profesionales católicos - Piura - Perú

  261. Proiuris

  262. PROMEDEHUM (Venezuela)

  263. Radio Stereo Vos

  264.Radioexpresion

  265. Reacción Climática - Bolivia

  266. Red Con Las Amigas Y En La Casa

  267. Red de Activistas Ciudadanos por los DDHH

  268. Red de Ambientalistas Comunitarios de El Salvador RACDES

  269. Red de la No Violencia contra las Mujeres - REDNOVI

  270. Red de mujeres contra la violencia

  271. Red de salud de las Mujeres Latinoamericanas y del Caribe

  272. Red Internacional de Migración y Desarrollo

  273. Red Latinoamericana y Caribeña de Jóvenes por los Derechos Sexuales RedLAC

  274. Red Nacional Coincidir

  275. Red Nacional de Defensoras de Derechos Humanos en Honduras

  276. Red Para la Infancia y la Adolescencia de El Salvador (RIA)

  277. Red Solidaria de Derechos Humanos A.C. (Michoacán, México)

  278. REDLAMYC Red latinoamericana y caribeña que lucha por los derechos de niñas niños y adolescentes

  279. REDMUCH

  280. Refugee and Immigrant Fund (RIF)

  281. Resonar

  282. RESURJ Realizando la Justicia Sexual

  283. Revista SIC del Centro Gumilla

  284. Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights

  285. Roma National Center from Moldova

  286. Schone Kleren Campagne

  287. Schumacher College

  288. Sector de Mujeres

  289. Seguridad en Democracia (SEDEM)

  290. Semillas de Nuestra Tierra, AC

  291. Sol de primavera

  292. Sombrilla Costa Rica

  293. SOS Corpo- Instituto Feminista para a Democracia - Recife/ Pernambuco -Brasil

  294. Spatium Libertas AC

  295. SPW

  296. St Williams church

  297. Stichting Lleca (Holanda)

  298. Strajk Kobiet Polonia

  299. SURKUNA - Centro de apoyo y protección de derechos humanos

  300. Sursiendo, Comunicación y Cultura Digital AC

  301. Swefor Guatemala

  302. Tequio jurídico

  303. Todas Mx

  304. Trabajadora del retail

  305. Transparencia Venezuela

  306. Uganda Youth Alliance For Family Planning And Adolescents Health -UYAFPAH

  307. Unidad de Protección a Defensoras y Defensores de Derechos Humanos - Guatemala (UDEFEGUA)

  308. Unidas Somos Tendencia

  309. Union global por la democracia

  310. Unión Latinoamericana de Mujeres ULAM

  311. Unitierra

  312. Universidad de la Tierra en Puebla

  313. Urgent Action Fund- Latin America and the Caribbean

  314. UXU EMAKUMEEN TALDEA

  315. Vecinas Feministas por la Justicia Sexual y Reproductiva en América Latina y el Caribe

  316. Voces de mujeres, historias que transforman

  317. Voces Mesoamericanas, Acción con Pueblos Migrantes A.C.

  318. WECF International

  319. Witness for Peace

  320. WO=MEN Dutch Gender Platform

  321. WOLA (Washington Office on Latin America)

  322. Women Advocacy and Development Initiative (WADI)

  323. Women Strike Polonia

  1 Source: Nicaraguan Initiative of Women Human Rights Defenders (IN-Defensoras)

• JORDAN: ‘Commercial spyware that enables digital repression and abuse must be completely banned’

  CIVICUS speaks with Access Now about their forensic investigation that exposed the use of Pegasus spyware to target activists and journalists in Jordan. Access Now is an international civil society organisation that works to defend and extend the digital rights of people and communities at risk.

  

  What restrictions do Jordanian journalists and activists face?

  Over the past four years, the Jordanian government has dialled up its crackdown on the rights to freedom of association, expression and peaceful assembly. Journalists, human rights defenders, labour unions and activists are routinely harassed, detained and prosecuted under vague and draconian laws. In late 2022 and throughout 2023, several lawyers, journalists and activists were arrested in connection with protests or for their social media posts.

  Repression has deepened as a result of the new cybercrime law adopted in August 2023. This law threatens online freedom of expression on the basis of ambiguous and overly broad provisions about ‘spreading fake news’, ‘promoting, instigating, aiding or inciting immorality’, ‘online assassination of personality’, ‘provoking strife’ and ‘undermining national unity’. The law is now being weaponised to quash pro-Palestinian protests and activism in Jordan. Since 7 October 2023, hundreds of protesters expressing solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza have been detained and many others prosecuted under this draconian law.

  Our recent forensic investigation into the use of NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware in Jordan has revealed an additional layer of repression, with at least 35 people being targeted for no reason other than their peaceful political dissent and human rights advocacy.

  How’s spyware used, and who’s using it?

  In January 2022, Access Now and Front Line Defenders revealed that Pegasus spyware had been used to hack prominent Jordanian human rights lawyer Hala Ahed. Hala was hacked in March 2021, and it was an isolating and traumatic experience for her. Access Now then joined Citizen Lab to further investigate the use of Pegasus spyware in Jordan.

  Our joint forensic investigation uncovered a terrifyingly widespread use of Pegasus to target Jordanian media and civil society. We found traces of Pegasus spyware on the mobile devices of 30 activists, journalists, lawyers and civil society members. Further forensic analysis by our partners Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International’s Security Lab and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project identified five more Pegasus victims, bringing the total to 35.

  This is the largest pool of Pegasus victims uncovered in Jordan so far, but we believe actual numbers are much higher. We don’t know exactly who is behind these attacks because spyware manufacturers such as NSO Group make the identification of perpetrators of cyberattacks very hard.

  The NSO Group blatantly claims its surveillance technologies are crucial for governments to fight crime and terrorism. Conveniently, this is the same pretext used by dictators and repressive regimes to criminalise the work of journalists and activists and prosecute them under draconian counterterrorism and cybercrime laws. It’s a match made in hell, as a result of which activists and journalists are hacked, prosecuted, jailed, tortured and killed merely for exercising their rights or doing their job.

  What can activists and journalists do to protect themselves?

  Unfortunately, given their stealthy nature, there’s no bulletproof protection against spyware attacks. Zero click spyware doesn’t require any interaction between the software and the user of the hacked device. It basically exploits a vulnerability in the device’s software to infect it without the user’s knowledge.

  Still, there are some basic protection measures everyone should implement. For example, every time a vulnerability is discovered, Apple patches it, which means it’s important for users to ensure their device’s operating system is always up to date, otherwise the patch won’t apply. Activists can also enable the Lockdown Mode feature on their Apple devices, which seems to be helping protect at-risk users.

  How does Access Now hold governments and companies accountable?

  For years, Access Now and broader civil society have been campaigning for a global moratorium on the export, sale, transfer, servicing and use of targeted digital surveillance technologies until rigorous human rights safeguards are put in place. Commercial spyware that enables digital repression and abuse worldwide, such as Pegasus, must be completely banned. We are not there yet, but this is our baseline to rein in the surveillance tech industry.

  There have been some positive steps toward holding spyware companies accountable. For instance, a number of Israeli spyware outfits including NSO Group, Candiru and four Intellexa entities were added to a list of the US Department of Commerce that includes entities engaging in activities contrary to the USA’s national security or foreign policy interests. The latest addition to the list was the Canada-based firm Sandvine, blacklisted for enabling digital repression in Egypt. In February 2024, the US State Department also announced a new visa sanctions policy that will deny visas to anyone involved in, facilitating or deriving financial benefit from the misuse of commercial spyware around the world.

  Civil society plays a vital role in exposing how these shady companies profit from facilitating human rights abuses around the world and demanding accountability for violations and reparation to spyware victims. Its continued work is key to holding governments and spyware companies accountable.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with Access Now through itswebsite orFacebook andInstagram pages, and follow@accessnow on Twitter.

• La disolución de la Unión Nacional de Educadores del Ecuador, parte de una estrategia coordinada para silenciar el disenso

  English

  CIVICUS conversa con Rosana Palacios Barriga (foto), presidenta de la Unión Nacional de Educadores (UNE) del Ecuador. La UNE, la organización de maestros más grande del país, fue disuelta por resolución del Ministerio de Educación en agosto de 2016 por presuntos incumplimientos de sus propios estatutos y de la normativa vigente para el funcionamiento de las organizaciones sociales.

  1. ¿Cuáles fueron las circunstancias que condujeron a la disolución de la Unión Nacional de Educadores, el sindicato más grande del país?
  La Unión Nacional de Educadores (UNE) del Ecuador tiene dos líneas de acción. Por un lado, es una organización defensora de derechos humanos, de la educación y de la profesión docente en sus aspectos laborales, de salud y de mejoramiento profesional, económico y social. Por el otro lado, investiga la situación del país y del magisterio; presenta propuestas para que sean trasformadas en políticas públicas; y trabaja en propuestas pedagógicas tales como la de “Educación para la Emancipación” y en estrategias para implantar tecnologías de la información y la comunicación en el aula. En ese sentido, enfrenta la corrupción, la prepotencia y el autoritarismo.
  
  Cuando inició su gestión en 2006, el Presidente Rafael Correa contaba con el respaldo de los sectores de izquierda, los movimientos sociales, sindicales y populares. Ese mismo año, el pueblo ecuatoriano aprobó mediante consulta popular el Plan Decenal, que incluía ocho políticas para la educación. La propuesta que se sometió a consulta popular había sido presentada por la UNE a Rafael Correa, por entonces candidato a presidente, para que fuera elevada a política de Estado. La UNE apoyó su candidatura porqué él dio su apoyo a nuestra propuesta.
  
  El conflicto entre el gobierno y la UNE se inició cuando, una vez comenzada la gestión, la UNE exigió el cumplimiento del Plan Decenal. Ya en el año 2008, la UNE se enfrentó con el Ministro de Educación, Raúl Vallejo, porque éste buscaba implantar una evaluación punitiva destinada a destituir a docentes sin brindarles ninguna opción para que pudieran volver a ejercer su profesión, al tiempo que liberaba al Estado de sus obligaciones laborales para casos de despido. En ese contexto, la UNE exigió el respeto de los derechos laborales y defendió la educación bilingüe, en riesgo ante el cierre de 6000 instituciones escolares.
  
  En el marco de la construcción de la nueva Ley Orgánica de Educación Intercultural (LOEI), la UNE exigió el reconocimiento de los derechos laborales alcanzados por el magisterio y la incorporación de sectores de profesores a la carrera docente de tal manera sean protegidos por la seguridad social y la LOEI. Denunció la precarización y la flexibilización laboral –actualmente son 40 mil los profesores bajo régimen de contrato-, la inestabilidad laboral, el congelamiento de salarios, los chantajes y los despidos. Cabe señalar que al trabajo docente se ha sumado el requisito de cumplimiento de trabajo administrativo, lo cual modifica el rol docente y genera temor, ya que se crea un ambiente de total indefensión.

  2. ¿Cuáles cree Ud. que fueron las motivaciones del gobierno para tomar la decisión de disolver la UNE?
  El Presidente Correa tiene una política de desintegración de las organizaciones sociales como estrategia de concentración de poder. Cuando la UNE mantuvo sus exigencias, Correa tomó la decisión de destruir esta organización sindical, gremial y popular.
  
  El proceso se inició con una exhibición de poder por parte del presidente, por dos vías: por un lado, el debilitamiento del sindicato ante la opinión pública, mediante campañas persecutorias para las que hizo uso de cadenas nacionales de radio, prensa y TV, en las que condenó sus acciones gremiales; por el otro, la implementación, en 2009, de la evaluación punitiva del magisterio nacional.
  
  En aras del cumplimiento de los objetivos del Plan Decenal, la UNE entregó al gobierno una contrapropuesta de evaluación elaborada sobre bases científicas y pedagógicas. Ante la negativa del régimen de dialogar, la organización declaró un paro nacional que se extendió desde el 15 de septiembre hasta el 7 de octubre de 2009. El paro terminó con un acuerdo entre UNE y el Ejecutivo, cuyos artículos luego fueron incorporados a la nueva Ley de Educación. En suma: lo que el correísmo nunca le perdonó a la UNE fue que desafiara su poder y le ganara.
  
  En su afán por eliminar a nuestra organización, y más en general a todas aquellas que no siguieran sus mandatos, así como de dominar a las restantes, el gobierno emitió el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 16 del 4 de junio de 2013 (Reglamento para el funcionamiento del Sistema Unificado de Información de las Organizaciones Sociales y Ciudadanas). Este decreto recibió el rechazo unánime de la sociedad civil independiente, ya que era violatorio de la libertad de asociación. El decreto estableció nuevos procedimientos y requisitos para el reconocimiento legal de organizaciones de la sociedad civil e introdujo un proceso de evaluación para autorizar a ONGs internacionales para operara en el país. También exigió que las ONGs ecuatorianas se volvieran a registrar, impuso requisitos excesivos de información que podrían ser utilizados contra las propias organizaciones, y otorgó al gobierno amplia discrecionalidad para rechazar peticiones de reconocimiento jurídico o disolver organizaciones con argumentos vagos vinculados con el desvío de sus objetivos declarados, el involucramiento en actividad político-partidaria, la interferencia con las políticas públicas o la afectación de la seguridad del Estado o la paz pública.
  
  Gracias al apoyo de la sociedad civil, organizaciones sindicales, organizaciones de servidores públicos y organismos internacionales como la Federación Sindical Mundial y la Internacional de la Educación, logramos llegar hasta la Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT) y las Naciones Unidas para denunciar el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 16. En Ecuador, además, se interpuso una demanda de inconstitucionalidad del decreto ante la Corte de Justicia. La primera víctima de disolución a partir de la aplicación del Decreto No. 16, a fines de 2013, fue la Fundación Pachamama, una organización ambientalista.
  
  Entretanto, el gobierno utilizó una táctica de desgaste mediante criminalización contra los dirigentes de la UNE. Mery Zamora, presidenta de la UNE entre 2007 y 2010, fue acusada de sabotaje y terrorismo por supuestamente haber incitado a los alumnos de un colegio a salir a las calles durante la revuelta policial de 2010. Se le siguió un juicio, fue hallada culpable gracias a la presentación de pruebas falsas y finalmente condenada a 8 años de prisión. Si bien en instancia de apelación fue eventualmente declarada inocente y no debió cumplir pena, la Fiscalía de la Nación enseguida volvió a presentar nuevas acusaciones contra ella, por supuestamente haber atentado contra los derechos del Estado.
  
  Otros dirigentes nacionales, como Xaver Cajilema, Paúl Jácome y Edwin Lasluisa, fueron encarcelados durante un año. Decenas de dirigentes provinciales y cantonales – entre ellos Francisco Rojas, Juan Cervantes, Luis Chancay, Sisa Bacacela y Pilar Paredes – fueron destituidos. Hubo cantidades de sumarios administrativos contra maestros que declararan pertenecer a UNE, y muchos fueron removidos de sus funciones o de sus sitios de trabajo.
  
  Los nuevos dirigentes de la UNE, elegidos para el período 2013-2016, incluida yo misma, no fuimos reconocidos. El Ministerio de Educación esgrimió varios pretextos para ello, por ejemplo el incumplimiento del Decreto No. 16, que sin embargo había sido dictado meses después de las elecciones de la UNE, celebradas con voto universal y secreto y con la veeduría del Consejo Nacional Electoral. El Comité Electoral de UNE argumentó la ilegalidad de esta actuación, pero durante casi un año enfrentó el silencio administrativo, y por último recibió la respuesta de que la documentación requerida no había sido entregada. Presumimos que los documentos entregados fueron deliberadamente extraviados.
  
  Por último, en 2015 el Ministerio de Educación creó una organización paralela, llamada “Red de Maestros por la Revolución Educativa” que, dicho sea de paso, no cumplía con ninguno de los parámetros que le eran exigidos a la UNE. De más está decir que esta iniciativa viola los estándares internacionales, empezando por el Convenio 98 de la OIT sobre el derecho de sindicación y negociación colectiva.
  
  La Red de Maestros no es más que un instrumento para la ejecución de la política autoritaria del gobierno en cada institución educativa del país. Dentro de cada escuela, es el brazo político del gobierno y el instrumento persecutorio de los docentes. Así, por ejemplo, la Red de Maestros tiene coordinadores zonales a los que se concede el tiempo para realizar visitas institucionales y se les otorga el respaldo de las autoridades educativas para que cumplan con el rol asignado.
  
  Las autoridades educativas intervinieron para obligar a los maestros, mediante mecanismos ilegales, a afiliarse a la nueva organización. Al mismo tiempo impedían el acceso de la dirigencia de la UNE a los planteles educativos con el objetivo de acelerar el desgaste de nuestra organización. De hecho se emitieron oficios circulares bajo pena de sanción para las autoridades que dejaran ingresar a los establecimientos a dirigentes de UNE, permitieran a los maestros reunirse en asambleas, asistieran a las instalaciones de su gremio o permitieran la diseminación de información sobre la situación del magisterio. Por último, la autoridades se apropiaron del Fondo de Cesantía del Magisterio ecuatoriano, la entidad financiera de la UNE, con una caja de 405 millones de dólares. Para esto último se debió reformar la Ley de Seguridad Social.

  3. ¿Qué impacto tuvo la disolución de la UNE? ¿Cómo caracterizaría Ud. la situación resultante?
  La disolución de la organización fue el punto culminante de un proceso de acoso que se extendió durante diez años. En el curso de ese período la dirigencia de UNE se dividió en tres sectores: los que decidieron resistir, los que se replegaron, y los (muy pocos) que abandonaron la organización. Este mismo fenómeno se replicó en las bases, con el predominio de los que siguieron la resolución de la dirigencia nacional, plasmada en la consigna “La UNE vive, la lucha continúa”, más tarde reformulada como “La UNE vive, Correa se va” y “La UNE es una organización, no un edificio”.
  
  La dirigencia de UNE resistió y se dedicó a desenmascarar la política correísta que profundizaba la violación de los derechos laborales del docente y de los trabajadores en general. Se unió para ello a las centrales sindicales y a otras organizaciones sociales.
  
  La disolución de la UNE era necesaria para que el gobierno pudiera continuar con el desmantelamiento de la educación pública y el irrespeto a los docentes. A pesar de lo que afirma la propaganda gubernamental, la educación ha sufrido un retroceso. Se han implantado evaluaciones de ingreso a las universidades y puntajes para la elección de carreras fijados desde la Secretaría Nacional de Educación Superior, Ciencia y Tecnología, lo cual trajo aparejada la privatización de la educación superior.

  4. ¿Es la disolución de la UNE parte de un patrón más amplio de restricciones sobre la sociedad civil en Ecuador? En caso afirmativo, ¿cuáles han sido las principales restricciones del espacio cívico?
  La disolución de la UNE es parte de una fórmula que responde al objetivo central del régimen de eliminar toda forma de organización y participación de la sociedad civil en la formulación de las políticas públicas, la defensa de derechos humanos y la promoción de las libertades públicas. O sea, es parte de una estrategia para mantenerse en el poder.
  
  De hecho, en todos los sectores el gobierno ha creado organizaciones paralelas como el FUE (Frente de Estudiantes Universitarios del Ecuador), el FESE (Frente de Estudiantes Secundarios del Ecuador) y Seguro Campesino. Para enfrentar a las centrales sindicales tradicionales se creó en 2014 la CUT (Central Unitaria de Trabajadores), afín al gobierno, y lo mismo en el terreno de los movimientos de mujeres, los movimientos ecologistas y las organizaciones defensoras de la tierra. Al mismo tiempo que estas nuevas organizaciones eran movilizadas, se instituyeron leyes anti obreras para criminalizar la lucha social y se utilizaron los aparatos represivos del Estado contra las organizaciones genuinamente representativas.
  
  Las violaciones de las libertades fundamentales han aumentado bajo la forma de persecución judicial, insultos, linchamiento mediático y agresiones físicas. Sin embargo, el 65% de la población rechaza actualmente estos atropellos, aunque por temor no se ha movilizado en defensa de las organizaciones que enfrentaron procesos de disolución. Pese a ello, hemos podido generar un debate sobre la defensa de los derechos. Y, en el caso específico de los maestros, está presente en la sociedad la necesidad de la existencia de nuestra organización como elemento de defensa, orientación y organización.

  5. ¿Ha recibido la UNE solidaridad y apoyo desde el exterior? ¿De qué modo podría la comunidad internacional apoyar a la sociedad civil en Ecuador?
  Pienso que tenemos una relación mejorada con nuestros pares en otras partes del mundo. Frente al proceso de disolución y el asalto que hemos sufrido, hemos recibido toda clase de muestras de solidaridad nacional e internacional. Los sindicatos de docentes en Canadá y en España, en particular, han sido claves en esta lucha de resistencia, de defensa de nuestra personería jurídica y recuperación del patrimonio. Sin embargo, en el terreno de la acción de masas no tenemos respuesta. Ello se debe a que existe un debate ideológico y una polarización muy fuerte, ya que fuera del Ecuador el discurso de izquierda de Rafael Correa, unido a la propaganda que despliega el gobierno, sigue sosteniendo la creencia errónea de que el Ecuador aún vive una revolución. Para disipar ese malentendido seguimos necesitando apoyo.

  El espacio cívico en Ecuador es clasificado en el CIVICUS Monitor en la categoría “obstrui-do”.
  Visite el sitio web o el perfil de Facebook de la Unión Nacional de Educadores, o siga en Twitter a @UNENACIONAL y a @ROSANAPALACIOS4.

• Media Statement: New UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

  ARTICLE 19, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL), and the World Movement for Democracy (the Civic Space Initiative) welcome Dr. Annalisa Ciampi as the new mandate holder of UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of assembly and association, and congratulate her on her appointment.

• Morocco: Civil society condemns arrests of peaceful protesters

  

  The Regional Coalition for Women Human Rights Defenders in Middle East and North Africa and Global Civil Society Alliance CIVICUS, express grave concerns over the arbitrary arrests of peaceful protesters and call on the Moroccan authorities to release all those in detention.  So far at least 127 protesters have been detained in the wake of the brutal crackdown on demonstrations in the north of Morocco.  

• New UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of assembly and association

  The Civic Space Initiative welcomes Mr. Nyaletsossi Clément Voule as the new UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of assembly and association, and congratulates him on his appointment.  The Civic Space Initiative (CSI) is a collaborative project of ARTICLE 19, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL), the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL), and the World Movement for Democracy.

  Since its creation in September 2010, the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur has been critical in providing practical guidance to States on how they should implement their human rights obligations as they relate to association and assembly, and has consistently stood up for those whose rights were violated. The CSI expresses its appreciation to the two previous mandate holders, Mr. Maina Kiai and  Dr. Annalisa Ciampi.

  Mr. Voule takes on this mandate at a time where the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association are under increasing pressure globally and the gap between states’ international commitments and national realities is growing ever wider.  The Civic Space Initiative regards the mandate of UN Special Rapporteur as critical in bridging that gap.  Mr. Voule will build on 20 years of experience in addressing this challenge, including coordinating the recent African Commission on Human and People's Rights Study Group on the laws governing freedom of association and assembly in the region, which produced guidelines to assist states in the implementation of these rights.

  Having supported similar initiatives on a global, regional and country level since 2012, the Civic Space Initiative aims to influence policy actors to protect civic space; empower civil society actors to advance civic space freedoms; and increase the awareness and engagement of the public in supporting civic space. The CSI stands ready to support Mr. Voule in his capacity as Special Rapporteur, and urges all States to respect the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and be responsive to the mandate. 

  For more information, please contact:
  Andrew Smith, ARTICLE 19 (andrewATarticle19.org) 
  Susan Wilding, CIVICUS (susan.wildingATcivicus.org)
  Vanja Skoric, ECNL (vanjaATecnl.org) 
  Nicholas Miller, ICNL (nmillerATicnl.org) 
  Troy Johnson, World Movement for Democracy (troyJATned.org) 

• Nigeria: Urgent call to end violence against #EndSARS protesters

  🇳🇬The brutal shooting of peaceful protesters in Lagos by Nigerian security forces is a gross violation of protesters’ rights and those responsible should be held accountable by the authorities https://t.co/wRPTeH4zGu @CyrilRamaphosa @MBuhari @AUC_MoussaFaki #EndSarsNow #EndSARS pic.twitter.com/qVdi0TefX7

  — CIVICUS (@CIVICUSalliance) October 21, 2020

  The brutal shooting of peaceful protesters in Lagos by Nigerian security forces is a gross violation of protesters’ rights and those responsible should be held accountable by the authorities, global civil society alliance CIVICUS said today.

• Open Letter to president of Venezuela regarding the proposed International Cooperation Bill
  Presidente de la República
  S.E. Hugo Chávez Frías
  Palacio de Miraflores, Caracas,
  Venezuela
  Fax:+58.212.806 3698
  E-mail: 
   
  Your Excellency,
   
  Re: Proposed International Cooperation Bill
   
  I write as the Secretary General of CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, an international alliance of civil society with members and partners in over a hundred countries. CIVICUS works to strengthen civil society and citizen action throughout the world.
   
  We at CIVICUS, our members and partners, are deeply concerned about your recent comments urging National Assembly members to adopt a "severe" law to effectively stop international funding for NGOs. We would like to emphasise that Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) play an extremely important role in national life. Their constructive criticism and quest for greater accountability in public life are important assets for the nation. We therefore urge your government to respect expressions of legitimate dissent and unequivocally uphold civil society's rights to express, associate and assemble freely.
• People power under attack: just 3% of people live in countries where fundamental civic freedoms are fully respected
  • Almost six billion people live in 106 countries where there are serious violations of freedoms of expression, assembly, and association
  • This first ever global dataset on civic space shows that countries with fewer fundamental civic rights restrictions have less inequality

  Johannesburg, 4 April 2017 –Just three percent of people live in countries where the rights to protest, organise and speak out are respected, protected and fulfilled. This is according to the CIVICUS Monitor, which today releases the first-ever global dataset on civic space, a concept central to any open and democratic society which means that states have a duty to protect people's’  fundamental rights to associate, assemble peacefully and express views and opinions. CIVICUS also finds that serious violations of these rights are taking place in 106 countries - well over half of all UN Member States.

  The CIVICUS Monitor rates how open civic space is in countries based on how well they uphold the three fundamental civic freedoms that enable people to act collectively and make change: freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of expression.

  Of the 195 rated, it finds that civic space in 20 countries - Bahrain, Burundi, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Vietnam -  is closed, a rating characterised by an atmosphere of fear and violence, and severe punishment for those who dare to disagree with authorities.

  A further 35 countries are rated repressed. Fifty-one countries are rated obstructed and 63 narrowed. Just 26 countries are rated as open, meaning the state safeguards space for people in the country to share their views, participate in public life and influence political and social change.

  Click here for responsive visualisations of all of our findings: https://monitor.civicus.org/findings

  In order to highlight countries of immediate concern to us, today CIVICUS is also launching our new Watch List. This advocacy tool enables us to highlight up to five countries on the CIVICUS Monitor where there is a serious and rapid decline in the ability of people to actively engage in a country’s social and political processes, and have their voices heard. Countries on the first iteration of this Watch List include: Cameroon, Macedonia, Myanmar, the USA, and Turkey.

  “Our research shows that restrictions on fundamental civic freedoms are truly a worrying global phenomenon affecting almost 6 billion people,” said CIVICUS Secretary General and CEO Danny Sriskandarajah. “They cut across established democracies and repressive states, undermining participatory democracy, sustainable development and efforts to reduce inequality.”

  The CIVICUS Monitor provides updates on attacks against civil society organisations and activists every weekday.  Analysis of almost 500 updates published on the CIVICUS Monitor over the past four months has found:

  • Detention of activists, use of excessive force against protesters, and attacks on journalists were the three most common violations of civic freedoms.
  • Activists were most likely to be detained over criticism of authorities, human rights monitoring or demands for social or economic needs to be met.
  • Excessive force was most likely to be used against protesters who criticise government decisions or corruption, call for action on human rights abuses or call for basic social or economic needs to be met.
  • Journalists were most likely to be attacked for political reporting, covering protests or conflicts, or because of their ethnicity, religious or political affiliation.
  • In the majority of cases, the state is the perpetrator of violations, although non-state actors also frequently attack journalists, with many of these crimes going unpunished.

  “Swift action should be taken by authorities and the international community to address the rapid decline in respect for civic space in the five countries on our Watch List,” said CIVICUS Monitor lead researcher Cathal Gilbert. “Escalating attacks on protest rights in the United States, the repression of activists in Anglophone areas of Cameroon and Turkey’s all-out assault on dissent must end without delay.”

  CIVICUS Monitor ratings and daily updates are based on a combination of inputs from local activists, regional civil society experts and research partners, existing assessments by national and international civil society organisations, user-generated input and media-monitoring. The CIVICUS Monitor now provides ratings for all UN Member States and regular updates from a network of twenty research partners around the world.

  ****

  Annex I – CIVICUS Monitor ratings, 4th April 2017

  Closed (20 countries): Bahrain, Burundi, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.

  Repressed (35 countries): Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Iraq, Liberia, Mauritania, Mexico, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Republic of the Congo, Russia, Rwanda, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe.

  Obstructed (51 countries): Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire
  Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, Gabón, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tanzania,
  Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine and Zambia.

  Narrowed (63 countries): Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominica, El Salvador, France, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guyana, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kiribati, Kosovo, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia, Montenegro, Namibia, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay and Vanuatu.

  Open (26 countries): Andorra, Barbados, Belgium, Cape Verde, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Sweden, Switzerland and Tuvalu.

  Regional breakdown

  	Africa	Americas	Asia	Europe	Oceania
  Closed	9	1	10	0	0
  Repressed	15	3	14	3	0
  Obstructed	18	9	19	3	2
  Narrowed	10	21	3	19	10
  Open	2	1	0	21	2

  ****

  Notes to editors:

  The CIVICUS Monitor is available at https://monitor.civicus.org. If you have a question about the CIVICUS Monitor - see our FAQ page here.

  For more information or to set up interviews with CIVICUS staff and research partners, please contact Deborah Walter, Communication Manager, CIVICUS on or . Tel: +27 - 11 - 8335959

  CIVICUS is a global alliance of over 3,600 civil society organisations and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society around the world.

  www.civicus.org

  www.twitter.com/CIVICUSalliance

  www.facebook.com/CIVICUS

  #CIVICUSMonitor 

• PHILIPPINES: ‘We fear the democracy those before us fought so hard for will be erased’

  CIVICUS speaks about the recent presidential election in the Philippines with Marinel Ubaldo, a young climate activist, co-founder of the Youth Leaders for Environmental Action Federation and Advocacy Officer for Ecological Justice and Youth Engagement of Living Laudato Si’ Philippines (LLS).

  Founded by Catholic lay people, LLS began in 2018 as an interfaith movement calling on Filipino financial institutions to divest from coal-related operations and other environmentally harmful activities. It aims to empower people to adopt lifestyles and attitudes that match the urgent need to care for the planet. It promotes sustainable development and seeks to tackle the climate crisis through collective action.

  

  From your perspective, what was at stake in the 9 May presidential election?

  The 2022 election fell within the crucial window for climate justice. As stated in the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we need to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius or we will suffer terrible consequences, such as a rise in sea levels that will submerge much of the currently populated land, including the Philippines. Upcoming leaders will serve for the next six years –and possibly beyond. They have the immense responsibility of putting a climate change mitigation system in place for our country and urging more countries to do the same.

  As shown by Super Typhoon Rai that hit the Philippines in December 2021, climate change affects all of us. Whole communities lost their loved ones and their homes. Young people will reap the fruits, or pay the consequences, for whatever our incoming leaders do in response to this crisis. This is why climate anxiety is so prevalent among young people.

  How did young people mobilise around this election?

  Young people campaigned house to house. We also went to grassroots communities to educate voters on how to vote wisely. Alongside other organisations that form the Green Thumb Coalition, our organisation produced a Green Scorecard and we used our social media platforms to promote the ‘green’ candidate.

  One of the biggest youth initiatives around the elections was ‘LOVE, 52’, a campaign aimed at empowering young people and helping them engage with candidates and make their voices heard in demand of a green, just, and loveable future through better governance. We wanted to shift the focus from candidates’ personality and patronage politics to a debate on fundamental issues, and to help young people move traditional powerholders towards a people-centred style of policymaking.

  We called this initiative ‘LOVE, 52’ in reference to the fact that young people – people under 40 – comprise 52 per cent of the Philippines’ voting population. We sought to appeal to younger voters’ emotions, and our central theme was love because a frequent response to the question ‘why vote?’ is to protect what we love: our families, our country, and our environment. The main element of this campaign was a ‘love letter’ drafted by several youth organisations and addressed to the country. It contained young people’s calls to incoming leaders, including those of prioritising environmental and social issues, coming up with a coherent plan to address the climate crisis, and supporting a vibrant democracy that will enable climate and environmental justice. We gathered all the love letters people wrote, put them in one envelope, and delivered them physically to the presidential candidates’ headquarters.

  What are the implications of the election results for civil society and civic freedoms?

  The results of these elections will have a lot of implications for the Filipino people. They will have a direct impact on civil society and our freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly.

  The winning candidate, senator Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr., the son and namesake of a former dictator, has said that he will include his family in his administration. Just today, I saw the new president’s spokesperson on the news saying Marcos will make his own appointments, bringing in the people he trusts. I think he will really try to control the government with people who follow him unconditionally. He will put such people in all the positions available, so everyone will tell him what he wants to hear and no one will disagree with him. I think this is the scariest part of it all.

  I fear in a few months or years we will be living under a dictatorship. Marcos may even be able to stay in power for as long as he wants. After trying to reach power for so long, he has finally won, and he won’t let go of power easily.

  It’s very scary because the human rights violations that happened during his father’s dictatorship are not even settled yet. More human rights violations are likely to happen. It’s a fact that the Filipino people won’t be allowed to raise their voices; if they do so, they may risk being killed. This is what happened under martial law during Ferdinand Marcos’s dictatorship.

  This will definitely affect civil society. It will be very difficult for humanitarian workers to respond to any crisis since Marcos will likely aspire to micro-manage everything. We fear the democracy those before us fought so hard for will be erased.

  Regarding the specifics of policymaking, we don’t really know what the plan is. Marcos campaigned on vague promises of national unity and implied that all problems would be solved if people unite behind his leadership. Needless to say, he never mentioned any policy to tackle climate change and the environmental crisis.

  Against all signals, I keep hoping the new administration will be receptive to people’s demands. I really hope our new president listens to the cries of the people. Our leaders must reach out to communities and listen to our issues. I doubt Bongbong Marcos is capable of doing that, but one can only hope.

  What support does Filipino civil society need from international civil society and the international community?

  We need to ensure the international community sends out a consistent message and stands by our side when oppression starts. We also need them to be ready to rescue Filipinos if their safety is at risk. We activists fear for our lives. We have doubts about how receptive and accepting the new administration will be toward civil society. 

  Today is a gloomy day in the Philippines. We did our best to campaign for truth, facts, and hope for the Philippines. Vice President Leni Robredo campaigned for public sector transparency and vowed to lead a government that cares for the people and bolsters the medical system. If she had won the elections, she would have been the third woman to lead the Philippines after Cory Aquino and Macapagal Arroyo.

  Leni’s loss is the loss of the Philippines, not just hers. There are still too many people in the Philippines who believe Marcos’s lies. I don’t blame the masses for believing his lies; they are victims of decades of disinformation. Our system sadly enables disinformation. This is something that needs to be urgently tackled, but the next administration will likely benefit from it so it will hardly do what’s needed.

  We now fear every day for our lives and for the future of our country.

  Civic space inthe Philippinesis rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with Living Laudato Si’ Philippines through itswebsite or itsFacebook page, and follow@LaudatoSiPH on Twitter and@laudatosiph on Instagram.