France

• The French “separatism” bill raises concerns for rights and civil liberties

  Dear Commissioner Didier Reynders,

  Dear Michael O’Flaherty,

  Cc: Commissioner Ylva Johansson, Vice President Vera Jourová

  ---

  The French “separatism” bill raises concerns for rights and civil liberties: the European Commission must question France

  We, civil society organisations that advocate for rights and values, for the defence of civil liberties and the rule of law, and against any form of discrimination, are writing to raise concerns about the French “separatism” bill («projet de loi confortant le respect des principes de la République») currently under discussion in Parliament.

  Numerous actors including associations in France^[1], the national human rights body^[2] and European organisations^[3] have expressed major concerns over the bill and the implications it would have for rights and civil liberties. Among the provisions raising worries is a so-called “Contract” of Republican Engagement, that the Government will introduce by a Decree, which will give administrative authorities the right to withdraw public funding and extended possibilities for dissolution with a limited role for the judiciary. Additionally, it introduces unnecessary controls on foreign funding that cast a negative presumption on all civic organisations receiving funding from abroad.

  The bill may be considered by EU institutions as implementing EU law on combating terrorism, racism and xenophobia and its provisions may lead to disproportionate restrictions of freedom of association (article 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU - CFR), freedom of expression (art. 11 of CFR) and freedom of thought, conscience and religion (art. 10 CFR), as well as to the violation of the right to non-discrimination (art. 21 CFR). There is concern that the bill as currently drafted will affect minorities based on their ethnic origins, Muslim populations or people considered to be Muslim, and associations standing up for their rights.^[4]

  Organised civil society is a key pillar of French democracy and an important watchdog in ensuring the respect for the rule of law. We are alarmed by the fact that the law is dramatically increasing the control of public authorities and institutions on the right to associate, departing from the more than centennial liberal framework that made the French civil society sector one of the strongest and most vibrant in Europe and the world. Our concern extends to the fact that the French Government is restricting parliamentary debate to pass the law by a fast-track procedure and without consultation with civil society ahead of the legislative process.

  If the law is passed in its current form, it will also set a dangerous precedent for the rest of Europe. As a recent case in point, legislation stigmatising and restricting access to foreign funding to associations in Hungary was later proposed in Poland and Bulgaria^[5].

  The European Commission recognises the important role of civil society in the “ecosystem” of access to rights by all in the EU. The recognition of civil society’s role in safeguarding the rule of law was expressed in the Commission’s first rule of law report, and through the infringement procedure against Hungary’s law on the transparency of organisations supported from abroad. Another very positive development is illustrated by the Citizens, Equality, Rights & Values (CERV) programme funding’s increase for the 2021-2027 period.

  We urge the Commission to show a similar willingness to support civic actors in France by expressing concerns about the draft law. In particular, we call on the European Commission to:

  • Question publicly the provision restricting the right to associate and civil liberties included in the draft proposal, with no delay;
  • Open discussions with the French authorities on the current state of civic space and rule of law in the country and associate French civic actors in appropriate forms.

  We are counting on the European Commission and the European Fundamental Rights Agency to act swiftly in raising concerns regarding restrictions to rights and civil liberties with regards to the draft bill.

  LIST OF SIGNATORIES

  European and global Networks

  • CIVICUS - Global
  • Civil Society Europe - Europe
  • Equinox - Europe
  • European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL) – Europe
  • European Civic Forum (ECF) - Europe
  • European Network Against Racism (ENAR) - Europe
  • Reclaim EU - Europe

  French organisations

  • Le Mouvement Associatif – France
  • Ligue des droits de L’Homme (LDH) - France
  • Action Droits des Musulmans (ADM) - France
  • Alliance Citoyenne – France

  

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ^[1] See, for example, Joint open letter – for the attention of senators: Bill “reinforcing respect for the principles of the republic”, 7 April 2021,  the national platform, Le Mouvement Associatif, “Projet de loi Respect des principes républicains: propositions du Mouvement associative” (lmahdf.org), 13 January 2021; The coalition for associative freedoms, a Coalition bringing together more than 10,800 supporters: "Separatism law": associative freedoms in danger.

  ^[2] Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’homme , Second avis sur le projet de loi confortant le respect des principes de la République, 4 April 2021.

  ^[3] COE, The Expert Council on NGO Law is concerned about the restrictions by the Bill to strengthen respect for the principles of the Republic by all, 31 March 2021, The Expert Council on NGO Law is concerned about the restrictions by the Bill to strengthen respect for the principles of the Republic by all - Newsroom (coe.int); ECNL, France aims to strengthen respect of republican values: but how does it affect civic space?, 10 December 2021.

  ^[4] ADM analysis of the « projet de loi confortant le respect des principes de la République » 

  ^[5] European Commission, 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Poland, 30 September 2021, pl_rol_country_chapter.pdf (europa.eu), p. 16; European Commission, 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Bulgaria, 30 September 2021, bg_rol_country_chapter.pdf (europa.eu), p. 20.

  ---

   Civic space in France is rated "Narrowed" by the CIVICUS Monitor.

• As the climate crisis intensifies, so does the crackdown on environmental activism, finds new report

  New research brief from the CIVICUS Monitor examines the crackdown of environmental activism and profiles important victories civil society has scored in the fight for climate justice.

  • Environmental protests are being criminalised and met with repression on all continents
  • State authorities and private companies are common perpetrators of violations to civic freedoms
  • Despite the risks and restrictions, activist groups continue to score important victories to advance climate justice.

  As world leaders meet in Glasgow for the UN Climate Change Negotiations (COP26), peaceful environmental activists are being threatened, silenced and criminalised around the world. The host of this year's meeting is one of many countries where activists are regularly facing rights violations.

  New research from the CIVICUS Monitor looks at the common tactics and restrictions being used by governments and private companies to suppress environmental movements. The research brief “Defenders of our planet: Resilience in the face of restrictions” focuses on three worrying trends: Bans and restrictions on protests; Judicial harassment and legal persecution; and the use of violence, including targeted killings.

  As the climate crisis intensifies, activists and civil society groups continue to mobilise to hold policymakers and corporate leaders to account. From Brazil to South Africa, activists are putting their lives on the line to protect lands and to halt the activities of high-polluting industries. The most severe rights abuses are often experienced by civil society groups that are standing up to the logging, mining and energy giants who are exploiting natural resources and fueling global warming.

  As people take to the streets, governments have been instituting bans that criminalise environmental protests. Recently governments have used COVID-19 as a pretext to disrupt and break up demonstrations. Data from the CIVICUS Monitor indicates that the detention of protesters and the use of excessive force by authorities are becoming more prevalent.

  In Cambodia in May 2021, three environmental defenders were sentenced to 18 to 20 months in prison for planning a protest  against the filling of a lake in the capital. While in Finland this past June, over 100 activists were arrested for participating in a protest calling for the government to take urgent action on climate change. From authoritarian countries to  mature democracies, the research also profiles those who have been put behind bars for peacefully protesting.

  “Silencing activists and denying them of their fundamental civic rights is another tactic being used by leaders to evade and delay action on climate change” said Marianna Belalba Barreto, Research Lead for the CIVICUS Monitor. “Criminalising nonviolent protests has become a troubling indicator that governments are not committed to saving the planet .”

  The report shows that many of the measures being deployed by governments to restrict rights are not compatible with international law. Examples of courts and legislative bodies reversing attempts to criminalise nonviolent climate protests are few and far between.

  Despite the increased risks and restrictions facing environmental campaigners, the report also shows that a wide range of campaigns have scored important victories, including the closure of mines and numerous hazardous construction projects. Equally significant has been the rise of climate litigation by activist groups. Ironically, as authorities take activists to court for exercising their fundamental right to protest, activist groups have successfully filed lawsuits against governments and companies in over 25 countries for failing to act on climate change.

  ---

  DOWNLOAD REPORT

• CIVICUS at UN Human Rights Council: Human rights challenges in the context of countering terrorism

  37th Session of the UN Human Rights Council
  Oral Statement – Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism
  1 March 2018

  CIVICUS, on behalf of the Civic Space Initiative, welcomes the Special Rapporteur’s report on the human rights challenge of states of emergency in the context of countering terrorism.

  This Council has reaffirmed that the most effective means of countering terrorism is through the respect for human rights, including by addressing conditions conducive to terrorism such as a lack of respect for the rule of law, political exclusion, suppression of dissent.

  Worryingly, from the Maldives, to France, to Turkey, to Ethiopia, governments across the world are invoking states of emergency, with the effect, and in some cases the intent, of criminalising dissent and persecuting human rights defenders, protesters and civil society organisations. Rather than pursue legitimate national security objectives, these laws are applied to insulate governments from legitimate criticism. Such measures are contrary to international human rights law and are counter-productive to peace and security.

  We urge states to heed the Human Rights Committee’s guidance that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly should not be derogated, and we consider the same to be true for other rights essential to civil society.

  All national counter-terrorism laws must be brought into compliance with international human rights law, with the full and effective participation of civil society. We call on States that are currently under States of Emergency to ensure their independent review by the judiciary, and to end them where they are no longer justified by the exigencies of the situation.

  We ask the Special Rapporteur how the Human Rights Council can better support the UN Security Council in addressing the shrinking of civic space, to provide accountability for abuses of counter-terrorism measures against persons exercising their rights to freedom of assembly, association and expression.

• CIVICUS Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Submissions on Civil Society Space

  CIVICUS and its partners have submitted joint and stand-alone UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) submissions on 5 countries in advance of the 29th UPR session in January 2018. The submissions examine the state of civil society in each country, including the promotion and protection of the rights to freedom of association, assembly and expression and the environment for human rights defenders. We further provide an assessment of the States’ domestic implementation of civic space recommendations received during the 2nd UPR cycle over 4 years ago and provide a number of targeted follow-up recommendations.  

  Countries Examined: Burundi, France, Israel, Serbia, and the UAE 

  Burundi: CIVICUS, APRODH, LigueITEKA, DefendDefenders and FIDH examine the failure of the Government of Burundi to implement the vast majority of recommendations it accepted and noted during Burundi’s previous UPR cycle. In the submission, we highlight the restrictions on fundamental freedoms, the targeting of human rights defenders and Burundi’s refusal to cooperate with international human rights institutions and mechanisms. We further examine the high levels of impunity enjoyed by government officials, members of the security forces and the armed wing of the ruling CNDD-FDD party, the Imbonerakure. 

  France: While France has faced serious terrorist threats since its last UPR review, measures taken to protect the public from attacks have had negative consequences for the exercise of the fundamental freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression. In its submission to Frances third UPR review, CIVICUS outlines a series of concerns related to France’s decision to repeatedly extend its state of emergency, which has expanded powers of arrest, detention and surveillance of security forces without adequate judicial oversight and without due regard for the proportionality of measures taken to restrict fundamental freedoms. 

  Israel: CIVICUS, PNGO and ANND raise concern over ongoing violations of international human rights and humanitarian law committed in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory since Israel’s previous UPR examination. Worryingly, the authorities continue to subvert the right to freedom of expression through the criminalization of dissent online. Human rights defenders and peaceful protesters also routinely face arbitrary arrest and are held in administrative detention to suppress their legitimate work.

  Serbia: CIVICUS, the Human Rights House Belgrade (Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, Civic Initiatives, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights) and Human Rights House Foundation document the continued intimidation, attacks and harassment of human rights defenders and journalists who report on sensitive issues, such as transitional justice, corruption or government accountability. Additionally, we assess how vilification of and smear campaigns against human right defenders, CSOs, and independent media outlets is undermining the work of civil society.

  United Arab Emirates: In its joint UPR submission, CIVICUS, the Gulf Centre for Human Rights and the International Service for Human Rights examine the continued suppression of fundamental democratic freedoms in the United Arab Emirates. This report explores the ongoing systematic campaign to persecute human rights defenders through arbitrary arrests, torture, deportation and the continued use of draconian legislation to restrict freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.
  

• COP26 : « Les décideurs ont des objectifs nationaux alors que les enjeux sont transnationaux »

  Alors que la 26^ème Conférence des parties des Nations unies sur le changement climatique (COP26) se déroule à Glasgow, au Royaume-Uni, du 31 octobre au 12 novembre 2021,CIVICUS interroge des militants, des dirigeants et des experts de la société civile sur les défis environnementaux auxquels ils sont confrontés dans leur contexte, les actions qu’ils entreprennent pour y faire face et leurs attentes pour le sommet.

• COP26: ‘Decision-makers have national objectives whereas the issues at stake are transnational’

  As the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) takes place in Glasgow, UK between 31 October and 12 November 2021,CIVICUS is interviewing civil society activists, leaders and experts about the environmental challenges they face in their contexts, the actions they are undertaking to tackle them and their expectations for the summit.

• Des groupes de la société civile expriment leurs préoccupations en matière de droits humains à l'approche de la visite du prince héritier saoudien en France

  Objet : Visite du prince héritier d'Arabie saoudite, Mohammed Bin Salman, en France

  Monsieur le Président,

  Nous nous permettons de vous adresser cette lettre afin de vous faire part de notre sincère préoccupation quant à l'accueil du Prince Héritier Mohammed Bin Salman en France et au Palais de  l'Élysée.

  Cette réception contribue non seulement à voiler le bilan catastrophique de l'Arabie saoudite en matière de droits humains durant ces dernières années, mais également à encourager le prince héritier Mohammed Bin Salman à continuer de commettre ces violations. Dès son accession au pouvoir en 2017, Mohammed Bin Salman a très rapidement centralisé l’entièreté de son appareil sécuritaire afin de le placer sous le pouvoir exclusif du Roi, en créant notamment de nouvelles institutions judiciaires et sécuritaires. Cette centralisation lui a permis d’entamer une vague de répression sans précédent contre des opposants à son pouvoir et de commettre des violations flagrantes au droit international des droits humains. Parmi ces violations, nous avons pu noter des cas de disparitions forcées, de détentions arbitraires, des actes de torture et des mauvais traitements, en particulier contre des personnes exerçant leurs droits à la liberté d'expression, de réunion pacifique, et d’association.

  L'Arabie saoudite continue d'emprisonner certains défenseurs et défenseuses de droits civils, politiques et de droits des femmes. Vous vous souvenez peut-être des cas déchirants de Salma al-Shehab et Noura al-Qahtani, qui avaient été condamnées en 2022 à, respectivement, 27 et 45 ans de prison pour avoir simplement tweeté, tout en étant soumises à des actes de torture en prison. Également, Loujain al-Hathloul, éminente défenseuse des droits humains saoudienne qui a fait campagne contre l'interdiction de conduire faites aux femmes et contre le système de tutelle masculine, avait été condamnée en décembre 2018 à cinq ans et huit mois de prison, où elle a été torturée et harcelée sexuellement.

  Sous le règne de Mohammed Bin Salman, les autorités saoudiennes ont maintenu Mohammed al-Qahtani, éminent défenseur des droits humains et cofondateur de l'Association saoudienne pour les droits civils et politiques (ACPRA), dans des conditions de détention inhumaines. Malgré avoir purgé sa peine de 10 ans de prison, sa libération n’a toujours pas eu lieu en dépit des appels répétés de la société civile internationale, des appels urgents de l'ONU et des nombreuses préoccupations exprimées par plusieurs États. De plus, les autorités saoudiennes ont délibérément omis d’administrer des besoins médicaux à Abdullah al-Hamid, collègue d'al-Qahtani et militant pacifique saoudien, entraînant son tragique décès en détention en avril 2020.

  Ces cas sont loin d'être isolés et démontrent que Mohammed Bin Salman continue d’annihiler tout espace pour la liberté d’expression et d’opinion en Arabie saoudite. Des centaines de personnes, y compris des femmes, qui osent s'engager en faveur des droits humains et s'opposer au régime saoudien, risquent de faire face à la répression de Mohammed Bin Salman. Récemment, Manahel al-Otaibi, une instructrice de fitness saoudienne âgée de 29 ans seulement, a été arrêtée en novembre 2022 pour des publications sur Twitter et Snapchat appelant à la fin de la tutelle masculine et à d’autres réformes sociales.

  Au cours, de ces six dernières années, l'Arabie saoudite a fait la une des médias internationaux pour avoir doublé le nombre d’exécutions, et cela malgré les promesses répétées des autorités de réduire le recours à la peine de mort. Les autorités saoudiennes ont exécuté 81 personnes en une seule journée en mars 2022. Plus de la moitié d'entre elles appartenaient à des minorités religieuses. En 2022, les autorités ont exécuté 147 personnes, soit environ le double de l’année précédente. Ce nombre officiel serait apparemment inférieur au nombre réel d'exécutions, car la Commission saoudienne des droits de l'homme a révélé à Amnesty International que l'Arabie saoudite avait en réalité exécuté 196 personnes en 2022. Cette année, les autorités ont déjà annoncé l'exécution de 50 personnes et ont condamné à mort au moins neuf jeunes hommes pour des « infractions » qui auraient été commises alors qu'ils étaient mineurs.

  Nous vous rappelons également que suffisamment de preuves indiquent l'implication personnelle de Mohammed Bin Salman dans l’exécution extra-judiciaire de Jamal Khashoggi, selon les rapports des services de renseignement américains et le rapport de l’ancienne Rapporteuse Spéciale des Nations unies sur les exécutions extrajudiciaires, Agnes Callamard, publié en juin 2019. Callamard, qui est une citoyenne française, a subi de violentes menaces de la part de responsables saoudiens qui étaient prêts à “s'occuper d'elle". Accueillir le prince héritier en France est un mépris évident de la cruauté de son gouvernement envers ses propres citoyens et quiconque qui tente de le tenir responsable pour ses crimes.

  Il semble que la visite du prince héritier en France vise en réalité à solliciter un soutien de la France pour la candidature de l'Arabie saoudite à l'Expo 2030. Nous voudrions réitérer notre appel collectif à exclure la candidature de l'Arabie saoudite en tant qu'État hôte de l'Exposition Universelle en 2030. En particulier, nous vous demandons de bien vouloir prendre en considération tous les éléments à charge que nous vous avons exposé, en particulier l'utilisation régulière de la peine de mort, la répression sans précédent des défenseurs et défenseuses des droits humains et droits des femmes, ainsi que les attaques contre des dissidents au-delà des frontières saoudiennes, et les restrictions disproportionnées portées aux libertés d'expression, de réunion pacifique et d'association.

  L'Exposition universelle de 2030 ne fera pas exception à l’indifférence du prince héritier dans la poursuite de projets extravagants, quel qu’en soit le coût humain. Par exemple, l'Arabie saoudite affirme que son projet de ville intelligente NEOM sera "un accélérateur du progrès humain qui incarnera l'avenir de l'innovation dans les affaires, la qualité de vie et la durabilité". En réalité, depuis 2020, la construction de NEOM a contribué aux déplacements forcés de tribus indigènes dans la province de Tabuk. Certains membres ont par ailleurs été punis de manière disproportionnée pour avoir résisté à l'expulsion. Par exemple, plusieurs membres de la tribu al-Huwaitat ont été condamnés à mort ou à des peines de prison de plusieurs décennies sur la base de fausses accusations de « terrorisme ». Un groupe d'experts de l'ONU a récemment dénoncé ces violations et exhorté "toutes les entreprises impliquées, y compris les investisseurs étrangers, à s'assurer qu'elles ne causent pas ou ne contribuent pas et ne soient pas directement liées à de graves violations des droits de l'homme".

  Nous vous exhortons, Monsieur le Président, à soulever toutes les questions susmentionnées directement avec le prince héritier Mohammed Bin Salman et à en tenir compte dans vos futurs engagements avec les autorités saoudiennes.

  Nous vous prions d’agréer, cher Président, l’expression de nos plus respectueuses salutations. 

  1. ALQST for Human Rights
  2. CIVICUS
  3. Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN)
  4. European-Saudi Organization for Human Rights (ESOHR)
  5. Fédération Internationale pour les Droits Humains (FIDH)
  6. Gulf Centre for Human Rights
  7. HuMENA for Human Rights and Civic Engagement
  8. Human Rights Foundation
  9. MENA Rights Group
  10. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)

   

• France : ‘Il faut relier les organisations plus traditionnelles des droits humains avec celles issues des minorités visibles’

  English 

  Dans le cadre de notre rapport de 2018 sur le thème de « Réinventer la démocratie », nous parlons et échangeons avec des activistes et des leaders de la société civile à propos de leur travail pour promouvoir les principes et des pratiques démocratiques, sur les défis qu'ils rencontrent et les victoires qu'ils obtiennent. CIVICUS parle aujourd’hui à Jean-Marie Fardeau, délégué national de Vox Public, une organisation de la société civile française créée en 2016 pour soutenir et accompagner les initiatives citoyennes lorsque celles-ci visent à influencer les politiques publiques pour réduire les injustices sociales, les discriminations et les pratiques de corruption.

• FRANCE : « L’inscription du droit à l’avortement dans la Constitution est une véritable victoire féministe »

  CIVICUS échange avec Floriane Volt, Directrice des Affaires Publiques et Juridiques de la Fondation des Femmes, sur les récentes modifications apportées à la Constitution française pour y inclure le droit à l'avortement.

  La Fondation des Femmes est une organisation de référence en France pour la liberté et les droits des femmes et contre les violences sexistes.

  D’où vient l’initiative d’inscrire le droit à l’avortement dans la Constitution française ?

  Le droit des femmes à disposer de leur corps constitue la condition essentielle de la liberté des femmes et d’une égalité entre les femmes et les hommes. L’inscription du droit à l’interruption volontaire de grossesse (IVG) dans la Constitution était donc à la fois une nécessité et une consécration des droits des femmes et de l’égalité.

  Il est bien du rôle de la Constitution – texte fondateur de notre société, protégeant les droits fondamentaux des citoyennes et citoyens – de venir sécuriser le droit à disposer de son corps. C’est une garantie supplémentaire pour toutes les femmes. Sa remise en cause s’avèrera également plus complexe puisqu’elle relève d’une réforme constitutionnelle, un processus plus complexe qu’une simple suppression dans un texte de loi.

  Cela faisait longtemps que les associations féministes demandaient d’inscrire l’IVG dans la Constitution. C’était notamment parmi les propositions programmatiques portées par la Fondation des Femmes et le secteur associatif féministe lors de l’élection présidentielle de 2022. Déjà en 2017, une sénatrice Laurence Cohen avait porté une proposition de loi pour constitutionnaliser ce droit.

  La décision de la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis en juin 2022 de revenir sur la protection de l’IVG a agi comme une déflagration sur la scène politique française et de nombreuses voix se sont élevées pour demander cette constitutionnalisation.

  Il a fallu deux ans de travail de mobilisation d’associations comme la Fondation des Femmes, le Planning Familial et le collectif Avortement Europe, appuyées par des parlementaires engagés, pour y parvenir. Cette véritable victoire féministe a été obtenue grâce à l’union solide des féministes.

  C’est aussi la victoire de toutes les Françaises et Français qui étaient massivement en faveur de cette réforme et qui ont été quasiment 110.000 à se mobilier en trois semaines pour demander au Sénat de l’approuver, dans le cadre d’un appel de la Fondation des Femmes sur Change.org.

  Comment l’opinion publique a-t-elle réagi à cette demande ?

  Plus de 86% des Français.es étaient favorables à l’entrée du droit à l’avortement dans la Constitution.

  Il n’y avait qu’à voir les milliers de personnes qui se sont réunies dans l’après-midi du 4 mars pour célébrer l’entrée de l’IVG dans la Constitution sur le parvis des Libertés et des Droits de l’homme au Trocadéro, un lieu hautement symbolique choisi par la Fondation des Femmes pour diffuser le vote, à la hauteur de la gravité historique du moment.

  Ce fort soutien de l’opinion publique, associé au combat sans relâche des associations féministes, est venu à bout des résistances de la droite sénatoriale, qui plaidait l’absence de réelle menace sur l’avortement en France.

  Au-delà de la France, c’est une victoire et un signal très fort pour toutes les femmes et féministes du monde entier qui se battent pour l’accès à ce droit. Il y a de grandes chances que cette initiative soit reprise par d’autres États membres de l’Union européenne (UE). C’est en tout cas un des objectifs de toute cette mobilisation, qu’elle serve d’exemple.

  Une Initiative Citoyenne Européenne a été soumise à la Commission européenne pour que l’UE  finance l’avortement pour toute personne en Europe qui n’y a pas accès.

  Quelles stratégies recommanderiez-vous aux activistes des droits génésiques dans d’autres pays d’Europe et au-delà ?

  Ce qui a fonctionné en France, c’est une union solide des associations qui luttent pour les droits des femmes et de la société civile soutenue par des relais politiques – notamment des sénatrices et députées qui ont su porter ce projet commun dans les institutions.

  Cette union a été le fruit d’un long travail de coordination et de création de liens entre les associations féministes pour se mettre toutes d’accord sur un projet commun.

  Par ailleurs, il nous a semblé indispensable de pouvoir nous appuyer sur des données et des études fiables et pertinentes au sujet du droit à l’avortement. Par exemple, pour construire le plaidoyer nous avons pu nous appuyer sur un sondage montrant que cette révision constitutionnelle était soutenue par la majorité des Français.es, que la Fondation des Femmes et le Planning Familial avaient fait réaliser dès février 2021.

  Plusieurs rapports sur l’organisation et la menace que représentent les mouvements anti-choix ont également démontré l’utilité de la constitutionnalisation du droit à l’avortement. Parmi eux, un rapport du Forum parlementaire européen pour les droits sexuels et reproductifs sur les financements massifs des mouvements anti-choix en Europe et un rapport de la Fondation et de l’Institut pour le dialogue stratégique (ISD) sur la menace que représente la présence des mouvements anti-avortement sur les réseaux sociaux.

  Quels sont les prochains enjeux de l’agenda des droits des femmes en France ?

  Dans le sillage de #MeToo,les organisations féministes qui alertent depuis des décennies sur l’ampleur et la gravité des violences sexistes et sexuelles, ont enfin trouvé un réel écho. La société prend graduellement conscience de ce phénomène massif.

  Or, les chiffres de la justice disent toujours l’insupportable impunité des auteurs de violences sexuelles : alors que 94.000 femmes majeures sont victimes de viols ou tentatives de viols chaque année en France, moins d’un agresseur sur trois fait l’objet de poursuites. Nombre de #MeToo restent à faire pour résoudre le paradoxe d’une société convaincue d’avoir pris conscience de l’ampleur des violences sexuelles, mais qui n’en tire aucune conséquence pour ceux qui en sont les responsables.

  Nous faisons face à un manque d’action politique. À la Fondation des Femmes, nous militons depuis toujours pour une réponse politique à la hauteur de l’enjeu, qui passerait notamment par une hausse du budget alloué. Face aux sollicitations de victimes toujours plus nombreuses, nous avons revu son chiffre à la hausse. Dans unrapport publié en septembre 2023, nous estimons désormais les besoins entre 2,3 et 3,2 milliards d’euros par an.

  Or, la tendance est toujours à la rigueur budgétaire. Le Ministre d’Économie annonçait début mars 2024 faire l’économie de 7 millions d’euros dans le cadre de la mission égalité femmes-hommes du budget 2024. Cette coupe budgétaire représente une diminution de 10% du budget de 77 millions d’euros, voté en décembre, alors qu’il y a urgence à donner davantage de moyens aux associations qui assurent la prise en charge des femmes victimes de violences.

  ---

  L’espace civique en France est classé « rétréci » par leCIVICUS Monitor.

  Contactez la Fondation des femmes sur sonsite web, son compte d’Instagram ou sa pageFacebook, suivez@Fondationfemmes et@FVolt sur Twitter, et contactez Floriane Volt surLinkedIn.

  
  

   

• FRANCE: ‘The inclusion of the right to abortion in the Constitution is a true feminist victory’

  CIVICUS speaks with Floriane Volt, Director of Public and Legal Affairs at the Women’s Foundation (Fondation des Femmes), about recent changes to the French Constitution to include the right to abortion.

  The Women’s Foundation is a leading French organisation working for women’s rights and freedoms and against gender-based violence.

  Where did the initiative to enshrine the right to abortion in the French Constitution come from?

  Women’s right to control their own bodies is an essential condition for women’s freedom and equality between women and men. So enshrining the right to abortion in the constitution was both a necessity and a consecration of women’s rights and equality.

  It is the role of the constitution – the founding text of our society, which protects the fundamental rights of all citizens – to safeguard the right to control one’s own body. It is an additional guarantee for all women. It will now also prove more difficult to challenge it as it will require constitutional reform, a more complex process than simply deleting it from a piece of legislation.

  Feminist organisations have long called for abortion to be enshrined in the constitution. It was one of the programmatic proposals put forward by the Women’s Foundation and other feminist organisations during the 2022 presidential election. Back in 2017, a female senator, Laurence Cohen, tabled a bill to include this right in the constitution.

  The US Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling reversing its decision to protect abortion sent shockwaves through the French political scene, and many people called for the right to abortion to be enshrined in the constitution.

• French Separatism Bill threatens fundamental freedoms, warn civil society organisations

  The proposed French "separatism" bill («Projet de loi confortant le respect des principes de la République») could threaten rights and civil liberties, according to French and European civil society organisations including CIVICUS, the European Civic Forum (ECF), Le Mouvement Associatif (LMA) and la Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH). French civil society organisations and trade unions have scheduled public demonstrations against the bill on 12 June 2021.

• IRAN: ‘Women and queer people are at the forefront of the struggle against religious despotism’

  CIVICUS speaks with Asal Abasian about their experiences as a queer and feminist activist in Iran and in exile.

  Asal is an Iranian journalist and queer feminist activist. After receiving threats, they fled Iran in 2021. They first stayed in Turkey, where they freelanced with various foreign-based Persian language media outlets and Turkish media. They’re currently based in Paris, France. In Iran, same-sex relations are illegal and LGBTQI+ people can face the death penalty.

  

  What was your life like in Iran and why did you leave?

  My experience in Iran was challenging, uncomfortable and at times traumatic. However, my work as a cultural journalist focused on creativity, opening up new spaces that could escape the overt repression of traditional religious anti-queer social norms, showcasing diversity and expressions of transgression.

  Navigating this was challenging because the editorial world was a closed, misogynistic, male-dominated work environment, and because the state constantly monitored our actions. Despite these obstacles, the medium of culture, which I mainly covered, allowed for a certain degree of freedom.

  On a personal level, I embodied this challenge by pushing against the norms and visibly wearing my queer identity even in uncomfortable situations. Living in Iran as a queer person is difficult. If a same-sex relationship is exposed, it is punishable by death. Same-sex marriage is a distant dream. There’s a long way to go for the realisation of freedom for the queer community in Iran. Even if a queer person has a progressive and supportive family, the laws are against them and society is strongly queerphobic.

  Have you found safety in exile?

  Unfortunately, misogyny and homophobia exist everywhere. However, at least in a western country I have no fear of being arrested and imprisoned for my journalism or queer identity.

  But discrimination is a universal problem. In France, of course, homophobia is not as intense as in Iran and the Middle East because of protective laws, but it still exists. There are reactionary and dogmatic people everywhere, and I believe this oppression, with varying degrees of intensity, is universal.

  Living as an immigrant in the west, you can experience the intersection of oppression. Sometimes the treatment of immigrants, especially queer immigrants, is filled with violence and devoid of empathy and kindness. It seems the system is set up in such a way that immigrants are constantly discouraged from their journey and pushed back.

  Has the situation in Iran changed since you left?

  Sadly, the situation has not improved. But after the Woman, Life, Freedom movement triggered by the murder of Mahsa Jina Amini by the morality police in September 2022, women and the queer community have found more courage to fight against patriarchy and religious despotism.

  Women and queer people are at the forefront of this struggle. Change hasn’t come from the regime, but from people’s resistance against its oppression and tyranny. The fact that women are now at the forefront of civil struggles in Iran is very encouraging because no oppressive force can deter or push them back from their goal of freedom.

  However, the situation could be improved by spreading the ideas of inclusivity, equality and dignity through public education and cultural development. Much education takes place in schools, and much is also the responsibility of the media and the free flow of information. This is something we aspire to realise in countries like Afghanistan and Iran.

  What does Pride Month mean to you? Do you see a future where it could happen in Iran?

  Pride Month reminds me of the long and arduous journey of the queer movement up to this day. The fight against discrimination and oppression is a legacy we, the queer community, are proud of.

  As a member of the queer community in Iran, I hope for a day when Pride marches take place in the cities of Iran, and queer people can express their identities with pride, freely and without fear.

  But we are still a long way from that day. The problem is that the Islamic regime represents a segment of Iranian society. Part of society is very conservative and reactionary, making the possibility of change towards freedom and a safe space for queer people almost impossible. However, we remain hopeful and continue to fight for that day to come.

  ---

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

  Follow Asal Abasian onInstagram andTwitter.

• Le projet de loi Française sur le "séparatisme" suscite des inquiétudes pour les droits et les libertés civiles: la Commission Européenne doit interpeller la France

  Commissaire Didier Reynders

  Commission Européenne

  Rue de la Loi 200 / Wetstraat 200, 1040 Bruxelles

  European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights Schwarzenbergplatz 11, 1040 Vienne

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Cher Commissaire Didier Reynders, Cher Michael O’Flaherty,

  Cc: Commissioner Ylva Johansson, Vice President Vera Jourvoá

  Le projet de loi Française sur le "séparatisme"suscite des inquiétudes pour les droits et les libertés civiles : la Commission Européenne doit interpeller la France

  Nous, organisations de la société civile qui défendons les droits et les valeurs, la défense des libertés civiles et de l'Etat de droit, et qui luttons contre toute forme de discrimination, écrivons pour exprimer nos inquiétudes concernant le projet de loi français sur le "séparatisme" ("projet de loi confortant le respect des principes de la République") actuellement en discussion au Parlement.

  De nombreux acteurs civiques en France dont les associations, la Commission Nationale Consultative des droits de l'Homme française et des organismes européens, ont exprimé des préoccupations majeures concernant le projet de loi et ses potentielles implications pour les droits et les libertés civiles. Parmi les dispositions qui suscitent des inquiétudes figure le "contrat" d'engagement républicain, que le gouvernement introduira par décret et qui donnera aux autorités administratives le droit de retirer les financements publics et des possibilités étendues de dissolution avec un rôle limité pour le pouvoir judiciaire. En outre, seraient introduits des contrôles sur tous financements provenant de l'étranger qui jettent une présomption négative sur toutes les organisations civiques en bénéficiant.

  Le projet de loi peut être considéré par les institutions de l'UE comme une mise en œuvre de la législation de l'UE sur la lutte contre le terrorisme, le racisme et la xénophobie. Les dispositions qu'il contient pourraient conduire à des restrictions disproportionnées de la liberté d'association (article 12 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'UE - CFR), de la liberté d'expression (article 11 de la CFR) et de la liberté de pensée, de conscience et de religion (article 10 de la CFR), ainsi qu'à la violation du droit à la non-discrimination (article 21 de la CFR). Il y a aussi lieu de craindre que le projet de loi tel qu'actuellement rédigé n'affecte des groupes en fonction d'origines ethniques, les populations musulmanes ou les personnes considérées comme telles, ainsi que les associations qui défendent leurs droits.

  La société civile organisée est un pilier essentiel de la démocratie en France et une observatrice essentielle pour surveiller le respect de l'État de droit. Nous sommes alarmés par le fait que cette loi n'accroisse considérablement le contrôle des autorités et institutions publiques sur le droit d'association, s'écartant du cadre libéral plus que centenaire qui a fait du secteur de la société civile en France l'un des plus forts et des plus dynamiques en Europe et dans le monde.

  Notre préoccupation s'étend au fait que le gouvernement français limite le débat parlementaire en faisant adopter la loi par une procédure législative accélérée et sans consultation de la société civile en amont du processus législatif.

  Adoptée sous sa forme actuelle, la loi créerait un dangereux précédent pour le reste de l'Europe. On a vu de tels précédents créés, comme par exemple, avec une législation stigmatisant et restreignant l'accès des associations hongroises aux financements étrangers qui a ensuite été proposée en Pologne et en Bulgarie.

  La Commission européenne reconnaît le rôle important de la société civile dans l'"écosystème" de l'accès aux droits pour toutes et tous dans l'UE. On l'a vu avec le premier rapport de la Commission sur l'état de droit et avec la procédure d'infraction contre la loi hongroise sur la transparence des organisations soutenues par l'étranger. Une autre évolution très positive est illustrée par l'augmentation du financement du programme "Citoyens, égalité, droits et valeurs" (CERV) pour la période 2021-2027.

  Nous demandons instamment à la Commission de faire preuve d'une volonté similaire de soutenir les acteurs civiques en France en exprimant ses préoccupations concernant le projet de loi. En particulier, nous demandons à la Commission européenne de :

  • d'interroger publiquement et sans délai la disposition restreignant le droit d'association et les libertés civiles incluse dans le projet de loi ;
  • d'avoir une discussion avec les autorités françaises sur la situation présente concernant l'espace civique et sur le respect de l'état de droit dans le pays, ainsi que d'y associer les acteurs civiques français sous des formes appropriées.

  Nous comptons sur la Commission européenne et l'Agence européenne des droits fondamentaux pour agir rapidement en soulevant les préoccupations concernant les restrictions aux droits et aux libertés civiles dans le cadre du projet de loi.

  LISTE DES SIGNATAIRES

  Réseaux européens / globaux

  • CIVICUS - Global
  • Civil Society Europe - Europe
  • Equinox - Europe
  • European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL) – Europe
  • European Civic Forum (ECF) - Europe
  • European Network Against Racism (ENAR) - Europe
  • Reclaim EU - Europe

  Associations françaises

  • Le Mouvement Associatif – France
  • Ligue des droits de L’Homme (LDH) - France
  • Action Droits des Musulmans (ADM) – France
  • Alliance Citoyenne – Franc

  

• Mali: Reverse ban on organisations receiving funds from France

  CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organisations and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society throughout the world is seriously concerned over a decision by the Mali government to ban organisations receiving funds from France. The ban is a total violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of association; and has a chilling effect on civil society organisations in Mali.

  On 21 November 2022, the government of Mali took a decision to ban all organisations receiving funds, material, or technical support from France. This ban mainly affects organisations and groups providing emergency food aid, medical services, water supply and agricultural, as well as those involved in human rights and governance. The government of Mali is obliged to protect and promote the rights of its citizens including creating an enabling environment for civil society organisations to operate. All undue acts of intimidation, harassment, and restrictions on the right to freedom of association should be lifted in line with Mali’s international human rights obligations to enable civil society organisations (CSOs) to exercise their respective mandates.

  “The banning of these organisations is a new low for human rights in a country that has continuously failed to respect fundamental freedoms, including freedom of association. This is intended to restrict organisations committed to defending human rights and providing much needed livelihood. Malian authorities should immediately reverse this decision and allow organisations to continue their work uninterrupted,” said Paul Mulindwa, CIVICUS’ Advocacy and Campaigns Lead for Sub-Saharan Africa.

  Background

  Mali has been contending with violence from extremists groups since 2012, but also a serious political and humanitarian crisis. About 1,260,528 people are displaced by the conflict. Since May 2021 and a second coup d'état that consolidated their grip, coup leaders in Mali have gradually turned away from France, whose last soldier left the country in August 2022 after nine years of engagement against the extremists alongside the Malian army. The human rights situation in Mali continues to deteriorate, with extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and other killings, injuries, and kidnappings taking place.   Human rights groups have reported an increase in enforced disappearances, illegal arrests or detentions, including prolonged detentions and violations of due process guarantees, acts of torture or other inhuman treatment, as well as numerous cases of massive and forced displacement of civilians, death threats and acts of intimidation, looting and destruction of property.

  The banning of organisation receiving funds from France came only days after the French government announced it was suspending aid to Mali. However, France still planned to provide humanitarian aid through NGOs. Since 2013, France had been providing a total of 100 million euros each year in assistance.

  The CIVICUS Monitor rates the space for civil society in Mali as repressed.

  For more information, please contact:

  Paul Mulindwa

  Advocacy and Campaigns Lead – Sub-Saharan Africa

  Email:

• NEW CALEDONIA: ‘The French parliamentary elections will have an impact on our future’

  CIVICUS speaks with Nathalie Tehio, president of the Human Rights League, aboutrecent protests against electoral changes imposed by the French government in New Caledonia.

  In May 2024, protests broke out in New Caledonia after the French parliament passed a law that would have allowed more non-Indigenous people to vote. The French government presented the measure as a democratic reform, but many Indigenous Kanaks, who make up around 40 per cent of the population, saw the prospects of independence receding. When clashes between pro-independence protesters and police led to riots, the French authorities declared a state of emergency, deployed troops and banned TikTok. The French government suspended the electoral changes, but has recently detained some pro-independence leaders, and the situation remains tense.

  What is New Caledonia’s political status and what how does this mean for its governance?

  The 1988 Matignon-Oudinot Accords, the 1998 Nouméa Accords and the 1999 Organic Law gave New Caledonia special status within the French Republic, transferring many powers other than those of sovereignty – the army, the police, the judiciary and the currency – as part of a scheme of ‘shared sovereignty’. A title on ‘transitional provisions for New Caledonia’ was added to the French Constitution.

  This title provided for the freezing of the electorate for three planned referendums on self-determination and provincial elections, which determine the composition of the Congress that elects the government of New Caledonia. To vote in provincial elections, you have to be born before 1998 and have lived in New Caledonia for 10 years. Other elections follow French national rules.

  What led to recent protests?

  The Nouméa Accord provided for a gradual transfer of sovereignty, with three referendums on self-determination to be held in 2018, 2020 and 2021. The pro-independence Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) had called for the third referendum but then rejected the proposed date because of the pandemic that hit New Caledonia late. In 2021, many families were in mourning and a campaign could not be properly conducted due to restrictions.

  The French government maintained the date of the referendum, and the FLNKS called for a boycott. This call was widely followed by Kanak people, resulting in a turnout of only 43.90 per cent, compared to 85.64 per cent for the second referendum in 2020. In the Loyalty Islands, 95.46 per cent of voters, mainly Kanak people, abstained, and in the Northern Province 83.38 per cent did so. Despite this, the French government recognised the results and declared the Nouméa Accord null and void, urging local politicians to reach a new agreement, specifically on the composition of the electoral body.

  In the absence of an agreement, the government decided to change the make-up of the electorate by amending the constitution, allowing anyone who has lived in New Caledonia for 10 years to vote in provincial elections. This caused tensions as Kanak people, already in a minority as a result of colonisation and the nickel boom of the 1970s, saw this as a threat to their representation in institutions and the conclusion of the decolonisation process.

  After the 2021 referendum, the Caledonian Union, a FLNKS member, set up a mobilisation group, the Field Action Coordinating Cell (CCAT), which has organised protests against the electoral change. The French government ignored our warnings about the dangers of forcefully passing the amendment, and protests degenerated into blockades and fires in and around the capital, Nouméa, leading to the imposition of a curfew, a state of emergency and the blocking of TikTok. The army was deployed. There are reports of police abuse and people forming anti-Kanak militias.

  How did Kanak leaders react?

  Kanak leaders called for calm but were not listened to, nor were traditional leaders or the president of the government.

  The FLNKS refused to talk to the three senior officials who accompanied French president Emmanuel Macron on a whirlwind visit and called for a political solution to the conflict.

  The president of the Southern Province and a former deputy made fiery statements on the question of links with France. Another current in the loyalist – anti-independence – camp, represented by another ex-deputy and the mayor of Nouméa, is in favour of dialogue and the search for a new institutional agreement. Some independence supporters back dialogue with this faction of the Loyalist Party. The Oceanian Awakening party, which represents people from the Wallis and Futuna islands, considers the 2021 referendum to be ‘political nonsense’ and could play a role in dialogue if the French government adopts a position of neutrality, as promised in the preamble to the Nouméa Agreement.

  How is civil society promoting peace in New Caledonia?

  The Human Rights League was instrumental in the signing of the Matignon Accords at a time when civil war had claimed over 90 lives. But recently the Minister of the Interior criticised us and ignored our warnings. We hope the next government will listen to voices for peace.

  The unrest has so far mostly been confined to Nouméa and the surrounding communes, leaving the islands and northern provinces largely untouched. This shows that the peace process has forged links between communities. In 2022, a statue symbolising the handshake between loyalist politician Jacques Lafleur and pro-independence leader Jean-Marie Tjibaou was unveiled in the Place de la Paix (Koo We Joka). Women called for a peace rally on that square.

  New Caledonian civil society, which is deeply attached to this country, can still work towards a common destiny if France respects its commitment to the decolonisation process as set out in the Nouméa Accord.

  France must carry out impartial investigations to restore peace through legal channels. Both pro-independence and loyalist politicians must commit themselves to rebuilding a common destiny and fighting the social inequalities at the root of the revolt of young Kanaks.

  Civil society must influence elected representatives to work towards this goal and demand impartial justice. The decision to transfer CCAT leaders to provisional detention in France, more than 17,000 km away, to the detriment of their private and family lives and their rights to defence, was followed by new riots, this time in the north and on one of the Loyalty Islands.

  The French parliamentary elections will have an impact on the future of New Caledonia, and it’s vital to encourage and seek dialogue and agreement on a common destiny.

  ---

  Get in touch with the Human Rights League through itswebsite and follow@LDH_Fr and@nathalietehio on Twitter.

• NIGER: ‘France and the USA have displayed imperial attitudes towards poor countries in Africa’

  CIVICUS speaks about Niger’s recent decision to suspend military cooperation with the USA with Dr Boubacar N’Diaye, Emeritus Professor of Pan-African Studies and Political Science at the College of Wooster, international consultant on security sector governance and former chair of the African Security Sector Network, a pan-African think tank focused on security governance issues in the continent, and particularly in West Africa.

  How would you describe Niger’s security situation?

  Niger is located in a very strategic position in the continent – it’s at the heart of West Africa and the Sahel, and shares borders with Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Libya, Mali and Nigeria. This makes it an ideal location for geopolitical powers to have a presence.

  Until recently, Niger was a key security partner of France and the USA. There were French troops in the country, and in 2012, the government signed an agreement with the USA to establish a drone base to conduct surveillance and military operations against terrorism. Between 1,000 to 1,500 US soldiers were deployed under this agreement.

  But despite promises to assist Niger in fighting terrorism, little was done in this regard. Instead, the USA utilised this alliance to carry out surveillance operations in the region in support of its global geopolitical strategy.

  On 26 July 2023, Niger experienced a military coup against President Mohamed Bazoum, with the junta claiming the president’s response to the dire security situation was inadequate. The country has confronted terrorist attacks on military and civilians for quite some time. Yet the crisis extends beyond security to encompass political and social dimensions.

  Following the coup, the junta demanded France and its soldiers leave the country. France and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) imposed sanctions on Niger, resulting in power cuts and border closures. No goods or medical supplies were allowed in or out across ECOWAS borders, while terrorist attacks persisted, claiming the lives of Nigerien military personnel. Sanctions were subsequently lifted, but the crisis persisted.

  Why did Niger suspend military cooperation with the USA?

  While France maintained a firm stance against military coups in the region, the USA took a more conciliatory approach. For that, one would have expected General Abdourahamane Tchiani, the junta’s leader, to be more accommodating with the USA.

  While the military leaders were quite grateful for this, they were also irked by the arrival of a US delegation of high-ranking State Department officials who, with a typical imperial attitude, lectured them on democracy and demanded they cut all links with the Russian government. They also accused them of having secret deals with Iran to sell uranium.

  The fact that the USA belittled and showed no respect to Niger led the military junta to revoke the 2012 agreement, which it highlighted was a secret document not endorsed by the public that granted the USA carte blanche to operate in Niger as they pleased.

  In requesting the USA lo leave the country, Niger asserted its rights as a free and sovereign nation. As such, Niger is free to make deals with whichever country it chooses, with neither the USA nor France having the authority to dictate any decision.

  This decision significantly affects the USA’s geostrategic position, as Niger is the only country in West Africa where it has a military presence. If compelled to withdraw entirely, the USA would lose its surveillance capabilities and ability to project power. If the USA wants to stay and seek a new agreement with the junta, it will need to tone down its demands. But if it keeps pressing Niger to cut ties with Russia, it is unlikely to be able to reach a deal.

  Do you see Niger’s decision as part of a broader regional trend?

  Over the past few years, people in other countries in the region, including Burkina Faso, Mali, Nigeria and Senegal, have shown a desire to reaffirm sovereignty and reject the influence of imperial powers.

  France, as the former colonial power and on behalf of the European Union (EU) and the west, has particularly had a lot of influence in the region. It has conducted military operations, done business and even imposed the CFA franc, the regional currency and a relic of French colonialism in Africa.

  France, and to a lesser extent the USA, have displayed imperial attitudes towards poor countries in Africa. They have completely disregarded their national sovereignty and ignored their need for dignity. They aim to dictate to their people the type of government they should have, the decisions they should make and who they should partner with. This imperial mentality must stop.

  The public, guided by a very active civil society, is happy to see France and the USA being told to leave. They are happy to see Niger behave as a sovereign country that rejects foreign influence, particularly when both countries have done little to nothing to help resolve the insecurity dilemma Niger has faced for a decade.

  How do you understand the growing power of Russia in this context?

  Russia, and to a lesser extent China, are the default partners in the region. Despite their substantial presence and technological capabilities, France, the USA and even the United Nations have not achieved the same level of success as Russia in nations such as the Central African Republic (CAR) or Mali. Russia has been able to stabilise the security situation in the CAR, at least to some extent, and recapture major strategic cities in Mali that have been under rebel control for the last 10 years.

  Countries in the region see an alternative in Russia. This is not rooted in a Cold War mentality but rather in Russia’s longstanding presence in the region, its support for many nations during the early years of independence and its demonstrated effectiveness in combating terrorism.

  What international support does Niger’s civil society need?

  Nigerien civil society needs the solidarity of civil society across the world. Civil society organisations have suffered a lot. Niger is one of the poorest countries in the world and has faced months of a severe embargo, sanctions, electricity cuts and medicine shortages. While these measures have been lifted, so has financial assistance from the EU and France, which has exacerbated socioeconomic hardships and security issues.

  The country hasn’t collapsed – as some had hoped – but is undergoing serious socioeconomic hardship and security challenges. The military coup is not to be applauded – it’s a clear sign of political failure. But considering the context, it can be understood. People have accepted that the military are in charge, and now they need all the help and solidarity they can receive.

  The international community should adopt a more empathetic stance towards Niger, supporting the country and its authorities. They should avoid punitive measures such as sanctions, which only harm the public, and refrain from imposing decisions and norms upon the nation.

  Instead, the international community should find a formula to help Nigerien authorities navigate through this complicated context and transition back to a constitutional order, with the active involvement of local civil society.

  ---

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

  Get in touch with the African Security Sector Network through itswebsite orFacebook andLinkedIn pages, and follow@ASSN_Africa on Twitter.

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

• NOUVELLE-CALÉDONIE : « Les élections législatives en France auront un impact sur notre avenir »

  CIVICUS discute avec Nathalie Tehio, présidente de la Ligue des Droits de l’Homme, desrécentes manifestations contre les changements électoraux imposés par le gouvernement français en Nouvelle-Calédonie.

  En mai 2024, des manifestations ont éclaté en Nouvelle-Calédonie après l’adoption par le Parlement français d’une loi qui aurait permis à un plus grand nombre d’allochtones de voter. Le gouvernement français a présenté cette mesure comme une réforme démocratique, mais de nombreux Kanaks, qui représentent environ 40% de la population, ont vu s’éloigner les perspectives d’indépendance. Lorsque des affrontements entre manifestants indépendantistes et forces de l’ordre ont débouché sur des émeutes, les autorités françaises ont déclaré l’état d’urgence, déployé des troupes et interdit TikTok. Le gouvernement français a suspendu les changements électoraux, mais a récemment arrêté certains dirigeants indépendantistes, et la situation reste tendue.

  Quel est le statut politique de la Nouvelle-Calédonie et comment cela affecte-t-il sa gouvernance ?

  Les Accords de Matignon-Oudinot de 1988, l’Accord de Nouméa de 1998, et la loi organique de 1999 ont conféré à la Nouvelle-Calédonie un statut particulier au sein de la République française, transférant de nombreuses compétences à l’exception des compétences régaliennes -l’armée, la police, la justice et la monnaie- dans le cadre d’une « souveraineté partagée ». Un titre a été ajouté à la Constitution française concernant les « dispositions transitoires relatives à la Nouvelle-Calédonie ».

  Ce titre prévoyait un gel du corps électoral pour les trois référendums d’autodétermination et les élections provinciales, ces dernières déterminant la composition du Congrès qui élit le gouvernement de la Nouvelle-Calédonie. Pour voter aux élections provinciales, il fallait être né avant 1998 et justifier de dix ans de résidence en Nouvelle-Calédonie. Les autres élections suivent les règles nationales françaises.

  Qu’est-ce qui a déclenché les récentes manifestations ?

  L’accord de Nouméa prévoyait un transfert progressif de souveraineté, ainsi que trois référendums d’autodétermination organisés en 2018, 2020 et 2021. La coalition indépendantiste, le Front de libération nationale kanak et socialiste (FLNKS), avait demandé le troisième référendum, mais a ensuite refusé la date en raison de la pandémie, qui a touché tardivement la Nouvelle-Calédonie. En 2021, de nombreuses familles étaient en deuil et la campagne électorale ne pouvait pas se tenir correctement en raison des restrictions.

  Le gouvernement français a maintenu la date du référendum, que le FLNKS a appelé à boycotter. Cet appel a été largement suivi par les Kanaks, ce qui s’est traduit par un taux de participation de seulement 43,90%, contre 85,64% lors du deuxième référendum en 2020. Dans les îles Loyauté, la population, essentiellement kanake, s’est abstenue à 95,46%, et dans la province nord à 83,38%. Malgré cela, le gouvernement français a reconnu les résultats et a déclaré l’Accord de Nouméa caduc, incitant les responsables politiques locaux à trouver un nouvel accord, notamment sur le corps électoral.

  En l’absence d’accord, le gouvernement a décidé de modifier le corps électoral par une réforme constitutionnelle, permettant à toute personne ayant dix ans de résidence en Nouvelle-Calédonie de voter aux élections provinciales. Cela a déclenché des tensions car le peuple Kanak, déjà minoritaire en raison de la colonisation et du boom du nickel des années 1970, voit cela comme une menace de dilution de leur représentativité dans les institutions et la fin du processus de décolonisation.

  Depuis le référendum de 2021, l’Union calédonienne, membre du FLNKS, a créé la Cellule de coordination des actions de terrain (CCAT), qui a organisé des manifestations contre cette réforme électorale. Le gouvernement français a ignoré nos alertes en cas de passage en force, et les manifestations ont dégénéré en barrages et en incendies à Nouméa, la capitale, et aux alentours, conduisant à un couvre-feu, l’état d’urgence, et le blocage de TikTok. L’armée a été déployée Des témoignages font état d’exactions des forces de l’ordre et de la formation de milices anti-kanaks.

  Comment les dirigeants autochtones kanak ont-ils réagi ?

  Les dirigeants kanaks ont appelé au calme, mais n’ont pas été écoutés, ni les coutumiers ou le président du gouvernement.

  Le FLNKS a refusé de dialoguer avec les trois hauts fonctionnaires accompagnant le président français Emmanuel Macron lors de sa visite éclair, réclamant une résolution politique du conflit.

  La présidente de la province Sud et l’un des ex-députés tiennent des propos enflammés sur le rattachement à la France. Un autre courant loyaliste, incarné par le second ex-député et la maire de Nouméa, prône le dialogue et la recherche d’un nouvel accord institutionnel. Certains indépendantistes sont favorables à un dialogue avec ce courant du parti loyaliste. Le parti Éveil océanien, représentant la communauté wallisienne et futunienne, juge le référendum de 2021 comme un « non-sens politique » et pourrait jouer un rôle dans une mission de dialogue si le gouvernement français adopte une position de neutralité, comme promis dans le préambule de l’Accord de Nouméa.

  Comment la société civile promeut-elle la paix et la réconciliation en Nouvelle-Calédonie ?

  La Ligue des Droits de l’Homme a contribué à la signature des Accords de Matignon, à un moment où la guerre civile avait fait plus de 90 morts. Toutefois, récemment, le ministre de l’Intérieur nous a critiqués et a ignoré nos avertissements. On espère que le prochain gouvernement écoutera les voix œuvrant pour la paix.

  Jusqu’à présent, les troubles se sont essentiellement limités à Nouméa et aux communes avoisinantes, les provinces des Îles et du Nord étant peu affectées. Cela montre que le processus de paix a tissé des liens entre les communautés. En 2022, une statue symbolisant la poignée de main entre Jacques Lafleur (loyaliste) et Jean-Marie Tjibaou (indépendantiste) a été inaugurée sur la place de la Paix (Koo We Joka). Des femmes ont appelé à un rassemblement pour la paix sur cette place.

  La société civile calédonienne, profondément attachée à ce pays, peut encore œuvrer à un destin commun si la France respecte ses engagements dans le processus de décolonisation acté par l’Accord de Nouméa.

  La France doit mener des enquêtes impartiales pour rétablir la paix par des voies légales. Les responsables politiques indépendantistes et loyalistes doivent s’engager à reconstruire un destin commun et à lutter contre les inégalités sociales, causes profondes de la révolte des jeunes Kanaks.

  La société civile doit influencer les élus pour œuvrer en ce sens et exiger une justice impartiale. La décision de transfert en détention provisoire des dirigeants de la CCAT en France, à plus de 17.000 km, au détriment de leur vie privée et familiale et des droits de la défense, a été suivie de nouvelles émeutes, y compris cette fois dans le Nord et dans une des îles Loyauté.

  Les élections législatives en France auront un impact sur l’avenir de la Nouvelle-Calédonie, et il est crucial que le dialogue et un accord pour un destin commun soient soutenus et recherchés.

  ---

  Entrez en contact avec la Ligue des Droits de l’Homme via sonsite web et suivez@LDH_Fr et@nathalietehio sur Twitter.

• OLYMPICS: ‘This was supposed to be a unifying event, but the reality is always more complicated’

  CIVICUS discusses the political, economic, social and human rights implications of the recent Olympic Games with UK-based academic, journalist and author David Goldblatt, whose latest book isThe Games: A Global History of the Olympics.

  The Olympics have long been a global celebration of sport and unity, but recent editions have sparked intense debate about their impact on human rights. While the Paris 2024 Games sought to highlight gender inclusivity, environmental initiatives and urban development, they also generated significant controversies. The exclusion of Russia and Belarus but not Israel and the displacement of people from excluded groups raised questions about consistency, fairness and respect for human rights. As the focus shifts to Los Angeles 2028, concerns remain about the lasting effects of the extensive security measures put in place for the Games.

  What are the Olympics for, and why are they important?

  The purpose of the Olympic Games has evolved over time. In the original model conceived by Pierre de Coubertin in the late 19th century, they were a neo-Hellenic celebration of Victorian athletic amateurism and a space for personal diplomacy among the elite. More than 120 years on, both sport and society have changed, and so has the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) vision of the Games. Today, they are a cosmopolitan celebration of humanity through sport.

  Since abandoning amateurism in 1992, the IOC has linked the Games to several international issues, including support for universal human rights, international peace-making through the idea of an Olympic Truce, environmental sustainability with a focus on carbon neutrality and progressive urban development. Whether it succeeds in all these areas is another matter.

  The Olympic Games have also made significant progress in terms of gender inclusiveness, as they are no longer a male-only event. In recent years, there have been particular efforts to include more women as competitors and in television coverage, with Paris 2024 the first gender-equal Olympics. However, the issue of how transgender athletes should be treated remains unresolved, with highly controversial cases such as the Algerian boxer whose gender was questioned. This is a global sports problem, not just an IOC problem, and there isn’t a clear way out.

  The Games are supposed to be a unifying event, but the reality is always more complicated. The fact that Belarus and Russia were banned from taking part while Israel was accepted caused a great deal of controversy. It also seemed the focus of the event wasn’t on the athletes. Apart from global stars like Simone Biles and Léon Marchand, much of the attention was given to rapper Snoop Dogg, which is questionable for a multi-billion-dollar sporting event. The Games seem to be moving away from de Coubertin’s original vision and turning into a commercial television spectacle.

  What were the 2024 Olympics criticised for?

  The exclusion of Belarus and Russia raised questions of consistency, particularly in the light of Israel’s participation. While Israel argues it hasn’t violated international law and should therefore be treated differently to Russia, most of the world – and particularly the global south – disagrees. The IOC needs to rethink its criteria for participation, as there will always be ongoing conflicts and there should be clear rules about who can and can’t participate.

  Despite these problems, France handled protests reasonably well. Compared to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, where pro-Iranian, pro-migrant worker and pro-LGBTQI+ protesters were severely repressed, pro-Palestinian protesters were allowed to make a statement with their T-shirts and flags. And it was definitely better than the 2008 Olympics in China, where there was no room for any kind of protest, even as the human rights situation was getting worse.

  Paris 2024 also showcased a diverse, multicultural and multiracial France, both through its athletes and in the opening ceremony. This display of diversity drew criticism from conservative groups and the French far right. But one thing is clear: once the Games began, attention shifted away from these issues, making it difficult for them to gain media visibility.

  What is your overall assessment of the event?

  It’s a complex assessment. One of the biggest problems with the Olympics is that they tend to cost much more than is budgeted for. But Paris 2024 managed to keep the budget under control. France aimed for a more modest Olympics, with a budget of around US$9 billion, making it one of the cheapest editions compared to London, Rio and Tokyo. Half of the money came from public funds and the rest from IOC sponsorship and ticket sales.

  Another positive aspect of Paris 2024 was that, unlike many other Olympic Games, it was explicitly linked to an existing urban development project. The only other notable case was Barcelona 1992, which was integrated into a wider urban plan. While the Paris model was not as comprehensive as Barcelona’s, it definitely stood out. Development plans focused on Saint Denis, France’s poorest region, with new public transport links and social housing in the Olympic Village expected to benefit the area.

  However, the extent to which these developments will contribute to a greener, more equitable Paris is still under debate. Houses in the Olympic Village are likely to be sold at prices local people can’t afford, and it’s not clear that the new jobs will benefit the people of Saint Denis. It’s likely to end up with a process of gentrification similar to what happened in Vancouver and London, where most of the housing is now owned by the Qatar Investment Authority and sold at prices locals can’t afford.

  What was the environmental cost of these Olympics?

  Paris made considerable efforts to reduce its carbon footprint. Although we don’t have the final data yet, it’s likely to be a significant improvement on previous editions – with the sole exception of Tokyo, where the COVID-19 pandemic prevented many people travelling. The Paris venues were powered by renewable energy, high environmental standards were applied to the construction of the Olympic Village and car use in the city was severely restricted during the event.

  However, air travel is still a problem. Hosting an international event such as the Olympics involves people travelling from all over the world and results in a very large carbon footprint, estimated at 1.5 million tonnes or more. Attempts have been made in the past to offset this by planting forests or investing in renewable energy, but the carbon credit market has proved ineffective. We must ask whether it’s justifiable to burn as much carbon as a Caribbean island consumes in a year just to host a global sporting event and transport dressage horses. Yet this is an issue no one in the global sports industry or any other major international event is willing to address.

  Were there any major human rights concerns?

  There are at least two major areas of concern. One is the large number of unhoused or poorly housed people evicted from the city in the run-up to the Games. At least 12,500 migrant workers and residents of temporary camps were moved to other parts of France, far from their communities and jobs. This number is likely to have increased in recent months and the situation remains a tragedy.

  Clearing the streets to create the illusion that there isn’t a housing problem before staging a global event is simply wrong. But this wasn’t the first time – there have been similar evictions in Tokyo and even more in Rio. With Los Angeles 2028 on the horizon, we can expect an even higher number of evictions given the city’s large unhoused population.

  Civil society organisations advocating for the unhoused made their voices heard in the run-up to the Games, with much media coverage. But once the spectacle began, they struggled to make headlines and advocacy was quickly overshadowed by the sport.

  Another human rights issue concerns the extensive security measures for the Paris Olympics, which involved a complex process of zoning Paris, with strict policing and rules about who could enter certain areas near the venues. If you lived in one of these areas, you needed a QR code. It was a very complicated and intrusive system, but for all the grumbling, it worked reasonably well. More worrying was the use of artificial intelligence, CCTV cameras and facial recognition technology to control crowds, raising questions about privacy and the long-term use of these measures.

  The French government and police promised to dismantle all these special security measures after the Games, but there is reason for scepticism. Similar measures were introduced for previous Olympics, such as Athens 2004 and London 2012, and remain in place today. And the enormous amount of money spent on Rio’s various police and paramilitary forces for riot control ahead of the 2016 games wasn’t returned either.

  What are your expectations for the next Olympics?

  We’re going to have another four years of global warming, so Los Angeles 2028 is going to be very hot. Extreme heat could have a significant impact on events and spectators, as seen at Tokyo 2020, where a marathon had to be cancelled due to the weather.

  The high number of unhoused people in Los Angeles is another major concern. While Mayor Karen Bass has plans to address the ‘issue’, the situation is likely to worsen in the run-up to the Games, with multiple evictions, as we’ve seen in Paris.

  On the positive side, Los Angeles 2028 has promised to be a car-free Olympics. It’s difficult to see how this could be achieved in a country with such a strong car culture. But Los Angeles has public transport and a light rail network, so it’s a question of getting locals out of their cars and onto trains and buses. Whether this ambitious goal can be achieved remains to be seen, but it could be an opportunity for a lasting change in habits and more sustainable urban development.

  ---

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

  Follow@davidsgoldblatt on Twitter.

• Progress and shortcomings from 44th Session of the Human Rights Council

  Joint Statement for the end of the 44th Session of the UN Human Rights Council

  The 44th session of the UN Human Rights Council began with China's imposition of legislation severely undermining rights and freedoms in Hong Kong. Within days, there were reports of hundreds of arrests, some for crimes that didn’t even exist previously. We welcome efforts this session by a growing number of States to collectively address China’s sweeping rights abuses, but more is needed. An unprecedented 50 Special Procedures recently expressed concerns at China’s mass violations in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet, suppression of information in the context of Covid-19, and targeting of human rights defenders across the country. The Council should heed the call of these UN experts to hold a Special Session and create a mechanism to monitor and document rights violations in the country. No state is beyond international scrutiny. China’s turn has come.

  The 44th session also marked an important opportunity to enable those affected directly by human rights violations to speak to the Council through NGO video statements.

  Amnesty's Laith Abu Zeyad addressed the Council remotely from the occupied West Bank where he has been trapped by a punitive travel ban imposed by Israel since October 2019. We call on the Israeli authorities to end all punitive or arbitrary travel bans.

  During the interactive dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on Syria, victims’ associations and families of victims highlighted the human rights violations occurring in detention centers in Syria. We welcome the efforts by some States to underline their demands and welcome the adoption of the Syria resolution on detainees and urge the Syrian government to take all feasible measures to release detainees and provide truth to the families, noting the important pressure needed by Member States to further call for accountability measures for crimes committed in Syria.

  Collette Flanagan, Founder of Mothers against Police Brutality, also delivered a powerful video statement at the Council explaining the reality of racist policing in the United States of America. We fully support victims’ families’ appeals to the Council for accountability.

  We hope that the High Commissioner's reporton systemic racism, police violence and government responses to antiracism peaceful protests will be the first step in a series of meaningful international accountability measures to fully and independently investigate police killings, to protect and facilitate Black Lives Matter and other protests, and to provide effective remedy and compensation to victims and their families in the United States of America and around the world.

  We appreciate the efforts made by the Council Presidency and OHCHR to overcome the challenges of resuming the Council’s work while taking seriously health risks associated with COVID-19, including by increasing remote and online participation. We recommend that remote civil society participation continue and be strengthened for all future sessions of the Council.

  Despite these efforts, delays in finalising the session dates and modalities, and subsequent changes in the programme of work, reduced the time CSOs had to prepare and engage meaningfully. This has a disproportionate impact on CSOs not based in Geneva, those based in different time zones and those with less capacity to monitor the live proceedings. Other barriers to civil society participation this session included difficulties to meet the strict technical requirements for uploading video statements, to access resolution drafts and follow informal negotiations remotely, especially from other time zones, as well as a decrease in the overall number of speaking slots available for NGO statements due to the cancellation of general debates this session as an ‘efficiency measure.’

  We welcome the joint statement led by the core group on civil society space and endorsed by cross regional States and civil society, which calls on the High Commissioner to ensure that the essential role of civil society, and States’ efforts to protect and promote civil society space, are reflected in the report on impact of the COVID-19 pandemic presented to the 46th Session of the HRC. We urge all States at this Council to recognise and protect the key role that those who defend human rights play.

  These last two years have seen unlawful use of force perpetrated by law enforcement against peaceful protesters, protest monitors, journalists worldwide, from the United States of America to Hong Kong, to Chile to France, Kenya to Iraq to Algeria, to India to Lebanon with impunity.

  We therefore welcome that the resolution “the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests” was adopted by consensus, and that the Council stood strongly against some proposed amendments which would have weakened it. We also welcome the inclusion in the resolution of a panel during the 48th session to discuss such events and how States can strengthen protections. We urge States to ensure full accountability for such human rights violations as an essential element of the protection of human rights in the context of protests. The current context has accelerated the urgency of protecting online assembly, and we welcome that the resolution reaffirms that peaceful assembly rights guaranteed offline are also guaranteed online. In particular, we also commend the resolution for calling on States to refrain from internet shutdowns and website blocking during protests, while incorporating language on the effects of new and emerging technologies, particularly tools such as facial recognition, international mobile subscriber identity-catchers (“stingrays”) and closed-circuit television.

  We welcome that the resolution on “freedom of opinion and expression” contains positive language including on obligations surrounding the right to information, emphasising the importance of measures for encryption and anonymity, and strongly condemning the use of internet shutdowns. Following the High Commissioner’s statement raising alarm at the abuse of ‘false news’ laws to crackdown on free expression during the COVID-19 pandemic, we also welcome that the resolution stresses that responses to the spread of disinformation and misinformation must be grounded in international human rights law, including the principles of lawfulness, legitimacy, necessity and proportionality. At the same time, we are concerned by the last minute addition of language which focuses on restrictions to freedom of expression, detracting from the purpose of the resolution to promote and protect the right. As we look to the future, it is important that the core group builds on commitments contained in the resolution and elaborate on pressing freedom of expression concerns of the day, particularly for the digital age, such as the issue of surveillance or internet intermediary liability, while refocusing elements of the text.

  The current context has not only accelerated the urgency of protecting assembly and access to information, but also the global recognition of the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. We welcome the timely discussions on ”realizing children’s right to a healthy environment” and the concrete suggestions for action from panelists, States, and civil society. The COVID-19 crisis, brought about by animal-to-human viral transmission, has clarified the interlinkages between the health of the planet and the health of all people. We therefore support the UN Secretary General’s call to action on human rights, as well as the High Commissioner’s statement advocating for the global recognition of the human right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment – already widely reflected at national and regional levels - and ask that the Council adopts a resolution in that sense. We also support the calls made by the Marshall Islands, Climate Vulnerable Forum, and other States of the Pacific particularly affected and threatened by climate change. We now urge the Council to strengthen its role in tackling the climate crisis and its adverse impacts on the realization of human rights by establishing a Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Climate Change, which will help address the urgency of the situation and amplify the voices of affected communities.

  The COVID crisis has also exacerbated discrimination against women and girls. We welcome the adoption by the Council of a strong resolution on multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination against women and girls, which are exacerbated in times of a global pandemic. The text, inter alia, reaffirms the rights to sexual and reproductive health and to bodily autonomy, and emphasizes legal obligations of States to review their legislative frameworks through an intersectional approach. We regret that such a timely topic has been questioned by certain States and that several amendments were put forward on previously agreed language.

  The Council discussed several country-specific situations, and renewed the mandates in some situations.

  We welcome the renewal of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate and ongoing scrutiny on Belarus. The unprecedented crackdown on human rights defenders, journalists, bloggers and members of the political opposition in recent weeks ahead of the Presidential election in August provide a clear justification for the continued focus, and the need to ensure accountability for Belarus’ actions. With concerns that the violations may increase further over the next few weeks, it is essential that the Council members and observers maintain scrutiny and pressure even after the session has finished.

  We welcome the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Eritrea. We urge the government to engage, in line with its Council membership obligations, as the Special Rapporteur’s ‘benchmarks for progress’ form a road map for human rights reform in the country. We welcome the High Commissioner report on the human rights situation in the Philippines which concluded, among other things, that the ongoing killings appear to be widespread and systematic and that “the practical obstacles to accessing justice in the country are almost insurmountable.” We regret that even during this Council session, President Duterte signed an Anti Terrorism Law with broad and vague definition of terrorism and terrorists and other problematic provisions for human rights and rule of law, which we fear will be used to stifle and curtail the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. Also during this session, in a further attack on press freedom, Philippine Congress rejected the franchise renewal of independent media network ABS-CBN, while prominent journalist Maria Ressa and her news website Rappler continue to face court proceedings and attacks from President Duterte after Ressa’s cyber libel conviction in mid-June. We support the call from a group of Special Procedures to the Council to establish an independent, impartial investigation into human rights violations in the Philippines and urge the Council to establish it at the next session.

  The two reports presented to the Council on Venezuela this session further document how lack of judicial independence and other factors perpetuate impunity and prevent access to justice for a wide range of violations of civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights in the country. We also urge the Council to stand ready to extend, enhance and expand the mandate of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission when it reports in September. We also welcome the report of the Special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 and reiterate his call for States to ensure Israel puts an end to all forms of collective punishment. We also reiterate his call to ensure that the UN database of businesses involved with Israeli settlements becomes a living tool, through sufficient resourcing and annual updating.

  We regret, however, that several States have escaped collective scrutiny this session.

  We reiterate the UN Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard’s call to pressure Saudi Arabia to release prisoners of conscience and women human rights defenders and call on all States to sustain the Council’s scrutiny over the situation at the September session.

  Despite calls by the High Commissioner for prisoners’ release, Egypt has arrested defenders, journalists, doctors and medical workers for criticizing the government’s COVID-19 response. We recall that all of the defenders that the Special Procedures and the High Commissioner called for their release since September 2019 are still in pre-trial detention. The Supreme State Security Prosecution and 'Terrorism Circuit courts' in Egypt, are enabling pre-trial detention as a form of punishment including against human rights defenders and journalists and political opponents, such as Ibrahim Metwally, Mohamed El-Baqer and Esraa Abdel Fattah, Ramy Kamel, Alaa Abdel-Fattah, Patrick Zaky, Ramy Shaat, Eman Al-Helw, Solafa Magdy and Hossam El-Sayed. Once the terrorism circuit courts resumed after they were suspended due to COVID-19, they renewed their detention retroactively without their presence in court. It’s high time the Council holds Egypt accountable.

  As highlighted in a joint statement of Special Procedures, we call on the Indian authorities to immediately release HRDs, who include students, activists and protest leaders, arrested for protesting against changes to India’s citizenship laws. Also eleven prominent HRDs continue to be imprisoned under false charges in the Bhima Koregaon case. These activists face unfounded terror charges under draconian laws such as sedition and under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. While we welcome that Safoora Zargar was granted bail on humanitarian grounds, the others remain at high risk during a COVID-19 pandemic in prisons with not only inadequate sanitary conditions but also limited to no access to legal counsel and family members. A number of activists have tested positive in prison, including Akhil Gogoi and 80-year-old activist Varavara Rao amid a larger wave of infections that have affected many more prisoners across the country. Such charges against protestors, who were exercising their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly must be dropped. We call on this Council to strengthen their demands to the government of India for accountability over the excessive use of force by the police and other State authorities against the demonstrators.

  In Algeria, between 30 March and 16 April 2020, the Special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, human rights defenders, issued three urgent appeals in relation to cases involving arbitrary and violent arrests, unfair trials and reprisals against human rights defenders and peaceful activists Olaya Saadi, Karim Tabbou and Slimane Hamitouche. Yet, the Council has been silent with no mention of the crackdown on Algerian civil society, including journalists.

  To conclude on a positive note, we welcome the progress in the establishment of the OHCHR country office in Sudan, and call on the international community to continue to provide support where needed to the transitional authorities. While also welcoming their latest reform announcements, we urge the transitional authorities to speed up the transitional process, including reforms within the judiciary and security sectors, in order to answer the renewed calls from protesters for the enjoyment of "freedom, peace and justice" of all in Sudan. We call on the Council to ensure continued monitoring and reporting on Sudan.

  ENDORSEMENTS

  International Service for Human Rights
  DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
  Center for Reproductive Rights
  Franciscans International
  The Syrian Legal Development Programme
  Egyptian Front for Human Rights (EFHR)
  CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
  International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
  International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA World)
  Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS)
  Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)
  ARTICLE 19
  International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
  Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
  IFEX
  Association for Progressive Communications
  International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
  Amnesty International

   

  ---

  Current council members:

  Afghanistan, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Eritrea, Fiji, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Libya, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Poland, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Slovakia, Somalia, Sudan, Spain, Togo, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela

  Civic space ratings from the CIVICUS Monitor

  OPEN	NARROWED	OBSTRUCTED	REPRESSED	CLOSED