Showing posts with label Lithuania. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lithuania. Show all posts

Monday, 26 September 2011

Human rights defenders need solidarity from all parts of Europe when repressed by their governments

Destroyed Azeri human rights group office
By Thomas Hammarberg

The clampdown on human rights defenders in Belarus continues unabated. In early August, Ales Bialiatski, the chair of the Human Rights Centre Viasna and vice-President of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), was arrested. He is still being held in pre-trial detention. Activists who have demonstrated for his release have been summoned by the police and one of them is awaiting trial.

Viasna has been at the forefront of human rights defence in Belarus for years. The detention of Ales Bialiatski and the current criminal investigation process are seriously jeopardising the organisation’s activities to the detriment of victims of human rights violations, who have come to depend on the assistance provided by Viasna.

Another sad example has been reported from Azerbaijan. In mid-August, bulldozers demolished a building in Baku where several human rights organisations were located, including the Office of the Institute for Peace and Democracy led by Leyla Yunus. This demolition took place in the evening, despite a court decision temporarily prohibiting the destruction of the building.

As the house was torn down without any prior notification the persons who worked there were unable to salvage any papers, computers or other working materials. It is generally believed that the action was directed towards Leyla Yunus, who has been vocal in denouncing corruption and forced evictions in Azerbaijan.

Rights that protect and enable the work 

The importance of the work of human rights defenders is recognised in international conventions. The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders lists several fundamental rights necessary for the work of human rights defenders, such as freedom of association, peaceful assembly, expression and opinion, the right to be protected and the right to effective remedy. Many of these rights are also enshrined in other binding human rights treaties of the UN, in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the OSCE commitments.
Yet reports about breaches of these standards continue to reach me. Authorities can obstruct the work of human rights defenders by making it difficult to register organisations or by creating burdensome reporting and financial requirements. Hindering access to funding through excessively cumbersome procedures is another method which is frequently employed.

Viasna, for example, was dissolved in 2003 and has since then been denied the possibility to re-register. Belarusian legislation outlaws the operation of unregistered organisations and criminalises the activities of their individual members – a clear breach of international standards. In 2007, the UN Human Rights Committee concluded that Viasna’s dissolution was a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (article 22).

Denial of right to receive funding 

The Belarusian authorities are now accusing Ales Bialiatski of “concealment of profits on an especially large scale”. They are using information provided by official institutions in Vilnius and Warsaw about bank accounts established in the name of Bialiatski, to which foreign donors have been able to send contributions.

The right to access funding is protected in international and regional human rights treaties. The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders states that everyone has the right “to solicit, receive and utilize resources for the express purpose of promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms through peaceful means”.

I know that the governments in Vilnius and Warsaw regret that the protection of human rights defenders’ integrity and work was not taken into account when information was provided to the Belarusian authorities and that they are now trying to limit the damage.

Sadly, this unintended mistake is being used in the case against Ales Bialiatski who is threatened with a long prison sentence. And he is not the only victim of policies to prevent voluntary solidarity efforts for those who suffer human rights violations.

Governments have a primary responsibility 

It is therefore particularly important that the protection of the safety of human rights defenders be reaffirmed as a crucial standard. Whenever this universally agreed undertaking is abrogated in one state, governments in other countries – including Council of Europe member states – must react.

Thomas Hammarberg is the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, 18 September 2011

In Lithuania, a bigoted debate on immigration rights of gays, Muslims

The coat of arms of Lithuania, entitled "...Image via Wikipedia
Source: TRACE

The Seimas [Lithuanian parliament] fears that following adoption of the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners Lithuania will be open to married Muslims with four wives and gay couples. The presentation of the draft of this law was therefore suspended on Tuesday and the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Seimas was assigned to assess the constitutionality of the draft. 

The compliance of the draft of the law with the Constitution caused doubts in most members of the Seimas, and 82 MPs therefore voted in favour of the assessment of the draft law by the committee.

As reported by 15min.lt portal,  the debate in the Seimas was provoked by a provision of the proposed law under which the concept of a family member who may arrive to Lithuania under facilitated conditions includes a spouse or a party with whom a registered partnership agreement was finalised.

MP Rimantas Jonas Dagys stated that this definition of family will enable ‘Muslims with four wives and same sex spouses’ to come to Lithuania. "Why are we trying to, de facto, legalise this extended understanding of the family, disregarding the fact that our Constitution does not allow this?" was the question Dagys addressed to Interior Minister Raimundas Palaitis, who presented the draft law to the parliament.

According to the minister, these concerns of MPs are ungrounded. According to him, the concept of family will not be extended if foreigners are provided with an opportunity to bring their family members whose family status is legalised in their home country. He stated that Lithuania needs to pass the law as soon as possible, because we are already delaying the transfer of EU directives providing for freer movement of persons to Lithuanian legislation.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, 4 July 2011

'Section 28' type laws spreading in Eastern Europe

Former British Prime Minister Margaret ThatcherImage via Wikipedia
By Paul Canning

In 1988 Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government included a clause in a local government bill which said that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". This became known as 'Section 28', made teachers afraid of mentioning homosexuality in any context in schools and it wasn't repealed until 2003.

Now 'Section 28' type laws are coming back - in Eastern Europe.

Lithuania in 2009 pass a law to 'protect minors' banning "propaganda of homosexual, bisexual or polygamous relations". After an outcry from its fellow European Union members this was amended to a "ban to spread information that would promote sexual relations or other conceptions of concluding a marriage or creating a family other than established in the Constitution or the Civil Code" and a ban on information that "profanes family values". The Lithuanian government claimed it wasn't discriminatory but since coming into effect the law has only been used once and that is to try to ban the Vilnius Gay Pride in 2010.

Russia now has two regions with similar laws following the passage of a law in the Arkhangelsk region last week. The other one is Ryazan.

A group of local community and religious organizations calling themselves the "scientific community" of the region pushed the necessity of banning the "promotion of homosexuality". They argued that since only 1% of people are biologicaly born homosexual the rest must somehow catch it through being 'influenced by the society'.

Activists have already challenged the Ryazan law in the European Court of Human Rights after the Russian Constitution Court denied that the law contradict with the Constitution's freedom of expression provisions. But even if the European Court condemns the law it is likely to be added to the pile of rulings against them then ignored by Russia.

Now members of the Ukrainian Parliament have introduced legislation "On Introduction of Changes to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine (regarding protection of children rights on the safe information sphere)”. This would establish a criminal liability for "propaganda of homosexualizm".

Those introducing it say it's needed because:
"The spread of homosexualizm is a threat to national security, as it leads to the epidemic of HIV/AIDS and destroys the institution of family and can cause a demographic crisis."
This new law goes even further than the others - it establishes a 'liability for distribution of products that promote homosexualizm.'

So no exports of 'Glee' or rainbow earrings to Ukraine then. And surely the Eurovision Song Contest would have to be censored?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Related Posts with Thumbnails