Jul 31, 2020 | Agendas, Events, News
The ICJ, together with the Global Initiative on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR) and the Right to Education Initiative (RTE), held webinars on 24 and 31 July.
The discussions explored The Guiding Principles on the Human Rights Obligations of States to provide public education and to regulate private involvement in education (Abidjan Principles) and their application in the context of COVID-19.
The webinars focused respectively on public education and private education.
Participants included judges and representatives of civil society organizations from Kenya, Uganda, South Africa and Sierra Leone.
“The aim of the conversation in these webinars is to better understand the problems facing civil society and judiciaries in the four countries in ensuring the protection of the right to education in the context of Covid-19 and the increased privatization of education,” said ICJ Commissioner Justice Jamesina King of Sierra Leone.
The Abidjan Principles, based in large measures on existing international law and standards, were developed by leading international experts and adopted in 2019.
They clarify and set out elements of State obligations to uphold the right to education and related standards in both public and private educational settings.
Participants were able to deepen their understanding of the Abidjan Principles as well as the increased pressure placed on education systems across Africa as a result of COVID-19.
“COVID-19 has dramatically exacerbated already well-known issues in the realization of the right to education” and the “divide in quality of access to education between public and private sectors,” added Justice King.
“Private actors in particular… have been reported to have capitalized on the pandemic to extend their business in the education sectors.”
Participants raised concerns about the use of public funds to support private actors in education, an issue which is addressed by the Abidjan Principles.
Ashina Mtsumi from the GI-ESCR, summarized the Abidjan Principles and emphasized that “States’ first priority should be public education, as there is no obligation for states to fund private actors in education.”
A theme emerging from the discussions was the important role of the State in regulating private actors in education in the context of the global pandemic. Judges discussed the role of the judiciaries in their respective countries in ensuring the protection of the right to education.
“Can courts force private institutions to continue [operating] or even reduce school fees as an incidence of the right to education?,” Justice Joel Ngugi of Kenya asked.
Justice Ngugi also highlighted the need for governments to ensure that schools are safe for all learners in the context of COVID-19.
Judge Lydia Mugambe said that while in Uganda the pandemic had seen some private schools continuing with online learning, learners in public schools had had to depend on State provision of learning through newspapers and news stations which had not been sufficient. In the COVID-19 context, States must ensure that they continue to “require private instructional educational institutions to meet the minimum standards set by the State”, as indicated by the Abidjan Principles.
“The real problem is that our infrastructure is bad, the education system is bad and we have had a constitutional right to education since 1994 and I am embarrassed to say that the Covid-19 crisis has not exacerbated the problems, but has exposed the problems and have left no place to hide for years and years of government negligence,” said former Justice of the Constitutional Court in South Africa Zak Yacoob.
Representative from civil society organizations from all four countries emphasized the increasing risks introduced to the right to education as a result of privatization of education in Africa.
Watch the first webinar here.
Contact:
Khanyo Farisè (ICJ Legal Adviser) e: Nokukhanya.Farise(a)icj.org
Tim Fish Hodgson (ICJ Legal Adviser) t: +27828719905; e: timothy.hodgson(a)icj.org
Jul 28, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
The ICJ intervened today in the case of the potential surveillance by Polish secret services of Mikołaj Pietrzak, lawyer and chair of the Warsaw Bar Association, Dominika Bychawska-Siniarska et Barbara Grabowska-Moroz of the Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights, and Wojciech Klicki and Katarzyna Szymielewicz of the foundation Panoptykon.
The five applicants applied to the European Court of Human Rights claiming a violation of their rights to privacy and to an effective remedy because the system of secret surveillance and collection of metadata created by the Law amending the Law of the Police of 15 January 2016 and the Anti-Terrorism Law of 16 June 2016 does not provide sufficient guarantees for this rights’ protection.
In its third party intervention, the ICJ addressed (1) the application of the principles of prescription by law, necessity and proportionality, in circumstances when mass and targeted surveillance interferes with the right to respect for private life under Article 8 ECHR, in particular when it affects lawyers and human rights defenders; (2) the obligations of States under Article 8 and 6 ECHR to ensure respect for the confidentiality of lawyer-client relations and the principle of legal professional privilege.
The ICJ argued that secret surveillance, in particular where it interferes with the confidentiality of communications of lawyers and human rights defenders, and endangers lawyer-client privilege protected under Articles 8 and 6 ECHR, should be subject to specific safeguards and to particularly strict scrutiny of its necessity and proportionality.
The third party intervention can be found here: PIetrzak&HF_v_Poland-AmicusCuriae-ECtHR-Cases-2020-ENG
Jul 22, 2020 | Advocacy, Cases, Legal submissions, News
The ICJ and Amnesty International have submitted a joint third party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Judges Mariusz Broda and Alina Bojara.
The case concerns the premature termination of their mandates as vice-presidents of the regional tribunal of Kielce in Poland. The two judges, that had been appointed to six-year terms in 2014, had their position revoked by the Minister of Justice in 2018.
The revocation was based on article 17.1 of the Law of 12 July 2017 modifying the Law on the Judicial System. This provision, presented and approved by the ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS), gave the Minister of Justice the power to revoke courts’ presidents and vice-presidents without justified grounds and with no possibility of appeal.
The two judges applied to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that they had been denied access to a tribunal to challenge the termination of their mandate .
In their third party intervention, the ICJ and Amnesty International analyze international standards on judicial independence, including as regards the role court presidents and vice-presidents, and the consequences of these standards for the right of access to court under Article 6.1 ECHR. The intervention also analyses the recent legislative and policy developments that have seriously undermined the independence of the Polish judiciary.
Read the full intervention here: Broda_v_Poland-AmicusCuriae-ICJ&AI-Cases-2020-ENG.
Jul 15, 2020 | Advocacy, Multimedia items, News, Video clips
The ICJ today condemned the order issued by Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri, Malaysia’s Minister in charge of religious affairs, to the Federal Territories Islamic Religious Department (Jawi) to take action against the transgender community.
The ICJ called on the Minister to rescind the order immediately and take steps to ensure non-discrimination and equal protection of all persons in Malaysia, including LGBTI persons.
On 10 July 2020, Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri announced in a social media post that he had given the Jawi authorities “full licence to carry out its enforcement actions” against transgender persons in Malaysia. He elaborated that his order would beyond arresting transgender persons but would also extend to providing them “religious education” so that they would “return to the right path”.
“This unacceptable transphobic and homophobic attack from a government official highlights the societal prejudices and the lack of legal protections against discrimination faced by transgender persons in Malaysia,” said Ambiga Sreenavasan, a prominent Malaysian lawyer and Commissioner of the ICJ.
“Instead of ensuring that the human rights and dignity of all persons are respected and protected, the Minister, through his statement, is going in the complete opposite direction by advocating state action against persons belonging to sexual orientation and gender identity minorities,” added Ambiga Sreenavasan. “The Minister is legitimizing harassment, discrimination and violence against transgender people, and increasing violations of their human rights.”
Across the country in 13 states and the federal territories, a “male” who “poses” as a woman or wears the clothing of a “woman” may be subjected to criminal liability under state-level religious enactments. Consensual same-sex sexual relations are criminalized as “unnatural offences” in both secular civil law and religious state-level laws. These “offences” carry heavy penalties in the form of fines, imprisonment and corporal punishment in the form of caning, which constitutes impermissible cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment under international law and standards.
The ICJ stressed that these laws served to institutionalize systemic discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, while also creating barriers for LGBT people when seeking justice. They provide state authorities with expansive power to police gender identities, expressions and sexual orientations of people.
The ICJ notes that experiences of severe stigma, marginalization, and violence committed by families, communities, and State actors lead to immense health risks and mental health disparities of transgender individuals.
The ICJ is also deeply concerned about the Minister’s plan to require members of the transgender community to undergo religious conversion therapy. Numerous studies have shown how religious conversion therapy and related practices are causing real harm not only to transgender people, but also to lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.
The ICJ calls on the Government of Malaysia to abide by its obligations under international law and follow through with its commitment to human rights, by ensuring that transgender people and all persons are legally protected against discrimination, and that they are able to live free from prejudice, harassment, and violations of their human rights.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Background
In 2019, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) released a report on Transgender Persons in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. Many of the transgender people interviewed for this report said that they constantly face arbitrary arrests, discrimination in obtaining employment, and even discrimination in obtaining housing because of their gender identity. A large majority of those interviewed experienced violence because of their gender identity.
Jul 11, 2020 | News
The Malaysian authorities must immediately put an end to their increasing attacks on freedom of expression, especially the media, international non-governmental organisations the ICJ, Amnesty International, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation said today.
Laws incompatible with international human rights law and standards, including the Sedition Act 1948 and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998, are being used to limit free speech and press freedom and should be repealed by the legislature.
In the latest move in the ongoing clampdown on criticism and other expression, authorities have targeted those involved in making the documentary “Locked Up in Malaysia’s Lockdown,” by news broadcaster Al Jazeera and its 101 East series – which reported on the authorities’ arrests of migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Al-Jazeera is being investigated for sedition and defamation, and has also been accused of breaching the Communications and Multimedia Act by the Malaysian authorities.
On 3 July 2020, Al Jazeera on its 101 East Stream published a documentary that investigated the arrests, detention, and ill-treatment of refugees and undocumented migrant workers during the outbreak of COVID-19 in Malaysia. The documentary highlighted raids conducted by authorities; the inhumane conditions of detention; and the situation of migrant workers who fear arrest. Those detained were found to be held in cramped facilities, while migrant workers at risk of detention suffered from a severe lack of adequate food. The documentary also highlighted the chilling effect the government crackdown has had on the migrant worker community, who fear for their lives and safety.
Rather than addressing the concerns raised in the documentary, the government has instead sought to question the reporters involved, and pursue migrant workers who spoke with Al Jazeera. By initiating a public campaign against migrants and refugees and publishing personal details of the migrant workers who were featured in the report, the authorities have also placed the lives and safety of those interviewed in jeopardy.
The government’s subsequent threats to revoke the visas of foreign workers appears intended to intimidate other migrant workers from speaking up about human rights violations, including mistreatment. These actions have contributed to a worrying rise in intolerance towards freedom of expression, including critical views.
Amnesty International, CIVICUS World Alliance for Citizen Participation, and the ICJ consider these actions as forms of harassment and intimidation of the media, migrant workers, and others exercising their right to freedom of expression, including criticism or dissent.
The use of the Sedition Act 1948, Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, and criminal investigations against the media set a dangerous precedent and are incompatible with international law and standards. These laws place restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression that are overly broad, unnecessary and disproportionate, and inconsistent with rule of law and human rights principles.
We reiterate their our previous calls on the Government of Malaysia to abolish both laws, which have historically been used to silence voices of those challenging government policy.
Background
Since the COVID-19 pandemic emerged earlier this year, the Malaysian government has launched a crackdown on refugees, asylum-seekers and migrant workers, carrying out a series of raids on settlements in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. Most notably, raids were carried out as Labour Day operations on 1 May 2020, but also continued afterwards.
In response to these raids, the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) denounced the crackdowns on migrant workers and journalists on 21 May. Migrant workers fear for their safety and there have been reports of suicide amongst them.
Amid growing concerns about the crackdown, the government has increasingly sought to silence criticism.
On 7 July, refugee aid worker Heidy Quah was questioned by police for posting a statement on the raids and the treatment of migrant and refugee children on social media. Her lawyer confirmed that she is being investigated under the Penal Code for criminal defamation and the Communications and Multimedia Act for the ‘improper use of network facilities or network service’.
Since the Perikatan Nasional government assumed power, numerous investigations have been launched against individuals who have criticized government actions. Since February 2020, a journalist has been investigated by police for reporting on immigration raids; a member of parliament was investigated for criticising the May parliamentary session for not permitting debates; and a large number of ordinary Malaysians have been convicted for a variety of social media postings, including for criticising the enforcement of quarantine orders under the Movement Control Order (MCO).
In another recent attack on media freedom, on 2 July 2020, contempt of court charges were filed against Steven Gan, editor-in-chief of online news outlet Malaysiakini, over comments that were posted by readers that were allegedly critical of the judiciary. The Federal Court will next hear the case on 13 July. If convicted, Gan faces an unlimited prison sentence or fine.
