Global Human Rights Day: Open letter to the Prime Minister and political leaders, urging them to protect universal human rights in the UK.

 On global Human Rights Day, 75+ groups from across the UK issue an open letter to the Prime Minister and political leaders, urging them to protect universal human rights in the UK.

On the 75^th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) have coordinated an open letter to the Prime Minister and political leaders signed by 75+ organisations from across the UK.

Published on 10^th December 2023, global Human Rights Day, the letter highlights the United Nations’ call for a “movement of shared humanity” - a sentiment reflected by the breadth of organisations that have signed it. Grassroots groups, local charities, international organisations, professional bodies, advocates and lawyers all working in different fields and for different causes have come together to call on the UK Government to reaffirm the commitment to universal human rights, honouring the fundamental principle that human rights are for everyone.

As well as celebrating the incredible mobilisation of civil society to speak up against the UK Government’s unprincipled and unworkable Rights Removal Bill, which was ultimately scrapped this year, the letter highlights the impact that human rights have in the “small places close to home” – a phrase coined by UDHR architect Eleanor Roosevelt. It reflects on the role of the UDHR in inspiring the European Convention on Human Rights and ultimately the UK’s own Human Rights Act.

Together, the organisations tell politicians, “Anchored by common fundamental values that reach beyond divides, the UDHR makes it clear that universal human rights are part of what it means to be human, and not gifts granted by the state.”

Speaking on the release of the open letter, BIHR’s CEO, Sanchita Hosali, said:

Global Human Rights Day should be a time for us all in the UK to reflect on the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, agreed across nations in the aftermath of World War II 75 years ago to protect the equal dignity of each of us. Whether in our schools or workplaces, in community centres or housing offices, at police stations and courts, in hospitals and care homes, social work departments and Government offices, our universal human rights, shared by each and every one of us should be respected and protected by those in power.”

Sadly, here at home political debate is characterised by hostility to people’s human rights and a government intent on removing its accountability to us all. Having seen off the very real risk from the Government to scrap our Human Rights Act in favour of a Rights Removal Bill, groups from across the UK have joined together to call on our Prime Minister and political leaders to do better. Yet just days ago we see the Government seeking to set down in law the removal of human rights protections for a whole group of people seeking safety in it’s latest Rwanda Bill. As we mark the 75th anniversary of the UDHR, the Government must move beyond the popularist, often dog whistle politicking around human rights, and commit to realising the vision of universal human rights as a global blueprint for international, national, and local laws and policies.

The letter:

Council of Europe calls on member states to recognise the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right

Strasbourg, 27.09.2022 – In a Recommendation on human rights and the protection of the environment adopted today, the Council of Europe calls on its 46 member states to actively consider recognising, at national level, the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, as a human right.

Considering that measures to address the triple planetary crisis of climate change, loss of biodiversity and pollution are essential to the better enjoyment of human rights, the Committee of Ministers underlines the increased recognition of some form of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment in international legal instruments (including regional human rights instruments) and national constitutions, legislation and policies.

In the implementation of this Recommendation, member states should ensure respect for a number of principles, according to the Committee: general principles of international environmental law, such as the no harm principle, the principle of prevention, the principle of precaution and the polluter pays principle; the need for intergenerational equity; the no discrimination principle; access without discrimination to information and justice in environmental matters, participation in environmental decision-making and environmental education.

The Committee also expresses concern about the disproportionate effect environmental degradation may have and calls on member states to take adequate measures to protect the rights of those who are most vulnerable to, or at particular risk from, environmental harm.

In addition, the Recommendation stresses the importance for governments to co-operate with sub-national entities, civil society, national human rights institutions, regional institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights, environmental human rights defenders, economic stakeholders, indigenous peoples and local communities, cities and regions.

Finally, member states are encouraged to require business enterprises to act in compliance with their human rights responsibilities related to the environment.

 

Background

 
The United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 48/13 of 8 October 2021 recognised the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right.

The Council of Europe’s long-standing commitment to environmental protection has resulted in the adoption of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (“Bern Convention”), the Convention on Civil Liability for Damage resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment, the Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law and the Landscape Convention.

The Council of Europe’s Manual on Human Rights and the Environment contains principles emerging from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and decisions and conclusions of the European Committee of Social Rights.

Brent Palestine Day - Bridge Park - Saturday

Saturday demo: A CALL TO EUROPE: HUMAN RIGHTS FOR REFUGEES!

Trafalgar Square London 2-5pm Saturday August 27th

A Demonstration Called by:
Help4Refugee Children, Syria Solidarity Campaign, Calais Action & RS21.

Sixty years ago, the Refugee Convention defined rights for refugees, and most countries signed up to it. The first principle was that refugees should be treated decently. A little later, the world refugee year of 1959-60 was an attempt to get counties to face up to their responsibilities.

Since then, the situation of refugees has got steadily worse. Today their rights are everywhere disregarded, eroded, and trampled on; governments think they can gain popularity by treating refugees in an inhuman way. We say that this is unacceptable. No one is illegal; no one is inhuman.

WE ARE SEEING A GENERAL DEHUMANISATION OF REFUGEES - AND WE DEMAND THAT THIS MUST STOP, AND THAT WE BEGIN TREATING THEM AS HUMANS, WITH THE SAME RIGHTS AS OUR OWN.

The countries of Europe in particular have been trying to evade acknowledging the basic humanity of refugees, and the rights which they should respect. They have deliberately avoided:

1. Their responsibility for the wars in Syria, Iraq, and vast areas of the Middle East which have caused people to flee;

2. Their continuing responsibility for ensuring a safe passage to Europe (in particular across the Mediterranean) for thousands of refugees, as though they had no duty to protect them. Thousands have drowned through a deliberate state policy of neglect.

Worse, once the refugees arrive in Europe, no country will accept them although by the terms of the Refugee Convention once arrived in Europe they can apply for asylum. (Their situation is viewed from a frankly racist perspective - as though they represent an army of foreigners aiming to pollute a pure white Europe.) There is an increasing drive to make life impossible for them wherever they are, closing down what refugee camps there are (particularly in France).

The refugees are housed in shocking, subhuman conditions such as the ‘Jungle’ camp at Calais, where they are constantly harassed by police and threatened with eviction by the State. Indeed, this camp (home to 7000 people and 500 (unaccompanied children) is now threatened with another demolition; which will rob these homeless people of the little they have. The camps already have almost no facilities and are run by hardworking overstretched volunteers relying on donations, not official agencies.

The people who have reached the camps, after difficult and dangerous journeys, have clearly not done it from choice. Our failure to treat them with decency and humanity shames us.
We are demonstrating to demand a new start, based on respect and human principles.

TREAT REFUGEES AS HUMAN BEINGS WITH FULL RIGHTS, ON EVERY STEP OF THEIR ROAD!

After the Tricycle: Can arts organisations say ‘no’ to embassy funding?

Amnesty has sent the following invitation which will be of interest to readers involved in the debate over the Tricycle Theatre's refusal of Israeli Government funding (via the Embassy) and the subsequent events.

Do artists and arts organisations have the right to say ‘no’ when governments with negative human rights records try to co-opt culture in the service of their public relations strategies? 

Please join the discussion – After the Tricycle: Can arts organisations say ‘no’ to embassy funding?
In August 2014, during the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, the Tricycle Theatre asked the UK Jewish Film Festival to forego Israeli embassy funding. The festival refused, walked away from the Tricycle, and briefed the press that the theatre was boycotting a Jewish festival. The theatre came under sustained attack: campaigns to de-fund the theatre, denunciations by liberal newspaper columnists, even intervention by the Secretary of State for Culture himself.

Do we have to accept that the kind of backlash the Tricycle experienced is inevitable as far as funding by a powerful state is concerned, and make sure we never follow where this theatre led?
Panel chair: Kamila Shamsie, novelist.

Speakers: April De Angelis and Tanika Gupta playwrights, Antony Lerman writer & commentator, and Ofer Neiman of the Israeli group Boycott from Within.

Panel discussion. Free entry, but reservation is recommended.
There will be a drinks reception afterwards.
When: Tuesday 7th October, 19:00 – 21:00. Doors open 18:30
Where: Amnesty International UK Human Rights Action Centre, 17-25 New Inn Yard, London. EC2A 3EA.

Barry Gardiner faces wrath of anti-Modi demonstrators

A wet Monday morning is not the most auspicious time for a demonstration but this morning's at Brent Civic Centre was lively enough. Human rights activists were protesting at Barry Gardiner's invitation to Narendra Modi to speak in the House of Commons on 'The Future of Modern India'.

Modi (see previous posting LINK) is charged by activists with not intervening in, or even supporting, the 2002 massacre of more than 2,000 Gujerat Muslims. His Hindu nationalist party, the BJP, is denounced by many as fascist.

Barry Gardiner is Chair of the Labour Friends of India and issued the invitation in that capacity, However his critics suggest that the invite was aimed at securing the substantial Hindu vote in his Brent North constituency and to be based on enhancing business opportunities rather than human rights principles.

Modi has said he cannot come to the UK at present but the invitation is still extant. The demonstrators want the invitation to be officially withdrawn.

Gardiner came outside to meet the demonstrators and to distribute a statement. He was surrounded by angry activists who tried to talk to him to the background noise of chants of, 'Barry Gardiner, Shame, Shame/Inviting Modi, Not in Our Name; Barry, Barry, Don't Lie/Modi Guilty of Genocide.'

It does seem that Barry Gardiner has introduced a potentially explosive and divisive element into UK politics with his invitation and an issue that could impact on local community relations.

Palestinian footballer's experience should galvanise Brent Council to act on human rights

 

Palestinian footballer Mahmoud Sarsak will be speaking at the Pakistan Community Centre in Willesden  Green on Thursday to share his experiences with local people, as Brent Council sticks to its decision to refuse to exclude Veolia, a company that aids illegal occupation of Palestine, from a lucrative contract worth more than £250m over 16 years.

Sarsak lost half his body weight in a hunger strike that lasted 92 days fighting for human rights in his homeland. His courage and determination should bring it home to Brent Council, a council with a noble record of campaigning against apartheid South Africa decades ago, that they too should make a stand.

The people of Brent do not want their taxes and Council Tax to be used to provide profits to a company that  also profits from  illegal abuses of human rights.

Green's '3 yeses' on Europe: referendum, reform, remaining

 Green Party leader Natalie Bennett said today that the Green Party stood for "Three Yeses - yes to a referendum, yes to major EU reform and yes to staying in a reformed Europe".

Natalie urged people to consider the first "Yes" in a different context to David Cameron's promise of a referendum - only if the Conservatives win a majority in the 2015 election - which has more to do with political game-playing and trying to hold together a deeply divided party that is failing in government.

The Green leader said: "The Green Party believes in democracy and self-determination. On important issues like this, voters should be given the opportunity to express a clear view."

On a reformed EU, the Green Party believes that decisions should be made at the lowest possible appropriate level, closest to the lives of the people it affects. It supports democratic decision-making - not the imposition of dictats from above, such as the austerity that has been forced on the people of many states in south Europe.

Natalie added: "'Yes to the EU' does not mean we are content with the union continuing to operate as it has in the past. There is a huge democratic deficit in its functioning, a serious bias towards the interests of neoliberalism and 'the market', and central institutions have been overbuilt. But to achieve those reforms we need to work with fellow EU members, not try to dictate high handedly to them, as David Cameron has done."

On 'yes to staying in a reformed Europe', the Green Party believes Great Britain should not abandon the European Union, but instead work from inside to make it into a fair and democratic union rather than just a vehicle for international trade.

The European Union is well placed to enact policies on crucial issues such as human and workers' rights, climate change and international crime. It is through EU regulation that our renewable energy targets have been set and hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created.

European action on air pollution, meanwhile, is forcing the British government to take the issue seriously, and the EU is leading the way on a financial transactions tax while Britain, in the grip of the City, resists.

Natalie concluded: "We need to continue to work with our European partners to build strong, locally democratic communities that decide their own way within the framework of minimum standards on workers' and consumer rights, the environment, and on human rights - and which work together to build a more peaceful and sustainable world."