View previous stories
	Hungary’s Duty to Refugees by Nils Muiznieks Council of Europe commissioner for human rights   At the recent European Union summit meeting in Slovakia, the divergent approaches of member countries on how to handle the influx of migrants exposed deep divisions. Among the countries most hostile to the European Union proposals on migration was Hungary. This comes as no surprise.   Hungary’s disengagement from human rights protections and the rule of law is not new. In recent years, its government has put pressure on the news media, eroded the independence of the judiciary and obstructed the work of nonprofit groups. But it is on migration that Hungary’s departure from human rights norms is most glaring.   Over the last year, sweeping legislative changes have made it virtually impossible for migrants to achieve refugee status in the country, weakened asylum safeguards and unjustifiably criminalized immigrants and asylum seekers. At the height of the refugee arrivals last year, Hungary built a razor-wire fence — soon to be upgraded — along its borders with Serbia and Croatia, and since then, there have been numerous reports of police violence against asylum seekers.   The Hungarian government’s actions have provoked harsh critiques at home and abroad. Yet the administration of Prime Minister Viktor Orban has shrugged off this criticism and pushed ahead with an agenda that can be described only as institutionalized xenophobia.   New legislation came into force in July that allows for the summary expulsion of migrants intercepted within five miles of the border. As a result, from the end of August to Sept. 12, more than 600 migrants — including potential asylum seekers — were detained and escorted to the border. This may have deprived these people of their rights under international law to seek asylum.   As if those violations were not enough, the police are recruiting an additional 3,000 members for what are officially called “border hunter action units,” which focus on patrolling the borders. Once these recruits have completed a two-month training course in “basic law enforcement duties,” and a further four months’ guard duties, they are to receive a pistol, with live ammunition, and other police equipment. The government seems not to care about the risks of allowing an inexperienced armed force to deal with vulnerable people like refugees and victims of human trafficking.   These worrying developments have come amid a campaign to demonize refugees that has been orchestrated by the government since 2015, when it promoted a “national consultation on immigration and terrorism” that portrayed migrants as a danger to Hungarian society. This propaganda effort has reached a new pitch of intensity in the run-up to an Oct. 2 referendum on any future European Commission proposal to relocate refugees more evenly among European Union countries.   A government-sponsored poster campaign on billboards around the country is promoting deceptive messages, such as that sexual harassment of women has risen sharply across Europe since the beginning of the migrant crisis, or that the Paris terrorist attacks were committed by immigrants.   Such smear campaigns against refugees are sadly not new to Europe: The U.K. Independence Party in Britain, the National Front in France and Italy’s Northern League have all exploited similar xenophobic messages. But in Hungary, it is the government itself that’s pushing such falsehoods.   Hungary’s government defends its policy by accusing its critics of getting their facts wrong. It invokes a duty “to ensure the safety of Europe’s people” to justify its stance on migration. No one doubts that with nearly 400,000 migrants passing through the country in 2015, Hungary was confronted with a huge challenge and that it has received little help from its European Union partners. But this is no excuse to throw refugee protection out the window.   States have the right to set their own immigration policies, but those policies cannot contravene the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, even in times of crisis. Hungary’s approach to the issue has already led to violations of human rights and unnecessary suffering. It has also undermined the values of solidarity and tolerance embodied in the Council of Europe and the European Union.   Worse, Hungary’s contemptuous populist approach to migration is tempting neighboring countries to follow a similar path.   If Hungary persists in its defiant policy that flouts human rights law, it will meet with further international criticism and possible legal sanctions. The European Commission has already begun “infringement procedures” against Hungary for breaching European Union law on asylum.   The commission also has the power to bring a case before the European Court of Justice, if a member state fails to conform to European Union law. In addition, citizens can bring cases to the European Court of Human Rights, which has already condemned Hungary for unlawful detention of asylum seekers.   To avoid deepening the rift, Hungary and European organizations must pursue dialogue and avoid further inflaming an already tense situation. This is why it is crucial that Hungary’s political leaders stop making xenophobic statements and start addressing public anxiety about migration and asylum with facts, evidence and a commitment to human rights.   The protection of refugees has always been an integral part of the human rights project, both in Europe and worldwide. Nearly 60 years ago, that was what inspired an international solidarity movement that helped about 200,000 Hungarians find refuge abroad from the Soviet Union’s brutal repression of the Hungarian revolution.   That spirit still lies at the heart of European integration, and it is our best remedy for the anti-democratic and destructive forces of nationalism that have caused so much harm in the past. It is in Hungary’s best interest to preserve the rights of refugees.   * Stephen Pogány, visiting Professor at the Central European University in Budapest, and Professor Emeritus at the University of Warwick critiques Mr. Orbán’s espousal of ’illiberal democracy’, as a form of government: http://bit.ly/2dvJbgf   http://fra.europa.eu/en/press-release/2016/fra-presents-guidance-across-eu-combating-hate-crime http://fundamentalrightsforum.eu/ http://fundamentalrightsforum.eu/en/frf/round-up http://fra.europa.eu/en/news/2016/100-practical-ways-help-tackle-europes-human-rights-challenges Visit the related web page
	UN: Lack of whistleblower protection has chilling effect on exposing wrongdoing by David Kaye Special rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression   13 October 2015   People who expose wrongdoing on national security and intelligence issues around the world are often given weak or no protection and are often subject to retaliation, creating a “chilling effect on people speaking out”, a United Nations report has found.   The report by David Kaye, United Nations special rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression, outlines an extensive case for governments to revise whistleblower laws to enhance public-interest disclosures and the flow of information, protect whistleblowers and ensure the confidentiality of sources for journalists and others who release information into the public domain.   The report makes particular reference to the disclosures of National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden and the “deep and lasting impact” they have had, but notes that whistleblowers in many other areas “struggle for attention and response”.   The report puts forward a series of recommendations for nations to apply generally to whistleblowing and public-interest disclosures. It also makes particular recommendations for a framework for national-security disclosures.   It says national-security institutions enjoy secrecy “as a norm of behaviour” but notes that disclosure offence and secrecy laws “all but eliminate genuine whistle-blower protection”.   The report says, “Institutions that operate in national security, such as institutions of defence, diplomacy, internal security and law enforcement, and intelligence, may have a greater claim not to disclose information than other public bodies, but they have no greater claim to hide instances of wrongdoing or other information where the value of disclosure outweighs the harm to the institution.”   “Yet whistle-blower protections are often weak, or simply unavailable, in the area of national security and intelligence. Those who disclose wrongdoing in national-security institutions are often subject to retaliation, such as job loss or transfer, denial or revocation of security clearance, and investigation, prosecution and harsh sentencing, and they lack redress because of legal doctrines that support an infrastructure of secrecy.”   In an interview with the Guardian, Kaye urged states not to invoke national security to needlessly restrict public-interest disclosures.   “It’s really critical for states not to use the legitimate restrictions of national security to cover and resist the disclosure of all sorts of information that is in the public interest, and doesn’t really harm specific national-security interests,” he said.   He added that the range of offences for disclosures about national security were having a chilling effect on people speaking out in important areas of public debate.   “It’s very common for a state to say this is national security and therefore there’s no right to either publish this information or disclose it. So both the person who discloses the information and the source can be subject to all sorts of sanctions, sometimes criminal,” he said.   “Those are having a real chilling effect, certainly on sources, and probably to a certain extent on the journalists as well.”   Kaye’s report follows a number of high-profile cases against whistleblowers. Bradley Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison in the United States for disclosure of documents to Wikileaks. The Australian government has been considering prosecuting an intelligence whistleblower over disclosures about allegations that Australia spied on East Timor during treaty negotiations.   The report advocates a policy of “full coverage” for whistleblower protection. No national security institution should be exempt from providing whistleblower protection, but rather modify it to take into account the particular nature of the institutions.   This includes providing narrowly and clearly defined prohibited disclosures, including ongoing defence plans, weapons systems, infrastructure and intelligence operations, sources and methods.   In the report, Kaye also outlines the need to limit restrictions to where a specific national-security interest would outweigh the public interest in disclosure.   He highlights areas of concern around the world of whistleblowers and sources facing “disproportionate treatment and retaliation” in other fields. The report refers specifically to the areas of asylum seeker programs, public health, environmental protection and corruption in business.   The special rapporteur urged nations to adopt legal protections for whistleblowers which provides protection broadly, focuses attention on the alleged wrongdoing, and to prevent whistleblowers from facing retaliation from governments.   Those who make public-interest disclosures are still facing harassment and intimidation around the world, and “all too often” the legal protections in place fail to hold accountable those who take action against whistleblowers.   “Whistle-blower laws should protect strongly against the risk that persons who disclose facts that indicate wrongdoing may be subject to personal attack and other forms of retaliation,” the report says.   The report also highlights the importance of protecting the source of information. It suggests countries should take greater steps to protect journalists’ sources, but also goes further in advocating for greater protection for disclosures. Kaye writes that “those performing the same journalistic functions should enjoy the right to protect sources”.   “Guarantees and mechanisms of confidentiality provide important protection against retaliation. States should not breach the confidentiality of the source by putting pressure on the media or any other organisation or person to whom the whistleblower disclosed the information.”   Kaye also warns of the risks of “self-disclosure” faced by journalists and others who receive confidential information arising from state surveillance.   The report also emphasises the need for governments to allow open access to information by citizens. The report warns of the tendency of government to over-classify information, and says secrecy should only be imposed where disclosure would “harm a specific interest”, and should be carefully weighed against the public interest.   It says strong legal frameworks are necessary to secure public-interest disclosures and the free flow of information, and that there must be greater steps taken by the political class to promote disclosure. Politicians and bureaucrats must build a culture that “values transparency and public participation”.   http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/ProtectionOfSources.aspx Visit the related web page
	View more stories