View previous stories
	Americas: Human rights defenders increasingly targeted and attacked by Amnesty, Afrodes & agencies   December 2012   Americas: Human rights defenders increasingly targeted and attacked. (Amnesty)   Human rights defenders across the Americas are facing escalating levels of intimidation, harassment and attacks at the hands of state security forces, paramilitary groups and organized crime, Amnesty International said in a new report.   The report Transforming pain into hope: Human rights defenders in the Americas, is based on around 300 cases of intimidation, harassment, attacks and killings of human rights defenders in more than a dozen countries primarily between January 2010 and September 2012.   “Human rights defenders are systematically harassed, attacked and subjected to unfounded criminal charges in almost every country in the Americas to prevent them from speaking out for the rights of the most marginalized,” said Nancy Tapias-Torrado, Americas Researcher on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders at Amnesty International.   Throughout the Americas, human rights defenders have been publicly condemned as “illegal”, “illegitimate”, “unscrupulous” or even “immoral”. They have been accused of being criminals, corrupt, liars, troublemakers or subversives; of defending criminals; and of supporting guerrilla groups. Such public criticisms have been voiced by government officials as well as non-state actors.   “Men and women who work to protect human rights are also targeted as they are seen by powerful political and economic interests as an obstacle to major development projects,” said Tapias-Torrado.   Those particularly targeted include people working on issues related to land and natural resources; the rights of women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people, abuses against migrants as well as those working to ensure justice for human rights abuses, plus journalists, bloggers and trade unionists.   Of the almost 300 cases analyzed by Amnesty International, those directly responsible were convicted in only four cases.   Almost half of the cases documented by Amnesty International took place in the context of disputes over land, in countries including Brazil, Colombia and Honduras. Several were related to large-scale development projects led by private companies.   In countries including Cuba and Mexico, human rights defenders have suffered judicial harassment, have been detained on the basis of flawed evidence or have had spurious charges hanging over them for years because arrest warrants are issued then not acted on.   Indigenous human rights defenders José Ramón Aniceto Gómez and Pascual Agustín Cruz, from Puebla, Mexico, were released from prison on 28 November 2012, after the country’s Supreme Court of Justice overturned their unfair conviction.   They were sentenced, in 12 July 2010, to seven years in prison, accused of stealing a car.   The case was brought by a member of a powerful local cacique group that had for many years restricted access to water and charged connection fees that represented four monthly wages for many community members. The two defenders had fought to establish free mains water connections to people’s houses.   The Court’s decision on this case confirms Amnesty International’s conclusion that the case against these defenders was a total injustice.   In several countries of the Americas, women human rights defenders who have campaigned on issues including violence against women, have faced rape, threats of rape, intimidation and their relatives have been threatened.   On 9 November 2011, an armed man and a woman entered the home of human rights defender Jackeline Rojas Castañeda in Barrancabermeja, Colombia. The man and woman held her and her 15-year-old daughter at gunpoint in separate rooms. They told Jackeline they would kill her daughter if she tried to call for help.   Jackeline was tied up and gagged, and red paint was sprayed on her body and clothes. The attackers repeatedly demanded information on the whereabouts of her son and her husband, a trade union leader. In addition to the attack, two laptops, USB sticks, mobiles and documents were taken from her house.   On 10 November, Jackeline – a prominent member of the Popular Women’s Organization (Organización Femenina Popular) -- went to report the attack at the Attorney General’s Office. Her complaint was initially not accepted by staff who claimed she had invented the attack.   “When authorities fail to protect those who work to defend everyone’s human rights and fail to investigate attacks against them, they send a signal that those attacks are tolerated,” said Tapias-Torrado.   ”Governments must guarantee that human rights defenders enjoy comprehensive protection, which includes as a minimum recognizing the importance and legitimacy of their work, the full investigation of abuses they face and the provision of effective protection measures.”   http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/americas-human-rights-defenders-increasingly-targeted-and-attacked-2012-12-07   Dec 2012   Afro-Colombian Human Rights Defender Assassinated.   The World Movement for Democracy joins The Association of Displaced Afro-Colombians (AFRODES) in condemning the assassination of human rights defender Miller Angulo Rivera, who was killed on December 1, 2012 in the city of Tumaco in Nariño, Colombia. According to the human rights organization Observatorio Pacifico y Territorio, Miller Angulo was shot by hired assassins as he was leaving a parking lot near the beach.   United Nations Radio reports that Miller Angulo received multiple threats from the central bloc of The Black Eagles, a paramilitary group, since October and also from the Anti-Restitution Group of Nariño (GAR).   According to his organization, AFRODES, Miller Angulo was a young leader who defended the rights of the Afro-Colombian population regarding forced displacement in Nariño province. He served as the Technical Secretary of the Municipal Board of Victims of Tumaco and was an active member of the Departmental Board of Victims of Nariño. Miller Angulo was just 33-years-old and leaves behind a wife and a young son and daughter.   AFRODES says that these threats and this assassination directed against its leaders and its regional organizations are part of a campaign to silence the voices speaking out in defense of human rights. Twelve leaders of AFRODES, including Miller Angulo, have been threatened by armed groups due to their work defending human, ethnic, and territorial rights.   AFRODES calls for a full investigation of Miller Angulo Rivera"s murder. The World Movement for Democracy condemns any and all threats to organizations and activists that work to promote and protect human rights in Colombia, and calls on the Colombian government to guarantee protection for these activists so they may continue their work without fear of death or persecution.
	The new push to control the internet by Frank La Rue UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression   19 December 2012   Civil society key to ensuring Internet free speech, says UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue.   The credibility of the Internet depends on how much civil society – the broad label given to worldwide activism outside government – is able to take part in its evolution, a United Nations independent expert said today.   “Civil society participation is essential to ensure legitimacy of global discussions on the future of (the) Internet,” the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, said in comments on a recent global telecommunications conference that aimed to update a world treaty containing general principles for assuring the free flow of information worldwide.   “The only consensus reached so far on this matter is that the future of the Internet has to be determined in a multi-stakeholder dialogue, where no positions can be imposed unilaterally,” he added, according to a news release from the Geneva-based Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).   The UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) convened the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, in early December, as part of a wider mandate that sees it allocate global radio spectrum and satellite orbits, develop the technical standards that ensure networks and technologies seamlessly interconnect, and strive to improve access to international telecommunications technologies to underserved communities worldwide.   Attended by more than 160 countries, the conference aimed to update ITU’s International Telecommunication Regulations, which serve as a binding global treaty designed to make global interconnection easier, more efficient and more available to the public in a way that is useful.   In his comments, the Special Rapporteur noted that the Internet “vastly expands the capacity of individuals to enjoy their right to freedom of expression, as well as other rights.”   As such, he said, any future focus on Internet governance by the Conference “must ensure the meaningful participation of multiple stakeholders, including representatives of other international organizations, human rights entities, private sector representatives, including Internet providers and non-governmental organizations,” the OHCHR release said.   “Global attention is required to ensure that no international or national regulations on the Internet pave the way for hampering freedom of opinion and expression through the Internet,” said Mr. La Rue.   “Unfortunately, legitimate expression on the Internet is already criminalized in various countries today,” he added, saying he had documented this in his 2011 report for the UN General Assembly on Internet-linked freedom-of-expression rights, and also in a 2011 report on Internet trends and challenges related to free-speech.   “International efforts must reverse this trend, not reinforce it,” he added of the information clampdowns.   According to the Special Rapporteur, ensuring freedom of expression and access to information on the Internet is central for the promotion and protection of human rights, and the strengthening of democracy across the globe today.   “Over the last two decades, the Internet has greatly contributed to expanding access to information on serious human rights violations, giving voice to millions who would be silent and invisible without the access to this powerful tool,” he said, adding that “discussion on any form of regulation or governance of this crucial tool must be firmly grounded in human rights standards.”   Dec 2012   Paul Twomey, a founding figure in internet governance, looks at the new and old forces aligning in an effort to control what we do online.   Some issues are so complex that you can only understand them by looking at who supports them.   When the cheer squad includes China"s public security bureau, Putin"s bureaucrats and the Iranian government, it pays to be sceptical.   These are the players, backed by an alliance of international telcos, pushing to bring a new layer of international regulation to the internet.   This month the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a body whose antecedent was set up in the 1860s to regulate telegrams, initiated a review of 24-year-old rules for international telephone calls. Through this, some countries have launched a brazen play to seize regulatory control of the Internet.   The ITU describes this process as a way of enabling more of the world"s citizens to have access to the opportunities of the internet.   But in reality this is hardball international politics disguised in sunny mission statements and arcane technical terms.   If you carefully wade through the range of proposals over the last six months you will see ideas expressed which include expanding the ITU regulatory control to all realms of information and communications technology.   These would include manufacturing and processing of information - not just international telecommunications.   Included in the fine print are proposals by Russia, China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others that could justify the following:   • introduction of a spreading international regime for deep monitoring of internet communications, along with a move towards personal identification of who is sending and receiving communications;   • dramatically increase the capacity of governments to restrict or completely block transmission of information via the internet; and   • result in significant increases in the costs to internet users for accessing content on the internet.   Proposals from some governments, if accepted, would go much further, including requirements that:   • the internet be used "in a rational way";   • governments restrict the use of the internet where this would "interfere in the internal affairs of other states, or divulge information of a sensitive nature"; and   • governments be required to re-route or block traffic passing through their territory simply on the request of another government.   In short, in an effort to spread the opportunities of the internet, these member states would promote ITU rules which could end up stifling the freedom that has made it such an enabler.   So what"s really driving the push to regulate?   In a world of increasing distribution and impact of networks, especially the internet, competing interests in all countries are disputing the limits of governmental or private control.   These disputes arise from differing views on what are appropriate steps to ensure intellectual property enforcement, protection against the networks being used for criminal or espionage purposes, and political control of content and connectivity.   There is also a tension between walled garden business models versus open network business models and the ongoing push for regulatory measures to shift the distribution of economic rent between the transit and content layers of the internet.   The ongoing disputes about control have recently been compounded by concern in national security and political elites arising from four major phenomena:   • the role of the Internet and Social Media in underpinning the Arab Spring;   • the role of social media in the mobilization of crowd events, particularly the London Riots;   • the accelerating pace of cyber espionage targeting North American and other developed countries intellectual property; and   • the rise of hacktervism.   In this way there is a growing likelihood of the interests of the more traditional forces for internet control overlapping with, and even seeking to align with, national security and law enforcement agendas.   This alignment is posing a challenge to the internet community"s traditional argument for an open internet.   These growing forces for control are resulting in both domestic attempts at regulation and efforts to utilise international organisations, and their international treaty regimes, to impose, or at least justify, domestic control.   These efforts are compounded by the desire within the bureaucracies, supported by some member states, to achieve new purpose and resources for these international organisations.   The next several years will be ones of ongoing policy and diplomatic and political contention that could well redefine the very nature of the internet.   This month"s meeting is the first step in this process. We cannot afford it to take off in the wrong direction.   * Dr Paul Twomey, a founding figure in the internet governance process, is former President and CEO of ICANN. Visit the related web page
	View more stories