• Appel à l’annulation d’un contrat entre l’#UE et des entreprises israéliennes pour la surveillance des migrants par drones

    Les contrats de l’UE de 59 millions d’euros avec des entreprises militaires israélienne pour s’équiper en drones de guerre afin de surveiller les demandeurs d’asile en mer sont immoraux et d’une légalité douteuse.
    L’achat de #drones_israéliens par l’UE encourage les violations des droits de l’homme en Palestine occupée, tandis que l’utilisation abusive de tout drone pour intercepter les migrants et les demandeurs d’asile entraînerait de graves violations en Méditerranée, a déclaré aujourd’hui Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor dans un communiqué.
    L’UE devrait immédiatement résilier ces #contrats et s’abstenir d’utiliser des drones contre les demandeurs d’asile, en particulier la pratique consistant à renvoyer ces personnes en #Libye, entravant ainsi leur quête de sécurité.

    L’année dernière, l’Agence européenne des garde-frontières et des garde-côtes basée à Varsovie, #Frontex, et l’Agence européenne de sécurité maritime basée à Lisbonne, #EMSA, ont investi plus de 100 millions d’euros dans trois contrats pour des drones sans pilote. De plus, environ 59 millions d’euros des récents contrats de drones de l’UE auraient été accordés à deux sociétés militaires israéliennes : #Elbit_Systems et #Israel_Aerospace_Industries, #IAI.

    L’un des drones que Frontex a obtenu sous contrat est le #Hermes_900 d’Elbit, qui a été expérimenté sur la population mise en cage dans la #bande_de_Gaza assiégée lors de l’#opération_Bordure_protectrice de 2014. Cela montre l’#investissement de l’UE dans des équipements israéliens dont la valeur a été démontrée par son utilisation dans le cadre de l’oppression du peuple palestinien et de l’occupation de son territoire. Ces achats de drones seront perçus comme soutenant et encourageant une telle utilisation expérimentale de la #technologie_militaire par le régime répressif israélien.

    « Il est scandaleux pour l’UE d’acheter des drones à des fabricants de drones israéliens compte tenu des moyens répressifs et illégaux utilisés pour opprimer les Palestiniens vivant sous occupation depuis plus de cinquante ans », a déclaré le professeur Richard Falk, président du conseil d’administration d’Euromed-Monitor.

    Il est également inacceptable et inhumain pour l’UE d’utiliser des drones, quelle que soit la manière dont ils ont été obtenus pour violer les droits fondamentaux des migrants risquant leur vie en mer pour demander l’asile en Europe.

    Les contrats de drones de l’UE soulèvent une autre préoccupation sérieuse car l’opération Sophia ayant pris fin le 31 mars 2020, la prochaine #opération_Irini a l’intention d’utiliser ces drones militaires pour surveiller et fournir des renseignements sur les déplacements des demandeurs d’asile en #mer_Méditerranée, et cela sans fournir de protocoles de sauvetage aux personnes exposées à des dangers mortels en mer. Surtout si l’on considère qu’en 2019 le #taux_de_mortalité des demandeurs d’asile essayant de traverser la Méditerranée a augmenté de façon spectaculaire, passant de 2% en moyenne à 14%.

    L’opération Sophia utilise des navires pour patrouiller en Méditerranée, conformément au droit international, et pour aider les navires en détresse. Par exemple, la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer (CNUDM) stipule que tous les navires sont tenus de signaler une rencontre avec un navire en détresse et, en outre, de proposer une assistance, y compris un sauvetage. Étant donné que les drones ne transportent pas d’équipement de sauvetage et ne sont pas régis par la CNUDM, il est nécessaire de s’appuyer sur les orientations du droit international des droits de l’homme et du droit international coutumier pour guider le comportement des gouvernements.

    Euro-Med Monitor craint que le passage imminent de l’UE à l’utilisation de drones plutôt que de navires en mer Méditerranée soit une tentative de contourner le #droit_international et de ne pas respecter les directives de l’UE visant à sauver la vie des personnes isolées en mer en situation critique. Le déploiement de drones, comme proposé, montre la détermination de l’UE à dissuader les demandeurs d’asile de chercher un abri sûr en Europe en facilitant leur capture en mer par les #gardes-côtes_libyens. Cette pratique reviendrait à aider et à encourager la persécution des demandeurs d’asile dans les fameux camps de détention libyens, où les pratiques de torture, d’esclavage et d’abus sexuels sont très répandues.

    En novembre 2019, l’#Italie a confirmé qu’un drone militaire appartenant à son armée s’était écrasé en Libye alors qu’il était en mission pour freiner les passages maritimes des migrants. Cela soulève de sérieuses questions quant à savoir si des opérations de drones similaires sont menées discrètement sous les auspices de l’UE.

    L’UE devrait décourager les violations des droits de l’homme contre les Palestiniens en s’abstenant d’acheter du matériel militaire israélien utilisé dans les territoires palestiniens occupés. Elle devrait plus généralement s’abstenir d’utiliser des drones militaires contre les demandeurs d’asile civils et, au lieu de cela, respecter ses obligations en vertu du droit international en offrant un refuge sûr aux réfugiés.

    Euro-Med Monitor souligne que même en cas d’utilisation de drones, les opérateurs de drones de l’UE sont tenus, en vertu du droit international, de respecter les #droits_fondamentaux à la vie, à la liberté et à la sécurité de tout bateau de migrants en danger qu’ils rencontrent. Les opérateurs sont tenus de signaler immédiatement tout incident aux autorités compétentes et de prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires pour garantir que les opérations de recherche et de sauvetage soient menées au profit des migrants en danger.

    L’UE devrait en outre imposer des mesures de #transparence et de #responsabilité plus strictes sur les pratiques de Frontex, notamment en créant un comité de contrôle indépendant pour enquêter sur toute violation commise et prévenir de futures transgressions. Enfin, l’UE devrait empêcher l’extradition ou l’expulsion des demandeurs d’asile vers la Libye – où leur vie serait gravement menacée – et mettre fin à la pratique des garde-côtes libyens qui consiste à arrêter et capturer des migrants en mer.

    http://www.france-palestine.org/Appel-a-l-annulation-d-un-contrat-entre-l-UE-et-des-entreprises-is
    #Europe #EU #drones #Israël #surveillance #drones #migrations #asile #réfugiés #Méditerranée #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #militarisation_des_frontières #complexe_militaro-industriel #business #armée #droits_humains #sauvetage

    ping @etraces @reka @nepthys @isskein @karine4

    https://seenthis.net/messages/855951 via CDB_77


  • Like after #9/11, governments could use coronavirus to permanently roll back our civil liberties

    The ’emergency’ laws brought in after terrorism in 2001 reshaped the world — and there’s evidence that it could happen again.

    With over a million confirmed cases and a death toll quickly approaching 100,000, Covid-19 is the worst pandemic in modern history by many orders of magnitude. That governments were unprepared to deal with a global pandemic is at this point obvious. What is worse is that the establishment of effective testing and containment policies at the onset of the outbreak could have mitigated the spread of the virus. Because those in charge failed to bring in any of these strategies, we are now seeing a worrying trend: policies that trample on human rights and civil liberties with no clear benefit to our health or safety.

    Broad and undefined emergency powers are already being invoked — in both democracies and dictatorships. Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban was granted sweeping new powers to combat the pandemic that are unlimited in scope and effectively turn Hungary’s democracy into a dictatorship. China, Thailand, Egypt, Iran and other countries continue to arrest or expel anyone who criticizes those states’ response to coronavirus.

    The US Department of Justice is considering charging anyone who intentionally spreads the virus under federal terrorism laws for spreading a “biological agent”. Israel is tapping into previously undisclosed smartphone data, gathered for counterterrorism efforts, to combat the pandemic. States in Europe, anticipating that measures against Covid-19 will violate their obligations under pan-European human rights treaties, are filing official notices of derogation.

    A chilling example of the effects of emergency powers on privacy rights and civil liberties happened during the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks and the resulting “war on terror”, in which successive US presidents pushed the limits of executive power. As part of an effort to protect Americans from security threats abroad, US government officials justified the use of torture in interrogation, broad state surveillance tactics and unconstitutional military strikes, without the oversight of Congress. While the more controversial parts of those programs were eventually dismantled, some remain in place, with no clear end date or target.

    Those measures — passed under the guise of emergency — reshaped the world, with lasting impacts on how we communicate and the privacy we expect, as well as curbs on the freedoms of certain groups of people. The post-September 11 response has had far-reaching consequences for our politics by emboldening a cohort of populist leaders across the globe, who ride to election victories by playing to nationalist and xenophobic sentiments and warning their populations of the perils brought by outsiders. Covid-19 provides yet another emergency situation in which a climate of fear can lead to suspension of freedoms with little scrutiny — but this time we should heed the lessons of the past.

    First, any restriction on rights should have a clear sunset clause, providing that the restriction is only a temporary measure to combat the virus, and not indefinite. For example, the move to grant Hungary’s Viktor Orban sweeping powers has no end date — thus raising concerns about the purpose of such measures when Hungary is currently less affected than other regions of the world and in light of Orban’s general penchant for authoritarianism.

    Second, measures to combat the virus should be proportional to the aim and narrowly tailored to reach that outcome. In the case of the US Department of Justice debate as to whether federal terrorism laws can be applied to those who intentionally spread the virus, while that could act as a potent tool for charging those who actually seek to weaponize the virus as a biological agent, there is the potential for misapplication to lower-level offenders who cough in the wrong direction or bluff about their coronavirus-positive status. The application of laws should be carefully defined so that prosecutors do not extend the boundaries of these charges in a way that over-criminalizes.

    Third, countries should stop arresting and silencing whistleblowers and critics of a government’s Covid-19 response. Not only does this infringe on freedom of expression and the public’s right to know what their governments are doing to combat the virus, it is also unhelpful from a public health perspective. Prisons, jails and places of detention around the world are already overcrowded, unsanitary and at risk of being “superspreaders” of the virus — there is no need to add to an at-risk carceral population, particularly for non-violent offenses.

    Fourth, the collectors of big data should be more open and transparent with users whose data is being collected. Proposals about sharing a person’s coronavirus status with those around them with the aid of smartphone data should bring into clear focus, for everyone, just what privacy issues are at stake with big tech’s data collection practices.

    And finally, a plan of action should be put in place for how to move to an online voting system for the US elections in November 2020, and in other critical election spots around the world. Bolivia already had to delay its elections, which were key to repairing its democracy in a transitional period following former President Evo Morales’s departure, due to a mandatory quarantine to slow the spread of Covid-19. Other countries, including the US, should take note and not find themselves flat-footed on election day.

    A lack of preparedness is what led to the current scale of this global crisis — our rights and democracies should not suffer as a result.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/911-coronavirus-death-toll-us-trump-government-civil-liberties-a94586

    #le_monde_d'après #stratégie_du_choc #11_septembre #coronavirus #covid-19 #pandémie #liberté #droits_humains #urgence #autoritarisme #terrorisme #privacy #temporaire #Hongrie #proportionnalité #liberté_d'expression #surveillance #big-data #données

    ping @etraces

    https://seenthis.net/messages/854864 via CDB_77


  • Apple and Google named in US lawsuit over Congolese child cobalt mining deaths | Global development | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/dec/16/apple-and-google-named-in-us-lawsuit-over-congolese-child-cobalt-mining
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/7de810f715289e26e7ddddeda437c1dde2be6f48/0_0_5760_3456/master/5760.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-align=bottom%2Cleft&overlay-width=100p&overlay-base64=L2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdGctZGVmYXVsdC5wbmc&enable=upscale&s=695dcc7c7ace4a15373cbb2398d268eb

    A landmark legal case has been launched against the world’s largest tech companies by Congolese families who say their children were killed or maimed while mining for cobalt used to power smartphones, laptops and electric cars, the Guardian can reveal.

    Apple, Google, Dell, Microsoft and Tesla have been named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in Washington DC by human rights firm International Rights Advocates on behalf of 14 parents and children from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The lawsuit accuses the companies of aiding and abetting in the death and serious injury of children who they claim were working in cobalt mines in their supply chain.

    Cobalt is essential to power the rechargeable lithium batteries used in millions of products sold by Apple, Google, Dell, Microsoft and Tesla every year. The insatiable demand for cobalt, driven by desire for cheap handheld technology, has tripled in the past five years and is expected to double again by the end of 2020. More than 60% of cobalt originates in DRC, one of the poorest and most unstable countries in the world.

    The extraction of cobalt from DRC has been linked to human rights abuses, corruption, environmental destruction and child labour.

    The lawsuit argues that Apple, Google, Dell, Microsoft and Tesla all aided and abetted the mining companies that profited from the labour of children who were forced to work in dangerous conditions – conditions that ultimately led to death and serious injury.

    #Cobalt #Droits_humains #Travail_enfants #GAFA #Batteries

    https://seenthis.net/messages/816124 via Articles repérés par Hervé Le Crosnier


  • Émilie a fait de la garde à vue

    #Emilie_Rolquin est étudiante en école d’animation. Le 8 décembre 2018, elle fait partie des 974 personnes placées en garde à vue à Paris à l’occasion de l’acte 4 des Gilets jaunes. Ces 24 heures de privation de liberté, les cellules sales, sa rencontre avec la police, c’est tout cela qu’elle raconte admirablement dans ce petit film d’animation.

    https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/793/files/2020/02/Emilie2.jpg
    https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/793/files/2020/02/Emilie1.jpg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=82&v=n4fnRmLzH8E&feature=emb_logo


    #film_d'animation #lumière #odeurs #témoignage #fouille #bruit #attente #dignité #haine #police #audition #droits #droits_humains #épreuve_mentale

    https://seenthis.net/messages/827327 via CDB_77


  • What Are Borders For ?

    For most of history, they marked sovereignty or self-determination. Now their purpose seems to have changed.

    https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5dcb20a1eaad300008d73378/master/w_649,c_limit/Jelly-Schapiro-borders.jpg

    In northern Vermont in the nineteen-eighties and nineties, where I grew up in a town whose name was French but where everyone spoke English, the nearby Canadian border was not imposing. Dirt roads crossed the line where New England’s maples become Quebec’s, with no signs to warn passing hikers when they were under foreign trees. On the main highway north to Montreal were a pair of what looked like tollbooths, adorned with flags stitched with a big red leaf or stars and stripes. And when bored customs officers asked you to halt your vehicle, the inquisition to which you were subjected—at least if your Saab or pickup truck bore Vermont plates—was perfunctory. Documents often weren’t required. You could expect to be asked two questions: where you were headed and if you had any liquor.

    There were benefits, in high school, to living near a province more libertine than our wholesome state. On Monday mornings, louche upperclassmen sometimes turned up in the cafeteria with tales of having dashed north, over the weekend, to where the drinking age was eighteen, for a case of Molson Ice. But the pull of difference was matched with a sense, at least as strong, that the border didn’t so much divide two nations as amble over a contiguous region. Sure, people on our side of the line pronounced Gallic place names in mountain English. (Calais sounded like “callous.”) But our shared climate and past helped feed a sense, among humans who also shared the complexion of February snow (this no doubt helped), that we had more in common with one another than with citizens of our vast nations who lived in far-off Vancouver or Phoenix.

    Such cross-border ties are extremely common, of course, among the many millions of people who live near one of the hundreds of boundaries on earth. Most of the oldest borders date from a couple of centuries ago; many count their age in decades. And the ease with which many people straddled them was until very recently exemplified along the now notorious gran linea to our south, which before the nineteen-nineties neither the United States nor Mexico saw fit to mark with anything more forbidding, along most of its length, than an occasional rock pile in the desert. In a part of the continent once thought too dry to cultivate, that porosity was no less vital for Hispanic ranchers and Native Americans than for the builders of what became an agricultural juggernaut, in California and across the U.S. West, which has long depended on willing workers from the south.

    Now Donald Trump’s dream of “sealing” that border has pulled it into the center of our national life. But as the scholar Matthew Longo underscores in “The Politics of Borders: Sovereignty, Security and the Citizen after 9/11,” although the policies that Trump is pursuing may stand out for their cruelty, they aren’t nearly so much of a departure as we may like to think—either from aims held by his predecessors, or from larger trends in how borders have been changing. In fact, Trump has revealed a new consensus among our political classes—and among hundreds of nations on earth—about what borders are, and what they’re for.

    For most of the twentieth century, the “hard boundaries” that did exist were militarized for actually military reasons. These included contested frontiers like Kashmir and a few Cold War hot spots, like the D.M.Z. crossing the Korean peninsula, where opposing armies and world views stared each other down through rolls of concertina wire. Now such scenes are replicated along borders dividing countries whose shared system of government is democracy and whose armies are at peace. This is seen in the more than two thousand miles of heavily guarded barbed wire that India has erected between itself and Bangladesh; or the electrified fence with which South Africa confronts Zimbabwe; or the potato fields that Hungary has laced with menacing barriers to keep out refugees. Since the start of this century, dozens of borders have been transformed from mere lines on a map into actual, deadly features of the landscape. These are places where, as the geographer Reece Jones notes in his book “Violent Borders,” thousands of people each year are now “losing their lives simply trying to go from one place to another.”

    The once obscure field of “border studies” has won new impetus from the global refugee crisis. But a surge of recent scholarship, of which Longo’s book is perhaps the standout, makes clear that there’s much to be gained from zooming out to examine the history and present of borders everywhere. The ways that borders are evolving in the twenty-first century, in step with changing technology, have profound implications for the future of human rights and international relations—and for the vision of sovereignty that’s shaped both since the first governments embraced the principle of jurisdiction over a strictly defined area of earth.

    Many ancient cultures espoused ties to particular landscapes and the resources or fishing holes they contained. But for several millennia after our species’s first city-states flourished along the Tigris, few such seats of political power presumed to identify precisely where, in the no man’s lands between their cities’ walls, one’s realm ended and another’s began. This continued as certain of those city-states, later on, became empires. When, in the second century A.D., Rome’s legionaries lodged a ribbon of limestone across Britannia’s north, they cared little if Scottish shepherds ambled south with their sheep or hopped Hadrian’s Wall. That boundary, like the famous Ming-dynasty battlements outside Beijing that we call the Great Wall of China, was a military installation—erected to slow invaders from adjoining lands, yes, but also to project power outward.

    The builders of these walls never presumed their domains’ edges to be anything more than provisional; they were less concerned about preventing people from crossing or inhabiting their realms than with maintaining access, when they did, to their taxes and toil. The Mayans may have walked the fields and forests, in Meso-America, to mark where one of their ahawlels’ lands ended. But Malaysia’s negeri city-states—in which rulers maintained firm control over the river systems but made little effort to control the hinterlands beyond their banks—were more indicative of a planet whereon, until several hundred years ago, few people conceived of political territory as exclusive real estate. As medieval fiefs evolved into early states in Europe, their edge-lands were still comprised of what their minders called “marches,” and what we came to call frontiers—contested zones where who was in charge, and whether laws obtained at all, was often in doubt.

    The key moment in the transition to what scholars call the modern state system arrived in the middle of the seventeenth century, with the famous treaty that ended the Thirty Years’ War. The Peace of Westphalia was signed by a hundred and nine principalities and duchies and imperial kingdoms, all of which agreed, in 1648, that states were now the only institutions allowed to engage in diplomacy and war, and that they would also now be accorded the right to “absolute sovereignty” over their territory. There’s a reason that the great majority of political maps we’d recognize as such date from this era: Westphalia gave states a vested interest in laying claim, with the help of the mapmakers they employed, to jurisdiction over a defined patch of sod. This led to some beautiful maps—and implanted in people’s minds, for the first time, shapes like the one we now associate with France. But few efforts were made to make those maps’ borders clear to inhabitants. The question of whose sovereignty certain shepherds lived under, in notoriously liminal zones like the Pyrenees or Alsace, would remain murky well into the era when sovereignty began to be transferred from kings to laws.

    As the Harvard historian Charles S. Maier recounts in “Once Within Borders,” a factor that helped change this, in the nineteenth century, was the spread of new technologies—the telegraph, the railroad—that enabled central governments, even in countries as vast as the United States, to think that they might actually be able to govern all of their territory. Another was a series of increasingly bloody wars in Europe and elsewhere that culminated, between 1914 and 1918, in a conflict that saw humankind kill off some sixteen million of its members. Near the end of the First World War, Woodrow Wilson proposed that the international community might prevent such horrors if it followed his Fourteen Points, which became central, in January, 1919, to the Paris Peace Conference. Key among them was the principle that some of the globe’s borders be redrawn “along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.”

    This vision was born from a war fuelled by the desire of Bosnians and others for self-rule. It also reflected an idea—that any national group should aspire to and defend a sovereign bit of land—that’s animated countless struggles since, for “self-determination” or its opposite. But this idea also had its drawbacks. One was the danger, as another world war soon made clear, of imagining a map of Europe that furnished for each of its language groups what the German geographer Friedrich Ratzel termed a Lebensraum, or “living space.” Another was that Wilson’s dictum pointedly did not extend beyond Europe—and especially not to Africa, whose vast acreage had only recently been carved into territories. Those territories were anything but “clearly recognizable” to the colonial owners who tacked a big map of the continent to the wall of a Berlin ballroom, in 1884, and drew their borders with scant regard for the language groups and ancestral homelands they crossed.

    Such are the tortured roots of our current international system. The United Nations’ expectation that each of its member states respect the territorial sovereignty of its neighbors has formed, since 1948, the core of its efforts to maintain world peace. That most of the U.N.’s members have bought into this notion is why, in the late twentieth century, many of the world’s borders came to resemble the United States and Canada’s. In the nineties, there was a brief turn from this project, as celebrants of globalization hailed a borderless world augured by, for example, the European Union’s opening of internal frontiers. Now that vision has collapsed, eroded by mass migration and anxiety. For scholars like Longo, we have entered an era of “bordering” without precedent.

    What changed? For Longo, the answer, in large part, is 9/11. Since the attacks in New York, he argues, there has been a profound shift in how borders are conceived, installed, and sustained. The most obvious change has been a physical escalation. Over the past eighteen years, for example, the U.S Border Patrol grew to employ twenty thousand agents, becoming the nation’s largest enforcement agency. Throughout the world, anxiety about terrorism has helped drive a trend toward states erecting boundaries to deny entry to potential bad actors. It has seen one prominent U.N. member state, Israel, build some four hundred and seventy miles of barriers, through the territory of its Palestinian neighbors, whose purpose is “security” but which in effect seizes land not regarded by the U.N. as its own. These developments have occurred at a time when the number of people worldwide who’ve been displaced by violence is at an all-time high—some seventy million, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.

    Many of those refugees hail from a region destabilized by the United States’ invasion of Iraq, in 2003, and its War on Terror. In the early two-thousands, Mumbai, Madrid, Bali, and London experienced their own terrorist attacks, and, as Longo details in his book—which is distinguished by his efforts to actually speak with the officials responsible for executing the ideas that he’s interested in—those countries gladly followed the United States’s lead. Dozens if not hundreds of states around the world turned questions of customs and immigration enforcement, once left to anonymous bureaucrats, into pressing matters of national defense.

    Not a few scholars of politics and law, in those years, began to try to understand what was happening to the world’s borders. Perhaps the most prescient was Wendy Brown, whose book “Walled States, Waning Sovereignty,” was published in 2010. Brown noted the burgeoning popularity of walled borders, years before Trump’s rise, and predicted that nativist politicians would continue to build boundaries that, she argued in a preface to the 2016 edition, would “not merely index, but accelerate waning state sovereignty.” What she meant was that nation-states were reacting to their dwindling ability to control the movement of information, money, and humans over their territory by building “visual emblem[s] of power and protection that states increasingly cannot provide.” But by doing so, they only highlighted their lack of control, enriching the traffickers and syndicates that have profited from having to find new ways to get their desperate clients and wares, obstacles be damned, where they want to go.

    About the latter point, Longo can’t disagree. But he has a different argument to make about what “bordering” tells us about the future of states. Sovereignty, to his mind, hasn’t so much waned as transformed. Governments today have never known so much about the people they govern, or been more determined to know more about those entering their territory. For these same reasons, they’ve come to share the once indivisible responsibility for policing their edges. This is the second plank of the post-9/11 shift: with the hardening of physical barriers came the rise, unprecedented in history, of cross-border collaboration in the name of surveillance. This obtained even in the most neutral of boundaries. In the summer of 2003, I returned home from a visit to Canada and was asked for the first time, by an officer dressed in the stiff new duds of the Department of Homeland Security, to hand over my passport. I can still recall being struck, as he scanned its barcode into a computer, by a thought that now seems quaint: the government was endeavoring to track and store data, accessible in real time, about every time any person left or entered the U.S.

    Borders were once where sovereignty ended, or began. Now they’re places where states partner with their neighbors to manage and monitor who and what moves between them. This trend toward “co-bordering”—the joint management of overlapping jurisdictions—is a momentous change, Longo writes. It’s also a product of our era, in which national defense has become a matter less of confronting rival states than of working out more efficient ways to, in the words of one Pentagon official, “magnify our focus down to the individual person level.” At the U.S.-Mexico border, one U.S. official says, this means working with his Mexican counterparts to build a “layered detection system that focuses on risk-based screening, enhanced targeting and information sharing.” Another puts it this way: “The wider we make our borders, the more effective we’ll be.” The quote neatly summates what Longo calls the trend to “thick” borders, witnessed around the world.

    In the U.S., these trends have been formalized in treaties to which we’re now party with both Mexico (the 21st Century Border Initiative, signed in 2010) and Canada (the Beyond the Border agreement, from 2011), which allow for joint surveillance and policing hundreds of miles to either side of where the respective countries meet. The agreements also foster more electronic forms of coöperation: the building of “inter-operable” databases that contain biometric and biographical data for the hundreds of millions of people who call the continent home or have visited its shores. In a 2012 report, D.H.S. put it tersely: “Our vision for the northern border cannot be accomplished unilaterally.” The fact that Canadian Mounties are now empowered, with cause, to board an American vessel off the coast of Maine suggests a rather different vision of sovereignty than the one conjured by “America First.”

    Europe is even further ahead. The E.U.’s member states haven’t merely banded together to head off migrants—whose fingerprints whatever E.U. state they land in is rule-bound to collect. They’ve also made data on the inhabitants of the Schengen Area, which lacks border checks, available to one another. Across the sea in North Africa, Tunisia and Egypt have been pushing for regional border-security arrangements to confront continued instability in Libya. The member nations of the East African Community—Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, and South Sudan—now maintain shared patrols around Lake Victoria. Even India and China, never models of trusting bonhomie, have since 2013 had an accord in place “to improve security along their 4,056-kilometer border . . . [and increase] cooperation on a military-to-military basis.”

    As in the nineteenth century, technology is what has enabled the state to maintain—or aspire to—control. In recent months, a few U.S. cities banned the use of facial recognition on their streets. But an arguably bigger story about the same technology—by which F.B.I. and ICE agents have been making extensive use of millions of driver’s-license photos culled from state D.M.V.s—highlights how our laws will struggle to keep pace with overreach. (Another example can be glimpsed in the D.H.S.’s push to legalize and expand its officers’ practice, recently revealed, of collecting DNA from detained migrants.) In China, facial recognition is already being used on a mass scale. And in Xinjiang, the home region of the oppressed Uyghur minority, the state has even taken to installing an app on the smartphones of everyone who resides in or enters the region. The app transmits to Communist Party police users’ private habits, as well as their daily travels around the Internet.

    Data has already made tech companies rich, and its strategic import to modern governments is plain. “Data is the new oil,” one Brazilian researcher explains. “Every government has become dataholic.” This emerges, in Longo’s account, as the reason that borders, quite apart from their use for the staging of populist or authoritarian dramas, have become so important: they’re where it’s legal for the government to capture the information that its bureaucracies covet. There was a time when you had to commit a crime, or be suspected of committing one, to have your fingerprints and photograph taken by an officer of the state. Now all you need to do is take a trip.

    For many scholars, the solution to all this lies in addressing the violent inequality that’s pushed a quarter billion people to leave their countries for a better life. This, for anti-capitalist academics like Reece Jones, would entail some familiar-sounding steps. The most prominent is open borders—one of those odd issues where, less for moral than for macroeconomic reasons, libertarian and left-wing positions congrue. Lifting limits on migration has been espoused by writers as divergent in outlook as the Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley, the author of the 2008 book “Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders,” and Suketu Mehta, whose important new book “This Land Is Our Land: An Immigrant’s Manifesto” cites the same strong evidence: more immigrants means more jobs. In rich countries where productivity is declining as fast as the birth rate, Mehta insists, “the immigrant armada that is coming to your shores is actually a rescue fleet.”

    But even if we begin to understand this, the main reason that hard borders aren’t going anywhere, Longo argues, has nothing to do with either economics or populism. It has to do with technology’s still-growing role in what nation-states do. In 1975, Michel Foucault famously identified what he called the “oldest dream of the oldest sovereign,” the panopticon: that circular prison whose sight lines were such that a warden at its center could keep tabs—or pretend to—on every subject in his realm. Now even the world’s most liberal governments have tools for gathering information that would have made the Stasi blush. Governments controlled by data, rather than vice versa, begin to process people as “readable texts” rather than as citizens. Borders, in turn, become the places in which those bureaucracies can most easily produce the “data double” that we’ve all become. Longo underscores what this means. “A central aim of this book,” he writes, “has been to identify the grand strategic shift away from nation-states and toward individuals. But what if this foretells the end of the individual too, now at the expense of the sub-individual, a subject composed of data points?”

    It’s a troubling suggestion, not least because of the stark divide that’s already emerged between countries willing to share those data points and those that aren’t. This digital “firewall,” invoked by several of Longo’s sources, excludes anyone whose government doesn’t have the capacity or will to issue passports whose chips and barcodes possess their holders’ vital information. It threatens to turn humans without data, in a word, into humans without rights. With rich countries now admitting foreign nationals based on how much they “trust” the data attached to their passport, such divides will only further inflame the perceived split between nations that have joined modernity and those outside it.

    To explain what this all portends, Longo turns to another hazy episode from history that Foucault used to illuminate his theories of modern society. It involves the moment when many medieval towns were spurred by rapid growth, in the eighteenth century, to do away with their walls—losing their ability to down their gates at night and to monitor, during the day, entries and exits. This change, in Foucault’s account, introduced to those towns a new anxiety about vagrants and outsiders. The shift gave birth to modern policing; armed guards turned their gaze from the horizon to the streets below them. The question for the sovereign state, then as now, wasn’t whether or not to have walls—it was where to put them. The answer, in the centuries since, has evolved with shifts in ideology and geopolitics and technology alike. But the conclusion reached by our republic and most nation-states today, whether spurred by populist strongmen or their own bureaucracies’ needs, about whether to wall their territories’ edges or more aggressively surveil what they contain, is plain: do both. In our new age of “bordering,” the border is drawing nearer, all the time, to the edge of the body itself.

    https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/what-are-borders-for
    #frontières #souveraineté #droits_humains

    ping @mobileborders

    https://seenthis.net/messages/813179 via CDB_77


  • ‘It’s an Act of Murder’: How Europe Outsources Suffering as Migrants Drown

    This short film, produced by The Times’s Opinion Video team and the research groups #Forensic_Architecture and #Forensic_Oceanography, reconstructs a tragedy at sea that left at least 20 migrants dead. Combining footage from more than 10 cameras, 3-D modeling and interviews with rescuers and survivors, the documentary shows Europe’s role in the migrant crisis at sea.

    On Nov. 6, 2017, at least 20 people trying to reach Europe from Libya drowned in the Mediterranean, foundering next to a sinking raft.

    Not far from the raft was a ship belonging to Sea-Watch, a German humanitarian organization. That ship had enough space on it for everyone who had been aboard the raft. It could have brought them all to the safety of Europe, where they might have had a chance at being granted asylum.

    Instead, 20 people drowned and 47 more were captured by the Libyan Coast Guard, which brought the migrants back to Libya, where they suffered abuse — including rape and torture.

    This confrontation at sea was not a simplistic case of Europe versus Africa, with human rights and rescue on one side and chaos and danger on the other. Rather it’s a case of Europe versus Europe: of volunteers struggling to save lives being undercut by European Union policies that outsource border control responsibilities to the Libyan Coast Guard — with the aim of stemming arrivals on European shores.

    While funding, equipping and directing the Libyan Coast Guard, European governments have stymied the activities of nongovernmental organizations like Sea-Watch, criminalizing them or impounding their ships, or turning away from ports ships carrying survivors.

    More than 14,000 people have died or gone missing while trying to cross the central Mediterranean since 2014. But unlike most of those deaths and drownings, the incident on Nov. 6, 2017, was extensively documented.

    Sea-Watch’s ship and rescue rafts were outfitted with nine cameras, documenting the entire scene in video and audio. The Libyans, too, filmed parts of the incident on their mobile phones.

    The research groups Forensic Architecture and Forensic Oceanography of Goldsmiths, University of London, of which three of us — Mr. Heller, Mr. Pezzani and Mr. Weizman — are a part, combined these video sources with radio recordings, vessel tracking data, witness testimonies and newly obtained official sources to produce a minute-by-minute reconstruction of the facts. Opinion Video at The New York Times built on this work to create the above short documentary, gathering further testimonials by some of the survivors and rescuers who were there.

    This investigation makes a few things clear: European governments are avoiding their legal and moral responsibilities to protect the human rights of people fleeing violence and economic desperation. More worrying, the Libyan Coast Guard partners that Europe is collaborating with are ready to blatantly violate those rights if it allows them to prevent migrants from crossing the sea.

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/12/27/opinion/27med-2/27med-2-master1050.jpg

    Stopping Migrants, Whatever the Cost

    To understand the cynicism of Europe’s policies in the Mediterranean, one must understand the legal context. According to a 2012 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, migrants rescued by European civilian or military vessels must be taken to a safe port. Because of the chaotic political situation in Libya and well-documented human rights abuses in detention camps there, that means a European port, often in Italy or Malta.

    But when the Libyan Coast Guard intercepts migrants, even outside Libyan territorial waters, as it did on Nov. 6, the Libyans take them back to detention camps in Libya, which is not subject to European Court of Human Rights jurisdiction.

    For Italy — and Europe — this is an ideal situation. Europe is able to stop people from reaching its shores while washing its hands of any responsibility for their safety.

    This policy can be traced back to February 2017, when Italy and the United Nations-supported Libyan Government of National Accord signed a “memorandum of understanding” that provided a framework for collaboration on development, to fight against “illegal immigration,” human trafficking and the smuggling of contraband. This agreement defines clearly the aim, “to stem the illegal migrants’ flows,” and committed Italy to provide “technical and technological support to the Libyan institutions in charge of the fight against illegal immigration.”

    Libyan Coast Guard members have been trained by the European Union, and the Italian government donated or repaired several patrol boats and supported the establishment of a Libyan search-and-rescue zone. Libyan authorities have since attempted — in defiance of maritime law — to make that zone off-limits to nongovernmental organizations’ rescue vessels. Italian Navy ships, based in Tripoli, have coordinated Libyan Coast Guard efforts.

    Before these arrangements, Libyan actors were able to intercept and return very few migrants leaving from Libyan shores. Now the Libyan Coast Guard is an efficient partner, having intercepted some 20,000 people in 2017 alone.

    The Libyan Coast Guard is efficient when it comes to stopping migrants from reaching Europe. It’s not as good, however, at saving their lives, as the events of Nov. 6 show.
    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/12/27/opinion/27med-1/27med-1-master1050.jpg

    A Deadly Policy in Action

    That morning the migrant raft had encountered worsening conditions after leaving Tripoli, Libya, over night. Someone onboard used a satellite phone to call the Italian Coast Guard for help.

    Because the Italians were required by law to alert nearby vessels of the sinking raft, they alerted Sea-Watch to its approximate location. But they also requested the intervention of their Libyan counterparts.

    The Libyan Coast Guard vessel that was sent to intervene on that morning, the Ras Jadir, was one of several that had been repaired by Italy and handed back to the Libyans in May of 2017. Eight of the 13 crew members onboard had received training from the European Union anti-smuggling naval program known as Operation Sophia.

    Even so, the Libyans brought the Ras Jadir next to the migrants’ raft, rather than deploying a smaller rescue vessel, as professional rescuers do. This offered no hope of rescuing those who had already fallen overboard and only caused more chaos, during which at least five people died.

    These deaths were not merely a result of a lack of professionalism. Some of the migrants who had been brought aboard the Ras Jadir were so afraid of their fate at the hands of the Libyans that they jumped back into the water to try to reach the European rescuers. As can be seen in the footage, members of the Libyan Coast Guard beat the remaining migrants.

    Sea-Watch’s crew was also attacked by the Libyan Coast Guard, who threatened them and threw hard objects at them to keep them away. This eruption of violence was the result of a clash between the goals of rescue and interception, with the migrants caught in the middle desperately struggling for their lives.

    Apart from those who died during this chaos, more than 15 people had already drowned in the time spent waiting for any rescue vessel to appear.

    There was, however, no shortage of potential rescuers in the area: A Portuguese surveillance plane had located the migrants’ raft after its distress call. An Italian Navy helicopter and a French frigate were nearby and eventually offered some support during the rescue.

    It’s possible that this French ship, deployed as part of Operation Sophia, could have reached the sinking vessel earlier, in time to save more lives — despite our requests, this information has not been disclosed to us. But it remained at a distance throughout the incident and while offering some support, notably refrained from taking migrants onboard who would then have had to have been disembarked on European soil. It’s an example of a hands-off approach that seeks to make Libyan intervention not only possible but also inevitable.

    https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/12/27/opinion/27med-3/27med-3-master1050.jpg

    A Legal Challenge

    On the basis of the forensic reconstruction, the Global Legal Action Network and the Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration, with the support of Yale Law School students, have filed a case against Italy at the European Court of Human Rights representing 17 survivors of this incident.

    Those working on the suit, who include two of us — Mr. Mann and Ms. Moreno-Lax — argue that even though Italian or European personnel did not physically intercept the migrants and bring them back to Libya, Italy exercised effective control over the Libyan Coast Guard through mutual agreements, support and on-the-ground coordination. Italy has entrusted the Libyans with a task that Rome knows full well would be illegal if undertaken directly: preventing migrants from seeking protection in Europe by impeding their flight and sending them back to a country where extreme violence and exploitation await.

    We hope this legal complaint will lead the European court to rule that countries cannot subcontract their legal and humanitarian obligations to dubious partners, and that if they do, they retain responsibility for the resulting violations. Such a precedent would force the entire European Union to make sure its cooperation with partners like Libya does not end up denying refugees the right to seek asylum.

    This case is especially important right now. In Italy’s elections in March, the far-right Lega party, which campaigned on radical anti-immigrant rhetoric, took nearly 20 percent of the vote. The party is now part of the governing coalition, of which its leader, Matteo Salvini, is the interior minister.

    His government has doubled down on animosity toward migrants. In June, Italy took the drastic step of turning away a humanitarian vessel from the country’s ports and has been systematically blocking rescued migrants from being disembarked since then, even when they had been assisted by the Italian Coast Guard.

    The Italian crackdown helps explain why seafarers off the Libyan coast have refrained from assisting migrants in distress, leaving them to drift for days. Under the new Italian government, a new batch of patrol boats has been handed over to the Libyan Coast Guard, and the rate of migrants being intercepted and brought back to Libya has increased. All this has made the crossing even more dangerous than before.

    Italy has been seeking to enact a practice that blatantly violates the spirit of the Geneva Convention on refugees, which enshrines the right to seek asylum and prohibits sending people back to countries in which their lives are at risk. A judgment by the European Court sanctioning Italy for this practice would help prevent the outsourcing of border control and human rights violations that may prevent the world’s most disempowered populations from seeking protection and dignity.

    The European Court of Human Rights cannot stand alone as a guardian of fundamental rights. Yet an insistence on its part to uphold the law would both reflect and bolster the movements seeking solidarity with migrants across Europe.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/26/opinion/europe-migrant-crisis-mediterranean-libya.html
    #reconstruction #naufrage #Méditerranée #Charles_Heller #Lorenzo_Pezzani #asile #migrations #réfugiés #mourir_en_mer #ONG #sauvetage #Sea-Watch #gardes-côtes_libyens #Libye #pull-back #refoulement #externalisation #vidéo #responsabilité #Ras_Jadir #Operation_Sophia #CEDH #cour_européenne_des_droits_de_l'homme #justice #droits_humains #droit_à_la_vie

    ping @reka

    https://seenthis.net/messages/747918 via CDB_77


  • Arabie saoudite : cinq militants des droits de l’homme risquent la peine de mort

    https://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2018/08/23/riyad-requiert-la-peine-de-mort-pour-cinq-militants-des-droits-de-l-homme_53

    Le Monde, décidément ne fait aucun progrès : parmi les cinq personnes mentionnées il y a au moins une femme (Israa Al-Ghomgham) et peut-être plus, mais le Monde s’en fout. Ce serait pas trè compliqué de s’adapter (Cinq militant·es pour la défense des droits humains), mais bon, n’en demandons pas trop à des journalistes méprisants et limités.

    La peine de mort a été requise à l’encontre de cinq militants des droits de l’homme en Arabie saoudite, ont annoncé, mercredi 22 août, Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International et plusieurs groupes de défense des droits de l’homme.

    Parmi ces personnes figure Israa Al-Ghomgham, militante chiite de premier plan qui a rassemblé des informations sur les manifestations de masse qui ont eu lieu dans la province orientale du pays à partir de 2011.

    –---

    Saudi Prosecution Seeks Death Penalty for Female Activist | Human Rights Watch

    https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/08/21/saudi-prosecution-seeks-death-penalty-female-activist

    https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/styles/open_graph/public/multimedia_images_2018/201806mena_saudi_women.jpg?itok=X6bSQHEV

    International standards, including the Arab Charter on Human Rights, ratified by Saudi Arabia, require countries that retain the death penalty to use it only for the “most serious crimes,” and in exceptional circumstances. Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all countries and under all circumstances. Capital punishment is unique in its cruelty and finality, and it is inevitably and universally plagued with arbitrariness, prejudice, and error.

    A recent crackdown on women’s rights activists in Saudi Arabia has led to the arrest of at least 13 women under the pretext of maintaining national security. While some have since been released, others remain detained without charge. They are: Loujain al-Hathloul, Aziza al-Yousef, Eman al-Nafjan, Nouf Abdelaziz, Mayaa al-Zahrani, Hatoon al-Fassi, Samar Badawi, Nassema al-Sadah, and Amal al-Harbi. Authorities have accused several of them of serious crimes and local media outlets carried out an unprecedented campaign against them, labeling them “traitors.

    –----

    Saudi Arabia arrests two more prominent women’s right activists

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/01/saudi-arabia-arrests-two-prominent-womens-right-activists

    Saudi Arabian authorities have arrested two high-profile women’s rights activists, Human Rights Watch said Wednesday, amid what the organisation called an “unprecedented” crackdown on dissent.

    Award-winning gender rights activist Samar Badawi was arrested along with fellow campaigner Nassima al-Sadah this week, “the latest victims of an unprecedented government crackdown on the women’s rights movement,” HRW said in a statement.

    #droits_humains #droit_des_femmes #arabie_saoudite #barbares et aussi #journalisme_misérable

    https://seenthis.net/messages/716787 via Reka


  • State of Virginia Confirms Immigrant Teenagers Were Strapped to Chairs With Bags Over Their Heads | Democracy Now!

    https://www.democracynow.org/2018/8/14/headlines/state_of_virginia_confirms_immigrant_teenagers_were_strapped_to_chairs
    https://www.democracynow.org/images/headlines/68/43368/full_hd/h05-child-detention.jpg

    In immigration news, a review by the state of Virginia has confirmed immigrant teenagers were strapped to chairs and had mesh bags placed over their heads while being held at the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center. But the state concluded this harsh treatment did not meet the state’s legal threshold of abuse or neglect. The state review came after the Associated Press revealed in June that children as young as 14 said they were beaten while handcuffed and locked up for long periods in solitary confinement, left nude and shivering in concrete cells.

    #droits_humains

    https://seenthis.net/messages/715593 via Reka


  • New Amnesty leader calls BDS a tested «tool of resistance» | The Electronic Intifada
    https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/new-amnesty-leader-calls-bds-tested-tool-resistance
    https://electronicintifada.net/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/pictures/picture-24-1320694946.jpg?itok=_G986tvp

    It will be interesting to see if Naidoo pushes Amnesty to take stronger positions on holding Israel accountable.

    “Excessive force”
    Last week, Amnesty urged Israel to avoid “excessive force” against Palestinians taking part in Great March of Return rallies in the occupied Gaza Strip.

    Israel has killed dozens and injured thousands of unarmed protesters since 30 March.

    “The Israeli authorities must respect the Palestinians’ right to peaceful protest and, in the event that there is violence, use only the force necessary to address it,” the group’s Magdalena Mughrabi stated. “Under international law, lethal force can only be used when unavoidable to protect against imminent threats to life.”

    Amnesty relies on international law to defend Israel’s “right” to violence against an occupied people.

    But while encouraging Israel to use less force against Palestinians, Amnesty acknowledges no Palestinian right to self-defense or resistance to occupation, only the right to “peaceful protest.”

    Regardless of the intention, this effectively privileges and endorses Israeli violence – a perverse position for a human rights organization in the overall context of Israel’s regime of military occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid over Palestinians.

    Yet the Palestinian right to self-defense and resistance – should Palestinians choose to exercise it – is clearly recognized by international law, if not by Amnesty International.

    #droits_humains #contadictions

    https://seenthis.net/messages/702607 via Kassem


  • LA BELGIQUE, ÉTAT DE DROIT OU ÉTAT VOYOU ?

    Les violations hallucinantes de la loi par l’Office des Etrangers | POUR.press
    https://www.pour.press/les-violations-hallucinantes-de-la-loi-par-loffice-des-etrangers
    https://www.pour.press/wp-content/uploads/1-9.png

    La presse a évoqué il y a quelques jours le cas de cette maman angolaise, Elisabeth Matondo, que l’Office des Etrangers (OE) a maitenue pendant plus de deux mois en détention, malgré deux ordonnances de remise en liberté par les autorités judiciaires. La Libre Belgique, par exemple, lui a consacré quelques lignes sous le titre « L’Office des étrangers fait de la résistance ».

    Dans un état de droit, la révélation d’une telle obstruction à une décision de justice entrainerait le licenciement immédiat du directeur de l’OE et la démission de son ministre de tutelle. N’a-t-on pas vu deux ministres démissionner lors de l’évasion de Marc Dutroux, alors que dans cet épisode-là personne n’avait commis d’acte illégal ? On s’attendrait à ce qu’une violation de la loi d’une telle gravité mérite la couverture des journaux pendant plusieurs jours ; mais il n’en est rien. La presse nous apprend que l’OE a pris l’habitude de ne pas appliquer des décisions de justice, et on a presque l’impression qu’on veut nous faire accepter l’idée que le cas de Madame Matondo n’est pas gravissime puisqu’il y en a déjà eu d’autres.

    #Belgique #presse #POUR_écrire_la_liberté #Office_des_Etrangers #justice #droits_humains


  • The Human Right to Dominate

    A controversial thesis that shows how human rights — generally conceived as a counter-hegemonic instrument for righting historical injustices — are being deployed to subjugate the weak and reinforce their domination.
    The book analyzes the inversions that can take place when emancipatory discourses are appropriated by the dominant group in contexts of political asymmetry.

    Sommaire:

    Introduction: Human Rights as Domination
    Chapter 1: The Paradox of Human Rights
    Chapter 2: The Threat of Human Rights
    Chapter 3: The Human Right to Kill
    Chapter 4: The Human Right to Colonize
    Conclusion: What Remains of Human Rights?

    https://global.oup.com/academic/covers/pdp/9780199365005#.jpg
    https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-human-right-to-dominate-9780199365005?cc=us&lang=en&
    #domination #néo-colonialisme #droits_humains #droits_de_l'homme #livre #colonialisme

    https://seenthis.net/messages/670011 via CDB_77


  • Regarde ailleurs
    https://vimeo.com/251551551

    Arthur Levivier a rencontré les exilés à Calais pendant et après le démantèlement de la « jungle ». Durant plus d’un an, il a parlé avec des hommes et des femmes d’origine soudanaise, afghane, éthiopienne, érythréenne, mais aussi des habitants de Calais. Surtout, il a filmé ce que les médias mainstream ne montrent jamais : les violences policières, les injustices… et la force des réfugiés, leurs espoirs et leur capacité à rire de la situation, quoiqu’il arrive.

    #démantèlement #exilés #Calais #documentaire #droits_humains_bafoués #on_n'arrête_pas_la_migration #jungle #France #police #violence_policière

    https://seenthis.net/messages/661725 via marielle


  • #Singapour #droit_d_expression #droits_humains

    Il n’y a qu’un seul endroit dans Singapour où l’on a le droit de s’exprimer publiquement, c’est ici, dans ce petit square. Encore faut-il être singapourien, les étrangers n’ont pas le droit de prendre la parole.

    Mais même si vous prenez « librement » la parole, la Police veille (panneau bleu) et vous surveille (caméra un peu plus haut)...

    https://dl.dropbox.com/s/pngrhkxz2vmrl26/IMG_3473.jpg?dl=0

    https://seenthis.net/messages/662006 via Reka


  • RFC 8280 : Research into Human Rights Protocol Considerations

    Ce #RFC très politique est le premier du groupe de recherche #IRTF #HRPC, dont le nom veut dire « Human Rights and Protocol Considerations ». À première vue, il n’y a pas de rapport entre les #droits_humains et les protocoles réseau. Les premiers relèvent de la politique, les seconds de la pure technique, non ? Mais, justement, le groupe HRPC a été créé sur la base de l’idée qu’il y a de la politique dans le travail de l’#IETF, que les protocoles ne sont pas complètement neutres, et qu’il était nécessaire de creuser cette relation complexe entre protocoles et droits humains. Le premier RFC analyse le problème de base : « #TCP/IP est-il politique ? »

    http://www.bortzmeyer.org/8280.html

    #droits_de_l_homme #DUDH

    https://seenthis.net/messages/641927 via Stéphane Bortzmeyer


  • Malgré la répression en #Egypte, Macron déroule le tapis rouge pour al-Sissi
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/231017/malgre-la-repression-en-egypte-macron-deroule-le-tapis-rouge-pour-al-sissi

    Jean-Yves Le Drian recevant des mains d’Abdelfattah al-Sissi des médailles pour le récompenser de la coopération militaire entre la #France et l’Égypte, en février 2017. © Reuters La France accueille en grande pompe, dès mardi 24 octobre, le président égyptien #Abdelfattah_al-Sissi, attendu à Paris pour de multiples rencontres. Pourquoi le gouvernement français entretient-il des relations aussi étroites avec un dirigeant de plus en plus répressif ?

    #International #armes #démocratie #Droits_de_l'homme #droits_humains #Emmanuel_Macron #Jean-Yves_Le_Drian #société_civile


  • « A #Bahreïn, l’absence de #droits_humains balise le chemin d’une montée de la violence »
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/231017/bahrein-l-absence-de-droits-humains-balise-le-chemin-d-une-montee-de-la-vi

    Le cheikh #Maytham_al-Salman posant devant une plaque en hommage au jeune Tunisien qui a involontairement déclenché les #printemps_arabes de 2011, dans les locaux de la FIDH à Paris © Thomas Cantaloube Depuis le soulèvement de 2011, le micro-État de Bahreïn a disparu des écrans radars. Pourtant, la situation des droits humains ne fait que s’y détériorer. Maytham al-Salman, directeur de l’ONG Bahrain InterFaithn, en appelle à la pression de l’Occident pour faire changer les choses.

    #International #Arabie_Saoudite #chiites #démocratie #Droits_de_l'homme #printemps_arabe


  • La contestation populaire du #Rif s’invite au Parlement européen
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/151017/la-contestation-populaire-du-rif-s-invite-au-parlement-europeen

    Marche pour la libération des militants du Hirak prisonniers au #Maroc. © Reuters Des associations marocaines de #droits_humains ont fait la lumière au Parlement européen sur le Hirak, ce mouvement de contestation inédit sous #Mohammed_VI né il y a près d’un an dans le Rif au lendemain de la mort d’un jeune poissonnier. Elles dénoncent la politique sécuritaire et répressive, seule réponse des autorités.

    #International #mouvement_social #répression #« Hirak »


  • A Genève, le Maroc s’oppose à la dépénalisation de l’homosexualité et à l’égalité dans l’héritage | Telquel.ma

    http://telquel.ma/2017/09/21/a-geneve-le-maroc-soppose-a-la-depenalisation-de-lhomosexualite-et-a-legalit

    On est pas encore vraiment arrivé, et c’est au Maroc. Imaginez ailleurs... Y a encore un peu de boulot à faire. Mais vive les #droits_humains

    http://telquel.ma/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Ramid.jpg

    Le royaume a rejeté les recommandations relatives à la décriminalisation de l’homosexualité. Pour justifier ce rejet, le département interministériel des droits de l’Homme a expliqué que ces recommandations sont en contradiction avec l’Article premier de la Constitution faisant de l’islam modéré une « constante » de la nation marocaine. Le rejet des recommandations relatives à l’égalité dans l’héritage sont justifiée par le même texte.

    https://seenthis.net/messages/631684 via Reka


  • Le #Yémen est un premier test de politique étrangère pour Macron
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/190917/le-yemen-est-un-premier-test-de-politique-etrangere-pour-macron

    La France soutiendra-t-elle la création d’une commission internationale d’enquête sur les crimes de #guerre et les violations des droits de l’homme au Yémen ? Ou s’alignera-t-elle sur la volonté de l’Arabie saoudite d’enterrer tout examen de ses actions, afin de garantir les ventes d’armes tricolores ?

    #International #Arabie_Saoudite #armement #armes #Conseil_des_droits_de_l'Homme #droits_humains #Elysée #Jean-Yves_Le_Drian #ONU


  • Le #Yémen, un premier test de politique étrangère pour Macron
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/190917/le-yemen-un-premier-test-de-politique-etrangere-pour-macron

    La France soutiendra-t-elle la création d’une commission internationale d’enquête sur les crimes de #guerre et les violations des droits de l’homme au Yémen ? Ou s’alignera-t-elle sur la volonté de l’Arabie saoudite d’enterrer tout examen de ses actions, afin de garantir les ventes d’armes tricolores ?

    #International #Arabie_Saoudite #armement #armes #Conseil_des_droits_de_l'Homme #droits_humains #Elysée #Jean-Yves_Le_Drian #ONU


  • Gros plan sur les ventes d’armes françaises qui alimentent la guerre au Yémen
    http://multinationales.org/Gros-plan-sur-les-ventes-d-armes-francaises-qui-alimentent-la-guerr

    La guerre fait rage au Yémen depuis plus de deux ans, entraînant une catastrophe humanitaire de grande ampleur. La #France, l’un des principaux pourvoyeurs d’armes de ce conflit, poursuit ses exportations à l’Arabie saoudite et à ses alliés sans se préoccuper des accusations de crimes de guerre. #Orient_XXI et l’Observatoire des armements révèlent le détail de ces ventes d’armes françaises, dont certaines se sont faites sous couvert d’un contrat théoriquement destiné au Liban. Les États-Unis et le (...)

    Actualités

    / Orient XXI, France, Défense et sécurité, #Arabie_saoudite, Airbus (ex EADS), #Thales, #Safran, #Nexter, #Renault_Trucks_Defense, #armement, #droits_humains, droit (...)

    #Défense_et_sécurité #Airbus_ex_EADS_ #droit_international
    « http://orientxxi.info/magazine/comment-la-france-participe-a-la-guerre-contre-le-yemen,1990 »

    https://seenthis.net/messages/629346 via ObservatoireMultinationales


  • #Qatar. Choses vues dans un pays sous embargo
    http://orientxxi.info/magazine/qatar-choses-vues-dans-un-pays-sous-embargo,1960

    La crise entre le Qatar et le « Quartet » s’enlise. Le 5 juin dernier, l’Arabie saoudite, les Emirats arabes unis, le #Bahreïn et l’Egypte ont imposé un embargo contre l’émirat et posé treize conditions pour le lever, de l’abandon des relations de Doha avec l’Iran à la fermeture de la chaîne de télévision panarabe Al-Jazira. Après avoir semblé adoucir leur position, les quatre pays de l’embargo ont répété leurs exigences à l’issue d’une réunion le 30 juillet à Bahreïn. Au Qatar, ce sont surtout les personnes, et (...)

    #Magazine

    / Bahreïn, Émirats arabes unis (EAU), Qatar, #Droits_humains, #Droits_des_femmes, #Médias, #Arabie_saoudite, #Envoyé_spécial, #Droits_de_l'enfant, Droit du (...)

    #Émirats_arabes_unis_EAU_ #Droit_du_travail
    « http://afdinternational.org/fr »
    « http://www.rfi.fr/moyen-orient/20170803-qatar-cree-statut-residents-permanents-non-nationaux »
    « http://afdinternational.org/fr/2017/05/10/egypte-un-juge-dinstruction-francais-accepte-la-plainte-deposee-a- »
    « https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2014/01/MOHAMED/49992 »
    « https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/13/qatar-isolation-causing-rights-abuses »
    « http://www.nhrc-qa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NHRC-Second-Report-Regarding-the-Human-Rights-Violations-as-a-Result-of-the »


  • UE-Libye: le partenariat de la honte
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/060717/ue-libye-le-partenariat-de-la-honte

    Un an et demi après l’accord UE-Turquie, l’Union européenne a renforcé, ce jeudi au sommet de #Tallinn, le partenariat avec la #libye pour endiguer la venue de #réfugiés africains en Europe. Une réponse qui fait fi de la situation des #droits_humains dans cet État failli du Maghreb.

    #International #Amnesty_international #asile #Italie #ONG #union_européenne


  • Peace journalism handbook

    Bianet released a handbook on Peace-Journalism, proposing a professional model that is human rights-oriented, fair instead than “objective” and infused with feminist theory

    http://www.rcmediafreedom.eu/var/ezdemo_site/storage/images/publications/manuals/peace-journalism-handbook/27178-1-eng-GB/Peace-journalism-handbook_large.jpg
    http://www.rcmediafreedom.eu/Publications/Manuals/Peace-journalism-handbook
    #paix #journalisme #presse #manuel #médias #féminisme #droits_humains
    cc @albertocampiphoto @marty @daphne

    https://seenthis.net/messages/608325 via CDB_77


  • Le Conseil constitutionnel censure partiellement la loi sur le devoir de vigilance des multinationales
    http://multinationales.org/Le-Conseil-constitutionnel-censure-partiellement-la-loi-sur-le-devo

    Le Conseil constitutionnel a décidé de censurer la loi sur le devoir de vigilance des multinationales sur un point central : la possibilité d’infliger une amende aux firmes qui ne respecteraient pas leur obligation de « prévenir les atteintes graves envers les #droits_humains et les libertés fondamentales ». Une nouvelle demi-victoire (ou demi-défaite) pour cette législation au parcours laborieux. Le Conseil constitutionnel a rendu sa décision : il censure partiellement la loi sur le « devoir de (...)

    Actualités

    / #France, #responsabilité_juridique_des_entreprises, droits humains, #droit_international

    « http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/acces-par-date/decisions-depuis-1959/2017/2017-750-dc/decision-n-2017-750-dc-du-23-mars-2017.148843.html »
    « http://www.la-croix.com/Economie/France/La-contre-laccaparement-terres-agricoles-censuree-Conseil-constitutionnel- »
    « http://www.afep.com/uploads/medias/documents/20170323_CP_Afep_Devoir_de_vigilance.pdf »
    « http://www.amisdelaterre.org/Devoir-de-vigilance-le-Conseil-Constitutionnel-valide-l-essentiel-de- »
    « http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank/download/2017750DC2017750dc_contributions.pdf »
    « https://issuu.com/collectifdong/docs/m__moire_-_alc-_201700300855450 »

    https://seenthis.net/messages/581706 via ObservatoireMultinationales