Latest news with #UnitedNationsUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights
The Advertiser
4 days ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
Kmart accused of misleading over slave labour supplies
Retail giant Kmart is facing accusations it misled customers on its ethical credentials by sourcing clothing supplies from factories in China with links to slave labour. An Australian-based Uyghur group has filed a lawsuit against the outlet in the Federal Court, seeking to gain documents so they can see whether it knowingly sourced stock from suppliers who used forced labour from those in the ethnic group. In its ethical sourcing statement, Kmart said it aimed to provide products that respected human rights according to its ethical sourcing code which committed to abiding by international standards, including guidelines set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The lawsuit filed by the Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association claims Kmart included on its 2024 and 2025 factory lists two suppliers with links to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It said this region in China's west has been well-documented for "systemic state-sponsored forced labour and other atrocities against Uyghur and other Turkic Muslim people". The group wants proof from Kmart that it has abided by its ethical sourcing promises regarding these suppliers and whether its public statements have been misleading or deceptive. Kmart must ensure it is not profiting off forced labour in China, association president Ramila Chanisheff said. "We're demanding answers from Kmart so we know whether its actions live up to its words about addressing forced labour risks in its supply chain," she said. The retailer risks a legal claim that it breached Australian Consumer Law by misleading and deceptive conduct if documents show it had failed to monitor the risk of it using forced labour in its supply chain. Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Jennifer Kanis said the firm was using this first-of-its-kind case to bring real accountability to Australian retailers. "Kmart tells customers that it supports ethical sourcing and the protection of human rights – but we know there are credible links between two of its factories and suppliers and the use of Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang," Ms Kanis said. Human Rights Law Centre associate legal director Freya Dinshaw said the case highlighted the weaknesses in Australia's laws when members of the public are left to take companies to court on suspicions of modern slavery. Unlike the United States, Australia has not banned imports of products made in the Xinjiang region, instead opting for a transparency approach which requires businesses to report annually on their actions to identify and address slavery risks. Wesfarmers, the parent company of Kmart, has been contacted for comment. Retail giant Kmart is facing accusations it misled customers on its ethical credentials by sourcing clothing supplies from factories in China with links to slave labour. An Australian-based Uyghur group has filed a lawsuit against the outlet in the Federal Court, seeking to gain documents so they can see whether it knowingly sourced stock from suppliers who used forced labour from those in the ethnic group. In its ethical sourcing statement, Kmart said it aimed to provide products that respected human rights according to its ethical sourcing code which committed to abiding by international standards, including guidelines set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The lawsuit filed by the Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association claims Kmart included on its 2024 and 2025 factory lists two suppliers with links to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It said this region in China's west has been well-documented for "systemic state-sponsored forced labour and other atrocities against Uyghur and other Turkic Muslim people". The group wants proof from Kmart that it has abided by its ethical sourcing promises regarding these suppliers and whether its public statements have been misleading or deceptive. Kmart must ensure it is not profiting off forced labour in China, association president Ramila Chanisheff said. "We're demanding answers from Kmart so we know whether its actions live up to its words about addressing forced labour risks in its supply chain," she said. The retailer risks a legal claim that it breached Australian Consumer Law by misleading and deceptive conduct if documents show it had failed to monitor the risk of it using forced labour in its supply chain. Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Jennifer Kanis said the firm was using this first-of-its-kind case to bring real accountability to Australian retailers. "Kmart tells customers that it supports ethical sourcing and the protection of human rights – but we know there are credible links between two of its factories and suppliers and the use of Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang," Ms Kanis said. Human Rights Law Centre associate legal director Freya Dinshaw said the case highlighted the weaknesses in Australia's laws when members of the public are left to take companies to court on suspicions of modern slavery. Unlike the United States, Australia has not banned imports of products made in the Xinjiang region, instead opting for a transparency approach which requires businesses to report annually on their actions to identify and address slavery risks. Wesfarmers, the parent company of Kmart, has been contacted for comment. Retail giant Kmart is facing accusations it misled customers on its ethical credentials by sourcing clothing supplies from factories in China with links to slave labour. An Australian-based Uyghur group has filed a lawsuit against the outlet in the Federal Court, seeking to gain documents so they can see whether it knowingly sourced stock from suppliers who used forced labour from those in the ethnic group. In its ethical sourcing statement, Kmart said it aimed to provide products that respected human rights according to its ethical sourcing code which committed to abiding by international standards, including guidelines set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The lawsuit filed by the Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association claims Kmart included on its 2024 and 2025 factory lists two suppliers with links to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It said this region in China's west has been well-documented for "systemic state-sponsored forced labour and other atrocities against Uyghur and other Turkic Muslim people". The group wants proof from Kmart that it has abided by its ethical sourcing promises regarding these suppliers and whether its public statements have been misleading or deceptive. Kmart must ensure it is not profiting off forced labour in China, association president Ramila Chanisheff said. "We're demanding answers from Kmart so we know whether its actions live up to its words about addressing forced labour risks in its supply chain," she said. The retailer risks a legal claim that it breached Australian Consumer Law by misleading and deceptive conduct if documents show it had failed to monitor the risk of it using forced labour in its supply chain. Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Jennifer Kanis said the firm was using this first-of-its-kind case to bring real accountability to Australian retailers. "Kmart tells customers that it supports ethical sourcing and the protection of human rights – but we know there are credible links between two of its factories and suppliers and the use of Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang," Ms Kanis said. Human Rights Law Centre associate legal director Freya Dinshaw said the case highlighted the weaknesses in Australia's laws when members of the public are left to take companies to court on suspicions of modern slavery. Unlike the United States, Australia has not banned imports of products made in the Xinjiang region, instead opting for a transparency approach which requires businesses to report annually on their actions to identify and address slavery risks. Wesfarmers, the parent company of Kmart, has been contacted for comment. Retail giant Kmart is facing accusations it misled customers on its ethical credentials by sourcing clothing supplies from factories in China with links to slave labour. An Australian-based Uyghur group has filed a lawsuit against the outlet in the Federal Court, seeking to gain documents so they can see whether it knowingly sourced stock from suppliers who used forced labour from those in the ethnic group. In its ethical sourcing statement, Kmart said it aimed to provide products that respected human rights according to its ethical sourcing code which committed to abiding by international standards, including guidelines set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The lawsuit filed by the Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association claims Kmart included on its 2024 and 2025 factory lists two suppliers with links to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It said this region in China's west has been well-documented for "systemic state-sponsored forced labour and other atrocities against Uyghur and other Turkic Muslim people". The group wants proof from Kmart that it has abided by its ethical sourcing promises regarding these suppliers and whether its public statements have been misleading or deceptive. Kmart must ensure it is not profiting off forced labour in China, association president Ramila Chanisheff said. "We're demanding answers from Kmart so we know whether its actions live up to its words about addressing forced labour risks in its supply chain," she said. The retailer risks a legal claim that it breached Australian Consumer Law by misleading and deceptive conduct if documents show it had failed to monitor the risk of it using forced labour in its supply chain. Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Jennifer Kanis said the firm was using this first-of-its-kind case to bring real accountability to Australian retailers. "Kmart tells customers that it supports ethical sourcing and the protection of human rights – but we know there are credible links between two of its factories and suppliers and the use of Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang," Ms Kanis said. Human Rights Law Centre associate legal director Freya Dinshaw said the case highlighted the weaknesses in Australia's laws when members of the public are left to take companies to court on suspicions of modern slavery. Unlike the United States, Australia has not banned imports of products made in the Xinjiang region, instead opting for a transparency approach which requires businesses to report annually on their actions to identify and address slavery risks. Wesfarmers, the parent company of Kmart, has been contacted for comment.
Otago Daily Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Kmart accused of links to slave labour factories
Retail giant Kmart is facing accusations it misled customers on its ethical credentials by sourcing clothing supplies from factories in China with links to slave labour. An Australian-based Uyghur group has filed a lawsuit against the outlet in the Federal Court, seeking to gain documents so they can see whether it knowingly sourced stock from suppliers who used forced labour from those in the ethnic group. In its ethical sourcing statement, Kmart said it aimed to provide products that respected human rights according to its ethical sourcing code which committed to abiding by international standards, including guidelines set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The lawsuit filed by the Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association claims Kmart included on its 2024 and 2025 factory lists two suppliers with links to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It said this region in China's west has been well-documented for "systemic state-sponsored forced labour and other atrocities against Uyghur and other Turkic Muslim people". The group wants proof from Kmart that it has abided by its ethical sourcing promises regarding these suppliers and whether its public statements have been misleading or deceptive. Kmart must ensure it is not profiting off forced labour in China, association president Ramila Chanisheff said. "We're demanding answers from Kmart so we know whether its actions live up to its words about addressing forced labour risks in its supply chain," she said. The retailer risks a legal claim that it breached Australian Consumer Law by misleading and deceptive conduct if documents show it had failed to monitor the risk of it using forced labour in its supply chain. Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Jennifer Kanis said the firm was using this first-of-its-kind case to bring real accountability to Australian retailers. "Kmart tells customers that it supports ethical sourcing and the protection of human rights – but we know there are credible links between two of its factories and suppliers and the use of Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang," Ms Kanis said. Human Rights Law Centre associate legal director Freya Dinshaw said the case highlighted the weaknesses in Australia's laws when members of the public are left to take companies to court on suspicions of modern slavery. Unlike the United States, Australia has not banned imports of products made in the Xinjiang region, instead opting for a transparency approach which requires businesses to report annually on their actions to identify and address slavery risks. Wesfarmers, the parent company of Kmart, has been contacted for comment.
Perth Now
4 days ago
- Business
- Perth Now
Kmart accused of misleading over slave labour supplies
Retail giant Kmart is facing accusations it misled customers on its ethical credentials by sourcing clothing supplies from factories in China with links to slave labour. An Australian-based Uyghur group has filed a lawsuit against the outlet in the Federal Court, seeking to gain documents so they can see whether it knowingly sourced stock from suppliers who used forced labour from those in the ethnic group. In its ethical sourcing statement, Kmart said it aimed to provide products that respected human rights according to its ethical sourcing code which committed to abiding by international standards, including guidelines set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The lawsuit filed by the Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association claims Kmart included on its 2024 and 2025 factory lists two suppliers with links to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It said this region in China's west has been well-documented for "systemic state-sponsored forced labour and other atrocities against Uyghur and other Turkic Muslim people". The group wants proof from Kmart that it has abided by its ethical sourcing promises regarding these suppliers and whether its public statements have been misleading or deceptive. Kmart must ensure it is not profiting off forced labour in China, association president Ramila Chanisheff said. "We're demanding answers from Kmart so we know whether its actions live up to its words about addressing forced labour risks in its supply chain," she said. The retailer risks a legal claim that it breached Australian Consumer Law by misleading and deceptive conduct if documents show it had failed to monitor the risk of it using forced labour in its supply chain. Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Jennifer Kanis said the firm was using this first-of-its-kind case to bring real accountability to Australian retailers. "Kmart tells customers that it supports ethical sourcing and the protection of human rights – but we know there are credible links between two of its factories and suppliers and the use of Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang," Ms Kanis said. Human Rights Law Centre associate legal director Freya Dinshaw said the case highlighted the weaknesses in Australia's laws when members of the public are left to take companies to court on suspicions of modern slavery. Unlike the United States, Australia has not banned imports of products made in the Xinjiang region, instead opting for a transparency approach which requires businesses to report annually on their actions to identify and address slavery risks. Wesfarmers, the parent company of Kmart, has been contacted for comment.
The Hindu
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Cause and effect: On human rights, citizenship cases
Concerns surrounding citizenship faced by sections of society in India's border States have come to the fore again with courts stepping in to provide temporary relief to harassed individuals. The issues arising from these cases are far from settled. On June 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of India stayed the deportation of Jaynab Bibi who was labelled a 'foreigner', first by the Foreigners' Tribunal in Assam, and then by the Gauhati High Court. Despite hailing from a family whose members have lived in Assam for generations, and furnishing all documents, she has had to run from pillar to post to prove that she is an Indian citizen. A Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N. Kotiswar Singh ordered the Union government not to take any coercive steps against Ms. Bibi, till the next hearing in August. In the case of Rakshanda Rashid, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh ordered the Union Home Secretary to repatriate the 63-year-old housewife to India. She was deported to Pakistan following the crackdown against Pakistani nationals after the Pahalgam terror attack in April. Ms. Rashid, a Pakistani national, had been staying in Jammu for the past 38 years with her husband and two children, and had a long-term visa. Her application for citizenship in 1996 is yet to be processed. In his order, High Court judge Rahul Bharti said human rights are the most sacrosanct component of a human life and that there are times when a court has to respond 'SOS like' without going into the merits and demerits of a case, which can be decided on in due course of time. The lawyers for Ms. Bibi referred to Md. Rahim Ali @ Abdur Rahim vs The State Of Assam in 2024 in which the Supreme Court touched on the manner in which people in Assam were being randomly suspected as foreigners without any cogent evidence. '...[I]t is well settled that suspicion, however high it may be, can under no circumstances, be held to be a substitute for legal evidence,' it said, laying down the due process to be followed when an individual is declared a foreigner. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019, by offering citizenship to six non-Muslim communities in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, adopted a narrow and arbitrary view of 'religious persecution'. The innate violence in the rhetoric of senior Bharatiya Janata Party Chief Ministers such as Yogi Adityanath and Himanta Biswa Sarma against minorities has heightened the anxiety felt by the marginalised, poor, sometimes undocumented, communities. Governments must uphold human rights and dignity of the individual, as provided for under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and not have to be nudged by courts.
Mint
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
European Kindness Is Threatening Freedom of Speech
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Britain and Europe have become 'a hotbed of digital censorship, mass migration, restrictions on religious freedom,' according to Samuel Samson, a senior adviser to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. His punchy boss further threatens to bar European visitors to the US for 'censoring' Americans online. Vice President JD Vance also condemned European 'backsliding' on basic democratic values in a speech that outraged his audience at the Munich Security Conference last autumn. It used to be liberal progressives and radicals who denounced the state for infringing freedom of speech. Now it's the turn of the populist right to rage against 'woke' censorship. President Donald Trump's own respect for the democratic process is questionable, and administration officials, contemptuous of academic and artistic freedoms at home, make unlikely ambassadors for human rights abroad. But what if these populists have a point? Alas, the UK and Europe should look hard at their protections of the rights of individuals to say whatever they please. Some governments who would regard themselves as liberal minded are in danger of stifling, if not killing, free speech, albeit out of kindness. That's where the muddle begins. In theory, all states, even totalitarian ones like North Korea and dictatorships like Russia which murder truth-telling journalists, subscribe to Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states 'everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference.' In practice, all states also have restrictions on freedom of speech, and rightly so. Shout 'fire' in a crowded cinema out of mischief and you'll be held responsible for those trampled in the rush for the exit; incite a crowd to lynch a victim and you'll spend many years behind bars. Individuals also have the right to protection against libel, slander and harassment. This is the stuff of a thousand philosophy seminars. But balancing individual rights with social responsibility is harder than it looks. The US Supreme Court has made a better fist of it than most by extending First Amendment protections for free speech in recent decades, ruling that the authorities may only prosecute inflammatory speech that's 'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action.' Several European governments, however, have now tilted in the wrong direction — toward censorship and overreach. Germany goes to absurd lengths to protect its political class from personal abuse, for instance. France and Italy have similar laws. In the UK, however, the desire to promote social harmony and protect minorities has taken precedence over free speech. So, a retired police officer was arrested in his Kent home by a posse of former colleagues for a wry tweet about pro-Palestinian demonstrators. As his home was ransacked, the police commented on his suspiciously Brexit-y reading material. In another notorious incident that made the front pages, a couple were held for eight hours at a police station for writing WhatApp messages and posting salty criticism of their daughter's primary school. Unfortunately, these aren't isolated incidents of overzealous authorities. Another cause celebre of the populist right on both sides of the Atlantic is the case of Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councillor who was jailed for 31 months for a public order offence. Yet she's no free speech martyr. After three children were murdered in a knife attack in Southport last year, Connolly wrongly assumed the assailant was an immigrant — he was the son of refugees from Rwanda — and tweeted on X calling for mass deportations and inciting people to set fire to hotels housing immigrants. The post was viewed more than 300,000 times on a day when racist thugs attacked mosques and migrant hostels. Judges are the ultimate guardians of the rule of law, the fertile ground out of which both British and American democracy grew. The courts therefore come down hard on those who threaten public order. Connolly's sentence was intended to be exemplary, but it was at the extreme range of censure - and should have been reduced on appeal. Confused thinking and badly drafted legislation lies behind the UK's recent illiberal tilt. Hate crime is now defined by law as 'any criminal offence perceived by the victim or any person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.' Such vague, subjective criteria should have no place on the statute book. As Jonathan Sumption, a former supreme court justice puts it: 'Words may now be criminal if they are abusive or even insulting, even if they are not threatening and put no one in danger.' At the root of much of this is poorly written legislation. The concept of 'non-crime hate,' introduced after the racist murder of Black teenager Stephen Lawrence 30 years ago, also obliges the police to record incidents of so-called offensive speech that have no criminal penalty. The evidence, such as it is, can stay on file and be used in criminal record checks seen by potential employers. The College of Policing's Kafkaesque guidance states 'the victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception' — a charter for aggrieved individuals to pursue private vendettas. Ten of thousands of police hours are devoted to non-crime hate; 13,200 incidents were recorded by police in the year to June 2024. It's easy to collect the evidence because most of it is posted online — far easier than tracking down violent criminals, burglars and fraudsters. So while police chiefs went public in the media this week with demands for more money from the Treasury, the government should be asking whether officers are making best use of their existing budgets. Unfortunately, things look likely to get worse before they get better. The Labour government's new employment bill includes provisions to require employers to take 'all reasonable' steps to prevent harassment of staff at work by clients and customers, including 'overheard conversations' - a boggy territory which strips out context and relies heavily on subjective impressions about what was heard. How will free speech in bars and pubs be monitored in practice? Prime Minister Keir Starmer made his reputation as a lawyer by taking on corporations trying to stifle free speech. He needs to be alert to the wider context in which this legislation is being proposed, ideally calling for a review that would halt the pernicious drift toward limiting freedom of speech for fear of causing minor offence. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Martin Ivens is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and its chief political commentator. More stories like this are available on
