Latest news with #UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights
Canada Standard
a day ago
- Politics
- Canada Standard
International Day for Dialogue among Civilizations : Answer Hate with Humanity, Choose Discussion over Division
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' message for the International Day for Dialogue among Civilizations, observed on 10 June: The United Nations was built on a fundamental conviction: dialogue is the path to peace. On this First International Day for Dialogue among Civilizations , we celebrate that conviction - and the rich diversity of civilizations as a force to promote mutual understanding and global solidarity. Today, that mission is more urgent than ever. Where dialogue is missing, ignorance fills the void. Around the world, we hear rising voices of intolerance and xenophobia, amplified by online misinformation and hate speech. In our fractured world, dialogue is not optional - it is essential for building bridges of understanding and trust. So, too, is the work of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, re-enforced by the global platform for dialogue that it has created over the past two decades. This International Day is a call to action - to listen, to speak, to connect. Let's answer hate with humanity. Let's listen with open hearts and open minds. Let's choose dialogue over division. And let us strive to be one human family, rich in diversity, united in solidarity, and equal in dignity and human rights. What is a civilisation ? The notion of "civilization" is not easy to define and can be subject to misinterpretation. However, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) regards it as a universal, pluralistic, and non-hierarchical reality, recognizing that civilizations are inherently shaped by intercultural dynamics while retaining their unique identities. International Day for Dialogue among Civilizations On 7 June 2024 the General Assembly adopted a resolution declaring 10 June the International Day for Dialogue among Civilizations . Proposed by China and co-sponsored by over 80 countries, the resolution emphasizes that all civilizational achievements constitute "the collective heritage of humankind." It underscores the importance of respecting civilizational diversity and highlights "the crucial role of dialogue" in maintaining global peace, advancing shared development, enhancing human well-being, and achieving collective progress. The resolution acknowledges the essential role of dialogue in fostering awareness and understanding of universal values, as outlined in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, reaffirming that civilizational achievements are part of humanity's shared heritage. Source: Pressenza
Scoop
4 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
India: Government Arbitrarily Detained & Forcibly Transferred Rohingya Human Rights Defender In Defiance Of U.N. Ruling
Bangkok, 27 May 2025 The Government of India arbitrarily detained Rohingya human rights defender Mohammad Arfat for more than four years without due process, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention ruled, Fortify Rights said today. The recent ruling, which responds to a complaint filed by Fortify Rights in May 2024, calls on Indian authorities to provide Mohammad Arfat with reparations, prevent future violations, and cooperate with the U.N. Refugee Agency to ensure his protection and potential resettlement. More than 40 days after the Working Group issued its decision, Indian authorities defied the U.N. ruling, forcibly transferring Mohammad Arfat to another country, where he now remains in hiding due to ongoing threats to his security. 'India's prolonged and arbitrary detention of Mohammad Arfat was both unlawful and unconscionable. He should never have been detained, let alone forcibly transferred out of India following the ruling,' said John Quinley, Director of Fortify Rights. 'The U.N. Working Group's opinion reaffirms what we have known all along—India violated international law by detaining a recognized refugee for years, and then put him even further in harm's way.' In the published opinion, adopted during its 101st session, the U.N. Working Group determined that India's detention of Mohammad Arfat since 2018 was arbitrary, lacked any legal basis, and deprived him of due process. The opinion finds that his detention was based solely on his status as a Rohingya refugee and that India violated key provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—to which India is a state party and legally bound to uphold— including Articles 9 and 14, which protect against arbitrary detention and ensure the right to a fair trial. Upon his release from arbitrary detention, Mohammad Arfat told Fortify Rights: I was beaten by Indian police when I was first detained. … My health [after years] in Indian detention was not good, and I could not see a doctor. I became very sick over the years. … Now [after my release and transfer] I feel mentally and physically unwell. The U.N. Working Group is a body of independent human rights experts established by the U.N. Human Rights Council to investigate and provide opinions on cases of deprivation of liberty that are allegedly arbitrary or inconsistent with international standards. Fortify Rights filed the 20-page complaint to the Working Group on May 30, 2024, along with an annex of more than 90 pages supporting Mohammad Arfat's case and his right to liberty. The U.N. Working Group's opinion in response to Fortify Rights' submission expressed grave concern for Mohammad Arfat and recommended that Indian authorities: [E]nd the arbitrary detention of Mr. Arfat by immediately and unconditionally releasing him and to liaise with UNHCR to grant him protection and a remedy, befitting his status as an asylum-seeker, which could include resettlement in a third country. The U.N. Working Group also recommended that the Indian government provide 'compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law,' for the harm caused to Mohammad Arfat, and that those responsible for the violation of his rights be held accountable, urging the Government 'to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Arfat and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.' Instead, India forcibly transferred Mohammad Arfat to another country shortly after the ruling. In addition to Mohammad Arfat's case, beginning on May 6, 2025, Fortify Rights documented how Indian authorities carried out mass arrests of Rohingya refugees in New Delhi. The next day, the authorities forced at least 40 of them back to Myanmar, where the military junta has been carrying out a genocidal campaign and where the Arakan Army — an ethnic resistance army fighting the Myanmar military junta in an ongoing revolution — has also carried out atrocities against the Rohingya people. In this instance, the India Navy dumped the refugees into the sea near the Myanmar border, placing their lives at grave risk in violation of international law. During the same crackdown, India also forcibly deported other Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh, which hosts more than one million Rohingya refugees in crowded and tightly controlled camps. On May 15, 2025, Tom Andrews, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, called India's forcing Rohingya into the sea 'unconscionable' and 'outrageous' and, in response, he launched an inquiry. Andrews said in a statement that forced returns to Myanmar are a 'serious violation of the principle of non-refoulment, a fundamental tenet of international law that prohibits states from returning individuals to a territory where they face threats to their lives or freedom.' Furthermore, on March 3, three U.N. experts, including Special Rapporteur Andrews, raised concerns about India's 'widespread, arbitrary and indefinite detention of refugees from Myanmar' in a letter to the Indian government: Conditions in places of detention are reportedly dire. Detainees from Myanmar, the majority of whom are Rohingya, are reportedly held in severely overcrowded cells, and do not receive adequate nutrition, clean water, or medical care. Facilities are reportedly unsanitary. Detainees lack clean clothes, bedding, and access to sunlight. Many detainees are reportedly suffering from illness, infections and other medical problems and are unable to access adequate medical care. India must immediately end its arbitrary and indefinite detention of refugees and provide reparations to all harmed by the government's reckless and violent crackdown on their rights, said Fortify Rights. India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol and lacks a domestic asylum law; however, it remains obligated to respect the international customary law principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the forced return of refugees to situations where they are likely to face persecution and other serious human rights abuses. India's forcible return of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar—where they face grave risks of persecution, violence, or death—also violates several international treaties to which India is a state party, including the ICCPR (Articles 6, 7, and 9), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 6 and 22), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Article 5). Forcibly returning Rohingya refugees to Myanmar also violates the Genocide Convention, to which India is a state party, said Fortify Rights. By returning victims of genocide to a country where that genocide is ongoing, India may be failing in its obligation to prevent genocide under international law. Moreover, by knowingly contributing to the continuing genocide through the forced return of survivors, India risks legal complicity in the very crimes the Convention is meant to prevent. 'India has legal obligations to protect Rohingya refugees under treaties it willfully entered into,' said John Quinley. 'India should immediately and unconditionally free all refugees in detention and provide compensation for any harms inflicted.'
New Indian Express
6 days ago
- Health
- New Indian Express
Menstrual health and dignity --aligning policy with rights in India
On the Menstrual Hygiene Day (May 28), campaigns and organisations are amplifying efforts to advocate even more vociferously for the adequate redressal of menstrual health challenges. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of India has asked the Central Government to frame a model policy on menstrual leave. This is a watershed moment for addressing menstrual health as a fundamental human right rather than 'women's personal issue.' The order comes in light of the millions of menstruators in the country who still face discrimination, manage menstrual health and hygiene (MHH) with inadequate infrastructure and encounter stigma that undermines the constitutional rights. By the Constitution of India, we, as citizens, irrespective of whether an individual is a person with uterus or not, are guaranteed that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds including sex (Article 15), Right to Life and Personal Liberty which includes Right to Dignity (Article 21) is also envisaged in the Constitution along with the Right to Education (Article 21 A)- all of which implicitly support menstrual health and hygiene(MHH) rights. However, there are myriads of systemic inequities, including social and cultural taboos and stigma, that undermine these principles. India is a signatory to multiple international human rights frameworks that should protect menstrual rights -- the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which establishes the right to dignity (Article 1), health (Article 25) and education (Article 26), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which India has committed to achieving by menstrual health remains inadequately addressed because there is a stark gap between the Constitutional Rights as well as international obligations India is committed to upholdvis-à-vis lived realities of menstruators on the ground. Reflecting on my campaigning journey of over four years since launching the menstrual awareness and equity campaign, Alharh, in Bhagalpur, Bihar in December 2019, I have seen our humble youth-led initiative steadily grow to reach nearly 4000 people. Yet, even today, the voices from the ground remain dishearteningly similar: a tale of shame and stigma that represents clear violations of fundamental rights. During one of our community events, 'KhullamKhulla Baat Karenge', silence spoke louder than those who actually spoke. Fourteen-year-old Khushi confessed that she kept mum at the event because she was too shy to speak about periods in public. However, she listened. Weeks later, she volunteered at the campaign, mentioning: 'Since that day, I feel compelled to notice the discrimination we face, even within our own homes simply because we menstruate.' Inspired to break taboos within her own home, she deliberately entered her kitchen, a space she was not 'allowed' to enter during her menstrual days and touched the pickle. This small but significant act empowered her tremendously. Nervous yet determined, she also sent pictures of her holding sanitary pads as an attempt to normalize the stigmatized and the unspeakable. This was no small change.
Euronews
23-05-2025
- Business
- Euronews
Family of Dubai prisoner Ryan Cornelius turns to EU for help
Irish family members of Ryan Cornelius, a British businessman jailed for fraud in the United Arab Emirates, whose imprisonment has been labelled unfair by the United Nations, have sought to enlist the help of MEPs and EU officials in an effort to have him released. Heather Cornelius and Chris Pagett, respectively Ryan's wife and brother-in-law, visited the European Parliament in Brussels to ask MEPs to help put pressure on the UAE to release him. Since Heather has Irish roots and holds an Irish passport, they feel the EU is their only avenue left to help secure Cornelius' release. Cornelius is a property developer who was jailed over a $501 million bank loan from the Dubai Islamic Bank (DIB) that he and another British businessman were using to fund investment programmes in the Gulf. DIB subsequently reset the loan, claiming that it was not being used for the purposes intended and that fake receipts were being provided to cover the expenditure. A settlement was reached under which new repayment terms were set and Cornelius' property was put up as collateral. He was nevertheless detained for 10 years in 2008 as part of an alleged bank fraud case, with his detention extended by 20 years in 2018. A United Nations working group on arbitrary detention ruled in 2022 that Cornelius' trial was unfair and his imprisonment 'arbitrary', contravening eight separate articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. His case has also been taken up by Global Magnitsky Justice Campaign, the group founded by Bill Browder, who accompanied his family members to Brussels, and said Cornelius is the longest wrongfully imprisoned British citizen abroad. In an interview with Euronews, the brother-in-law of Ryan Cornelius described his life behind bars in Dubai. A former government official, Chris Pagett said Ryan's health was deteriorating, but that he has remained mentally strong due to frequent phone calls with Heather his wife and their three children. "The most important thing is to talk to Heather. He talks to her once a day," Pagett said, adding that it is a 'gross abuse of process' that the British government has not done more to fight for Cornelius' release. "Ryan's case was basically an irritant, an obstacle in the way of their desire for, you know, close commercial relations with the UAE," he added. Asked to comment by Euronews, the British government said that the Foreign Secretary had brought his case up with the UAE Foreign Minister on 7 December. Back in January 2025, Hamish Falconer the Under-Secretary of State said the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was providing Cornelius with consular assistance and took 'any reports of human rights violations, including coercion and poor prison conditions very seriously'. But Heather Cornelius has turned to Brussels in efforts to see her husband released, and told Euronews how hard daily life has been for her husband. "It is a dreadful way of life, you know, you're shouted at to line up at 5.30 in the morning. You know, you get absolutely awful food, the same chicken and rice every day, six days a week, and I think eggs on Friday. He hardly ever gets outside, maybe twice a month outside into fresh air,' she said. Irish MEPs Barry Andrews from Renew Europe and Seán Kelly from the European Peoples Party met with Heather and Chris in the European Parliament. They hope to put Ryan's case on the European Parliament agenda with a resolution so they can bring it to the EU foreign chief Kaja Kallas and therefore make Dubai change how they look at this ongoing detention. "The UN Human Rights Council have very clearly said that this is an injustice, and he should never been locked up in the first place, never mind have his detention extended," Barry Andrews told Euronews adding that in Dubai, rules state that anyone over 70 should be released in any case. "We are going to do everything we can to shed light on the case and hopefully to have Ryan released as soon as possible," he concluded.
Indian Express
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
The constitutional case for protecting Rohingya refugees
Last Friday, a division bench of the Supreme Court of India, consisting of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, refused to stay the alleged deportation of 43 Rohingya refugees. The petition alleged that the Delhi Police had transported the refugees to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and dropped them off in international waters for deportation to Myanmar. The Bench refused to intervene or take cognisance of the telephonic evidence or the UN inquiry report presented to it. The Bench reasoned that the relief sought in this case had been referred to a three-judge Bench and cited the orders of the Chief Justice of India. The case was then scheduled for a hearing before the three-judge Bench on July 31, 2025. Against this backdrop, larger questions emerge regarding the Indian government's outlook on the proliferation of refugee crises worldwide, particularly in India's neighbourhood. The Indian government views Rohingya refugees as a threat to national security, labelling them 'illegal immigrants' and advocating for their deportation. This stance infringes on constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21, read with Article 51(c) of the Constitution. Articles 14 and 21 guarantee the right to equality and the right to life and personal liberty to all persons, including non-citizens, rendering these rights universally applicable and non-excludable. Article 51(c) requires fostering respect for international law and treaty obligations. Therefore, India's ratification of international conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits the deportation of refugees when there is a serious risk of human rights violations. Constitutional provisions must be interpreted in a manner that aligns with the global human rights regime. This principle, known as non-refoulement, prohibits countries from sending individuals to a territory where they face a threat to their life. It is widely recognised as a fundamental tenet of international law and is accepted by most states as legally binding and non-derogable. The Indian judiciary's stance on refugee rights has been inconsistent. Three cases are most relevant to note. In NHRC vs Arunachal Pradesh, concerning the deportation of the Chakmas (who had migrated from Bangladesh in 1964 and first settled in Assam before settling in Arunachal Pradesh), the Supreme Court ruled that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution applies to all individuals, regardless of citizenship. The Court directed the Arunachal Pradesh government to protect the refugees, fulfil its legal obligations to safeguard the lives of Chakmas in the state, and ensure they were not forcibly evicted. The Court also emphasised the protection of refugees' rights. In Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi vs Union of India, the Gujarat High Court recognised that the principle of non-refoulement is included in Article 21 of the Constitution and underscored India's responsibility to respect international treaties and conventions concerning humanitarian law. The Delhi High Court took a similar stance in Dongh Lian Kham vs Union of India, recognising the principle of non-refoulement as integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. However, this approach seems to have faded as the Supreme Court has now taken a contrary stance on the deportation of the Rohingyas, ruling that the government's right to expel a foreigner is unlimited and absolute. India claims that it is not bound by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees ('1951 Convention') or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees ('1967 Protocol') and therefore is not obligated to adhere to Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention regarding the principle of non refoulement. However, it is imperative to note that this principle applies not only to recognised refugees but also to individuals whose refugee status has not been formally recognised. Refugee status determination is declaratory in nature; a person is recognised as a refugee because they are one, not because of recognition. In the context of Rohingyas in India, India's refusal to recognise them formally should not negate their inherent rights under international humanitarian principles or the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Currently, India's treatment of different refugee populations is based on non-uniform assessments and the nation's geopolitical interests. This approach has resulted in different standards of treatment, protection and assistance for different refugee groups. For example, Tibetan refugees have received a more favourable response, including residence permits, access to education, and government-supported settlement. In contrast, Sri Lankan refugees were housed in camps and faced numerous restrictions. This discretionary approach stems from the absence of a standardised national framework, leaving refugees and their rights at the mercy of those in positions of power. The world order appears to be shifting towards intolerance, with a surge in military conflict, the detrimental impacts of climate change, and geopolitical shifts leading to xenophobic tendencies. In this ever-shifting landscape, the traditional understanding of a 'refugee' — someone fleeing persecution, conflict or violence in their home country — is changing. This is due to the emergence of 'nouveau refugees', such as stateless persons and climate refugees, who do not conform to the traditional understanding of a 'refugee' from the old world order. To extend a non-discriminatory humanitarian hand would pave the way for India's leadership in kindness to forge a new world order of peace. Yanappa leads the Karnataka team at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, where she works on urban governance, education, and data and technology regulations. Ullal is a research fellow at Vidhi, where she works on issues concerning urban governance, education and the environment
