Torture

Jordan puts its money where its mouth is. As the first Arab country Jordan decided to co-sponsor the annual Anti-torture resolution in the UN last night.

During the last 10 years my country has led the often very difficult negotiations on torture. Torture is – as you would imagine – a very sensitive issue for many countries. It has been difficult to engage some parts of the world in signing up to a co-sponsorship, whereas no country the last number of years has voted against the resolution. But this year Jordan together with Morocco showed the way for the region.

This resolution reminds the world that freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is a fundamental right, that has to be protected under all circumstances and without exception.

Mabrook Jordan…

Global Peace Index – DK second most peaceful country

The annual GPI index “Vision of Humanity” was published on the 160th constitution day of Denmark (yesterday that was). DK got a nice gift on the occasion. Once again DK is the second most peaceful (and stable) country in the world. Only NZ is a notch ahead again.

Have a look at the figures and methodology at the GPI site for more info. And try also to make a comparison between two countries – like for instance Denmark and Jordan (ranking 64th). It is clear where the big and decisive differences are. Political instability, likelihood of violent demonstrations and military expenditure.

Looking a bit more closely you will see the very large difference in the driving political factors of democracy and transparency. Very low Jordanian scores on electoral process, functioning of government, political participation, civil liberties and corruption. These political factors are among the most important drivers of peacefulness and stability.

Eradicating Torture

We have the Karama Battle, we have the Karama Border Control and now we have the Karama Project. All three are about security – but very different kinds of security. Whereas the two first is known to most Jordanians the K-project is new. It was launched today in Amman.

The purpose of the Karama project is to eradicate torture and prevent ill-treatment of prisoners and other people in Jordan that are deprived of their liberty.

I think it is proactive of the Jordanian authorities to engage openly in this cooperation. It must and should be applauded. It is another taboo that is being broken. Already last year Jordan took an important step in amending article 208 in the penal code and prohibited torture as defined by the relevant international convention. An as yet outstanding issue appears to be the level of punishment for committing torture, but this is none the less – together with the Karama project – a step in the right direction.

The main Jordanian partner in the project is the Public Security Directorate together with different police, prison and prosecution services from both Jordan and Denmark. The world renowned Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims (RCT) is the project managing partner. I stress that this is a partnership, and a partnership that should be to mutual benefit for both countries.

Some of the main results from the project should be:

1. Law enforcement personnel have gained increased capacity to deal lawfully with persons deprived of their liberty and cases of torture and ill-treatment

2.  Relevant state and civil society institutions have gained increased capacity to gather evidence and document torture and ill-treatment.

3.  A national coalition of state institutions and civil society organisations has been established and works jointly to prevent torture and ill-treatment in Jordan.

I had the honour to address the participants in the project this morning. There were a couple of things I wanted to emphasize: 

“…One of the key priorities in the Danish foreign and development policy is to strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights.

As we all know, human rights are the very pillars that any independent, impartial and effective criminal justice system is built upon. 

Bearing this in mind, Denmark seeks to develop the respect for human rights in close cooperation with our partners. We work in partnership with Jordan in many other areas, but we are particularly proud to have Jordan as a partner in the human rights field…”

“…While Denmark seeks to promote all human rights, there are a few focus areas that rank particularly high on Denmark’s human rights agenda. One of them is the eradication of torture…”

“..There is no doubt that the road towards the full incorporation of human rights into the criminal justice sector is a long and winding one. However, the journey will definitely be easier with a companion. The final outcome of our reform efforts will certainly be greater if we make use of our respective professional experience and expertise.

It is my firm belief that our partnership within the criminal justice sector can be of mutual benefit to both our countries. The key to our success is two-fold: 

One the one hand, success requires an open and constructive dialogue and cooperation, and on the other hand it requires progress, visible progress on the ground…”

This was of course just the launch of the coming two years of intense cooperation on an important Human Rights issue. I will be looking forward to report back to you on progress and results in the coming months.

Jordan Times article on the project.

The opening speech in full.

Adnan Badran and Human Rights in Jordan

The National Center for Human Rights (NCHR) in Jordan has a new Chairman of the Board. Former Prime Minister Adnan Badran was nominated to this position a couple of weeks ago and he is already setting his mark on the institution. Badran was head of the – what many observers call the most reformist – government responsible for finalizing the National Agenda. It was also a very short-lived government that resigned in the days after the terrible Al Qaida bombing of three hotels in Amman in November 2005.

Yesterday, Adnan Badran gave an interview to Al-Ghad in Arabic. We at the embassy thought his statements quite interesting so we made a rough unofficial translation into English, that we have send to our Danish human rights partners. I noted that the chairman of NCHR highlighted two new ideas. First, he suggest that all draft laws should pass by NCHR before being put to Parliament in order to check for conformity with human rights. Secondly, he suggests that indicators for the Kingdoms compliance with international human rights (and its 30 founding principles I guess) should be established. 

As a general opinion I believe in involving civil society as much as possible in drafting new legislation. It will only make legislation better and more relevant. But you can to a certain degree discuss whether an non governmental organization should review draft law on its compliance with international obligations and law or whether this task should primarily be entrusted to a governmental institution (MoJ maybe). The government itself should bear the responsibility for this important issue as it forces administrators and legislators to make Human Rights a part of their mindset. 

A Jordanian based HR indicator might also be a good idea since it will create a basis for discussion of the level of human rights in Jordan that could be more constructive than the occasional shouting commotion between different parts of government and international NGOs we sometime witness. It will be interesting to see how these ideas are implemented.

Danish human rights organizations have been working with Jordanian NGOs and authorities for many years so they will definitely follow human rights developments within NCHR and the Jordanian society with great interest. Just a couple of months ago we launched a new project on torture in prisons together with the PSD, MoI, MoJ and a number of NGO’s.

The interview:

Al-Ghad Newspaper, Thursday, October 09, 2008

By: Farah Atiyyat and Mohammad Kayyali:

BADRAN: THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICISM OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN JORDAN IS CORRECT AND VIOLATIONS ARE INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF HUMAN RIGHTS CONFIRMS THAT POLITICAL PLURALISM IS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN SECURITY AND STABILITY.

AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW OF HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE WILL MAINLY ON PROVISIONS OF THE QUESTIONING OF OFFICIAL INSTITUTIONS AND ACTIVATING THE ROLE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

THE CENTRE’S ANNUAL REPORT TO BE ISSUED IN APRIL AND VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE KINGDOM INDIVIDUAL.

In the interview he gave to Al-Ghad, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Human Rights Centre, Dr. Adnan Badran, highlighted developments of the national strategy on Human Rights as well as intended procedures to modernize the HR Centre.

Dr. Badran has a vast expertise in human rights status in Jordan.  He has a number of engagements in scientific research fields, legal and political action.  He got his PhD degree from Michigan.  He was appointed as Prime Minister in 2005. 

Q: The Centre for Human Rights has recently started laying a new strategy to identity the center’s framework during the years to come.  How far you have moved in this regard and what are the main features of the anticipated strategy? 

A: HRC will execute the same policy based on its bylaw, which protect the rights of both individuals and establishments to ensure its conformity to the 30 principles of human rights announced in Geneva in 1948.

The Centre’s strategy will therefore be affected to a large extent by the 30 codes.  It begins by building up close relations with different ministries; interior, labour, justice, education and teaching, in order to translate the HR principles into a work plan and convert it into action.  Amendments also are to be conducted on the Centre’s bylaw to tighten questioning and controlling as well as to activate the role of the Board of Trustees which comprises 21 members through adding an article which mandates the members to attend the Centre’s sessions and change those members who frequently do not attend the sessions.  Despite that the Centre receives complaints from citizens and observes occurrences of human rights violations committed by different ministries and establishments, the centre’s bylaw does not include an article that compels different entities to answer the centre’s inquiries so as to ensure their commitments to Human Rights.

Jordan signed the International Agreement on Human Rights and therefore Jordan has to show a full commitment before the UN to maintain human rights and to make sure that the Jordanian legislations are in conformity with human rights.  So, we will act within the International law and the constitution.

The Centre’s verified strategy includes the establishment of sustainable committees to handle all subjects by the Board of Trustees and reinstruct the Centre so as to assign two commissioners under the General Commissioner; one to take care of the International law on Human Rights and the other to handle political freedoms. Then come the Centre’s units and some addition units to be established to make sure that HR codes are followed and executed properly as in spite of that we have special legislations for prisons in Jordan, some individuals violate the HR codes and act rudely with prisoners behind their superiors’ backs.  

I believe that the major violation is when law laid by the executive authority is sent off to the Lower House to be adopted.  Laws in my viewpoint should be sent to the HRC in order to process some articles which disagree to the International Law on Human Rights.

Q: You mentioned that it is necessary that the HRC has regularity role over ministries on human rights issues. Have you requested that bills are passed to the center before being referred to the Cabinet and that you have the capacity of law enforcement?

A: In the Centre’s law we have the capacity of controlling and questioning.  One of the objectives of the Law of the Centre for Human Rights to verify the observance of human rights in the Kingdom to address any abuses or violations, including the settlement or referral to the executive, legislative or judicial reference to stop them and eliminate of their impact.

The Center has the right to visit rehabilitation centres, detention centers and juvenile homes in accordance with due process and could open prisons or institutions without prior notice to inspect whether there were violations of human rights.

The Centre is committed to maintaining the confidentiality of information obtained without any defamations or excavations.

Q: You earlier announced that the centre had formed teams to study each of the principles of human rights to find out where the wrong place is and what evaluations will be done?

A: The Board of Trustees agreed on this. This new project will begin by the development of indicators and we will use the indicators developed in other countries just to compare to, then we will hold a national conference to discuss these indicators and we may call experts from the world and heads of boards of trustees of the national centers for Human Rights in the Arab world as well as institutions of civil society.

Q: What are the main features which the centre’s annual report will include?

A: We will continue to monitor the correction and rehabilitation centers, it would be a permanent article.  We will carry on monitoring political freedoms and civil society institutions, which have the full freedom, and we will continue to monitor freedom of the press and media and reforms in legislation or trying to go beyond principles of human rights. We will expand our actions in terms of education, health and labour rights and the right of housing and livelihoods and also the institutionalization of democratic freedoms, justice and in order to guarantee that all are equal.

Q: Through your observance and follow ups, have you noticed a decrease or a progress in the level of freedom during the this year?

A: Freedoms have progressed including the freedom of expression. There is progress but citizens are still fearful may be due to the remnants of the time of martial law. The current political system is open and encourages freedom, but citizens are still worried to join a party for fear of affecting their freedom and being singled out. I am happy for the successful elections of university student councils as this is important to encourage pluralism.  Democracy requires political pluralism.

Q: To which extent do results of the HRC agree with reports of the International organizations mainly the Human Rights Watch and International Organization of chastity?

A: There is consistency.  We usually open our doors to the HRW and the Int. Org. of Chastity.  They saw and wrote.  They, however, have to understand that those violations were conducted by individuals without informing or obtaining approvals from their superiors.

Q: Replying to the report of the HRW, the Government said that the International reports deliberately are meant to defame the reputation of Jordan.  Do you agree?

A: I believe that we have to accept criticism in order to avoid negative aspects in our society.  Truth should be announced and this is the main mission of the HRC.

Q: Does the Chairman of the Board of Trustees receive any financial increments for his position?

Of course not.  It is certainly a voluntary mission.

Freedom of press and Human Rights Watch

A lot of local and regional blogs are talking about freedom of press these days. It is certainly an extremely important topic that should never be ignored. There is a saying that “only the press keeps democracy clean”. It hints at the tabloids in the western world that are often at odds with government – when investigating those in power of corruption, mismanagement and scandals.

While googling for the newest information about the state of freedom of press I came across this interesting international human rights law analysis from Human Rights Watch entitled “When Speech offends” in reference to the first printing of the cartoons and other events. The full text can be read at the HRW homepage but for easy reference the core part of the text is reproduced here. While I – for the time being and in light of an ongoing legal investigation – reserve my opinion on this matter I would really appreciate to get your reaction to this analysis.

“What does international human rights law tell us about the dispute over the cartoons?  
 
International human rights law cannot answer all questions raised about the cartoons. Human rights law obliges governments to protect religious freedom and religious minorities, but, as explained below, the cartoon controversy mostly concerns the limits imposed by human rights law, particularly the right to freedom of expression, on governments’ ability to suppress speech. In prohibiting governmental censorship of certain kinds of speech, human rights law does not suggest endorsement of that speech. Similarly, while the right to freedom of expression requires governments to allow speech that they and many others might find offensive, misguided, or even immoral, human rights law cannot answer the question of whether it was wise or proper for Jyllands-Posten and others to publish the cartoons. Nor can human rights law dictate the posture that governments should take toward the cartoons in their public comments-whether, for example, they should clarify that the content does not reflect official views or express their belief that it was unwise to have used the freedom of expression in this way. Rather, human rights law, in relevant part, speaks only to whether governments must permit such speech, regardless of whether they endorse the views expressed.  
 
The cartoons caused extreme offense to many Muslims-why should the right to freedom of expression protect such cartoons?  
 
The right to freedom of expression is a fundamental one, necessary to protect the exercise of all other human rights in democratic societies because it is essential for holding governments accountable to the public. Freedom of expression is particularly necessary with respect to provocative or offensive speech, because once governmental censorship is permitted in such cases, the temptation is enormous for government officials to find speech that is critical of them to be unduly provocative or offensive as well. The freedom to express even controversial points of view is also important for societies to address key political, social, and cultural issues, since taboos often mask matters of considerable public concern that are best addressed through honest and unfettered debate among those holding diverse points of view. Although international human rights law does impose certain limits on the right to freedom of expression (discussed below), the important functions served by that right require interpreting those limitations narrowly.  
 
Aren’t pictures as hateful as these properly considered “hate speech”?  
 
Not all speech that is hateful constitutes “hate speech” that must be prohibited under international human rights law. Advocacy of religious hatred can be suppressed only when it constitutes imminent incitement to unlawful acts of discrimination, hostility or violence. In addition, to constitute such incitement, the discrimination, hostility or violence must be urged or promoted by the speech in question. It is not incitement when opponents of speech or those who find the speech offensive use violence, since that would give censorship over any speech to those who are willing to employ violence to attack it. In this case, the main complaint against the cartoons is that they offend Islam, not that they have inspired acts of violence, criminal harassment or tangible discrimination against Danish or other Muslims. Speech that targets a religion for disrespect, as opposed to speech that targets believers for unlawful acts, is protected, however offensive it may be.  
 
Why not ban the cartoons as blasphemy?  
 
Many European nations still have blasphemy laws, although they are seldom enforced. Some of these laws prohibit blasphemy against only certain religions, such as Christianity. Such laws are clearly discriminatory and may reflect broader societal discrimination. Moreover, many of these laws should not be on the books at all. Although the European Court of Human Rights has upheld some of these laws, it is far from clear why certain religious beliefs should be protected from critical discussion or even ridicule when other political beliefs, aesthetic views, or cultural opinions are not. Freedom of expression is valuable for allowing broad public debate of any topic. It is wrong to exclude from that debate certain religious beliefs, because speech on these topics is about ideas, not incitement or even advocacy of violence.  
 
Isn’t it inconsistent for European governments to criminalize private speech that is anti-Semitic, including speech that denies the Holocaust, but refuse to criminalize the private publication of the cartoons, on free speech grounds?  
 
Human Rights Watch recognizes that the tragedy of the Holocaust is the historical context in which laws banning Holocaust denial were adopted in several European countries, as well as in Israel. We also acknowledge that, by more rigorously enforcing these laws, some governments have sought to underscore the seriousness with which they view the danger posed by right-wing extremists and others who deny such events. Such laws were also motivated by a desire not to exacerbate the suffering of Holocaust survivors living in these countries. As noted above, however, prohibiting speech, such as Holocaust denial, that is offensive or distressing to some religions or minorities, while tolerating speech that is offensive or distressing to others, is a clearly discriminatory practice and raises legitimate questions about double standards.  
 
As Human Rights Watch stated in 1995, we believe that all such laws, regardless of the religions or minorities they seek to protect, disproportionately restrict the protected right to freedom of expression. We are mindful that there are different perspectives on what is permissible and prohibited speech, but we base our position on a strong commitment to freedom of expression as a core principle of human rights and our conviction that objectionable speech is best met with contrary speech, not censorship. We also believe that governments can best counter offensive speech by fulfilling their obligation to take positive measures to protect minorities and to make clear that they reject all forms of discrimination.  
 
Prohibiting denial of the Holocaust may be popular politically, but Human Rights Watch is also concerned that over the long run, such measures are not effective to counter bigotry, and may even be counterproductive. Draconian bans may turn bigots into victims, driving them underground and creating a more attractive home for those who are drawn to such groups.  
 
 ……

 
Why can’t the cartoons be banned as potentially harmful to public safety or the rights of Muslims?  
 
Freedom of expression may be limited to protect public safety and the rights of others, but such limitations must be strictly “necessary” in a democratic society. Banning provocative speech rarely meets that test. In the case of the cartoons, any threat of violence by protesters should be contained through traditional law enforcement means. In some countries where protests have turned violent, however, officials seem to have tolerated the unlawful behavior-a disregard of their responsibilities that makes it all the more inappropriate to blame the original cartoons for ensuing unrest. A society built on respect for freedom of expression and the value of robust debate should, wherever possible, meet offensive speech with more speech-denunciations, objections, explanations-rather than censorship in the name of public safety.  
 
As for the rights of Muslims, the cartoons in no sense impede Muslims’ right to freedom of religion. Religious freedom means that all people have the liberty to adopt the religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) of their choosing and to worship and, as much as possible in a democratic society, live their own lives in accordance with those beliefs. However, freedom of religion does not give anyone the right to impose his or her religious beliefs on others. That Muslims find the depictions of the Prophet Mohammed objectionable does not give them the right under international human rights law to insist that others abide by their views. Muslims, like all others, are free to state their religious objections and to press for more respectful treatment, but they are not entitled to censor the expression of others in the name of their own religious freedom.  
 
Why shouldn’t the government hold editors responsible for publishing such offensive material?  
 
Editors should be held responsible for what they decide to publish-but by their readers, communities, or employers, not their governments. Under the right of freedom of expression, a government cannot impose its views of what is fit to publish except in very limited cases as described above.  
 
 
Should we consider newspapers that reprinted the cartoons even more culpable of provoking outraged response than Jyllands-Posten since by then it was clear how offensive the cartoons were?  
 
Newspapers that reprinted the cartoons may have done so for many reasons-giving their readers a first-hand opportunity to judge the cartoons themselves, showing solidarity with the Danish newspaper, provoking further controversy, or even reflecting hatred toward Muslims. However, it is not clear that any newspaper intended to incite or caused unlawful acts against Muslims. Republishers of material that is protected should enjoy the same protection from state retaliation as the original publisher. That said, many have legitimately questioned the editorial judgment of those that republished the cartoons in the context of global violence and protest. Nonetheless, international human rights law still protects their decision to republish.  
 
Don’t Muslims and everyone offended by the cartoons have the right to protest them?  
 
Human rights law protects the right to peacefully protest offensive speech, just as it protects the right to utter provocative or offensive speech. Governments have a duty to make peaceful protest possible, by respecting the right of individuals to assemble, express outrage, organize boycotts, and engage in other peaceful acts. Governments also have a duty to protect the public from protests that turn violent, to take appropriate action against specific threats against the life and property of others, and to reaffirm their own duty to avoid discriminatory speech and actions.  
 
Are governments held to a higher standard for speech than private persons?  
 
Government officials have free-speech rights as well, but they also have a parallel responsibility, beyond that of an ordinary citizen, to protect the welfare, lives and rights of the people of their nation, and to combat discrimination and intolerance. As a matter of these other responsibilities, governments should be especially careful not to speak in a way that encourages violence, discrimination or hatred because that would breach their core obligations to maintain a peaceful, open, and tolerant society. “