All posts by CPNN Coordinator

About CPNN Coordinator

Dr David Adams is the coordinator of the Culture of Peace News Network. He retired in 2001 from UNESCO where he was the Director of the Unit for the International Year for the Culture of Peace, proclaimed for the Year 2000 by the United Nations General Assembly.

Book Review: Towards Less Adversarial Cultures by Ray Cunnington

EDUCATION FOR PEACE .

Book description from Amazon and biography from Gail Rappolt (for Culture of Peace Hamilton)

Towards Less Adversarial Cultures shows how the cultures into which people are born can exert a lifelong grip on what they believe and how they act. Rather than feeling free to follow their mature consciousness, many are driven to implement the same ideas they were taught as children. What goes unnoticed is that what was deemed an eternal truth in the time of the Pharaohs may appear quite different in today’s world, particularly in matters relating to war, law, money and the media. For the sake of future generations it is vital that humans reflect upon their evolutionary heritage and matters like climate change, and not remain locked in narrow national animosities, battling it out for the last fish, the last tree, and the last piece of land. It is strongly suggested that ordinary people will swing the balance back to a more cooperative, less violent, society.


Ray Cunnington receives the YMCA Peace Medal
(Click on photo to enlarge)

Biography

It isn’t often that someone aged 96 writes and publishes a book. But that is just what Ray Cunnington, a resident of Dundas, has done. He is a founding member of Culture of Peace Hamilton, a member of the Hamilton Board of the United Nations Association in Canada, and a member of the Department of Peace Initiative — to name a few of his involvements in peace and social justice over the last decade and a half.

Two years ago at 94 he established the United Nations Culture of Peace Fund with the Hamilton Community Foundation. At 95 he was awarded the Hamilton Burlington YMCA Peace Medal, and this year he has written and published a book that is not only about peace, but infused with a generally optimistic view of human evolution, in spite of the wars and conflict all around us

Where did the drive to write this book come from? Such questions aren’t easily answered, but old age certainly creates perspective if a person is still willing and able to learn. For Ray the book’s genesis came from the discussions he had with members of Culture of Peace Hamilton and the Hamilton Peace Think Tank. This latter group is made up of a few remarkable academics and individuals who have lived their lives in quest of peace. Other strands that influenced Ray’s thinking came from United Nations examples, Quaker practices, and the non-violence of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. In his book he asks why so many seemingly loving people attack each other so viciously. In a world under threat of climate change and nuclear war he wonders why so many call for deliberate harm to be inflicted on other people without concern for the planet. His book, Towards Less Adversarial Cultures, is readily available at Amazon book

Ray Cunnington was born in England and educated at a British boarding school. From 1941 to 1946 he served as a medical orderly in the Royal Air Force, mostly in India. After demobilization he was a keen supporter of the movement to ‘Ban the Bomb’ initiated by Einstein and Bertrand Russell. Later he worked in the British film industry and knew many of the stars of the time such as Elizabeth Taylor and Deborah Kerr.

(Continued in right column)

Question for this article:

What are the most important books about the culture of peace?

(Continued from left column)

Ray came to Canada in 1953 with his wife and their small son and daughter. They chose Canada at least partly because it did not have conscription, unlike Britain and the U.S.. Settling first in Montreal, Ray did many jobs in films, on radio and in advertising before moving to Ontario and being hired as a Communications teacher at Loyalist College Belleville

Many years later, by that time a college administrator, he prepared himself for retirement by taking a college program at night in what for him was the new and intriguing field of human relations. After five years of becoming a student at night and taking night and weekend courses, he graduated with a diploma. Months later he helped to found a local agency designed to end violence against women by working with abusing men. Because of this experience he was invited to teach a course to men at a federal jail.

Family reasons took Ray and his wife to Winnipeg for a few years. They returned to Ontario in 1998 and Ray renewed his association with the peace community by attending Hamilton’s Gandhi Peace Festival. The millennium was coming to a close and there was much hope for world peace.

When the U.N. proclaimed its Manifesto for a Culture of Peace with its six great pathways to more peaceful societies, Ray was among the founding members who helped to establish Culture of Peace Hamilton.

It was a bitter blow when, in the very first year of the new century, the twin towers were attacked on 9/11, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, and hate crimes were committed in Hamilton. As a response, members of Culture of Peace and United Nation Association, came together with a plan to protect immigrants and the vulnerable from becoming victims of harassment.

It took another year to raise funds, but Ray was among those who, in 2002, obtained a $120,000 grant from the National Crime Prevention Centre to create ‘safe havens’ in public buildings downtown. When that proved to be impractical because it would increase the cost of public insurance, Ray was still determined to ‘Wage Peace’.

He helped to develop ‘Peace Dollars’, a democratic fundraising effort that did not rely on the capricious support of big foundations and fund raisers. Priced at only a dollar, he reminded donors that if everyone in Hamilton bought one it would raise half a million. Over ten years he wrote many op-ed pieces about peace in the Hamilton Spectator.

Ray and Culture of Peace have worked with many groups in their efforts to help Hamilton become a safer and more inclusive city. Collectively they have worked closely with Environment Hamilton, the Gandhi Festival, McMaster Centre for Peace Studies and a whole cluster of other compassionate groups and individuals. They hold regular meetings, provide a Peace Luncheon twice a year and, to make the idea of peace more tangible, have planted a number of Peace Poles and donated a thousand narcissi bulbs to the city’s Peace Garden

To create what he hopes will be a sustaining source of funding at the Hamilton Community Foundation, Ray has established the United Nations Culture of Peace Hamilton Fund. It will receive the profits from Ray’s book. He can be reached at ray.c@cogeco.ca

Donald Trump Declared War On ‘Sanctuary Cities.’ They’re Already Fighting Back

…. HUMAN RIGHTS ….

An article with reports by Mollie Reilly, Cristian Farias, Elise Foley and Roque Planas in the Huffington Post (reprinted according to the principle of “fair use”)

One of President Donald Trump’s first major executive actions on immigration policy is facing massive political blowback and will almost certainly crash and burn under the Constitution once courts begin to scrutinize the fine print.


Video of press conference by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee

During a visit to the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday [January 25], Trump signed an executive order aimed at strong-arming so-called “sanctuary cities” into cooperating fully with his efforts to ramp up deportations. Threatening loss of federal funding and using shaming tactics for localities that refuse to comply, the order is styled as a call to obey existing immigration laws ― even though immigration experts and civil liberties groups are doubtful Trump even has the constitutional authority to enforce it.

Independent of the ultimate legality of the executive order, politicians from those sanctuary cities say they aren’t budging, and legal advocacy groups are gearing up for the coming legal fight.

The president is “in for one hell of a fight,” California state Sen. Scott Weiner (D), who represents San Francisco, said in a statement.

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh (D) said his city “will not retreat one inch” from its policy against holding undocumented immigrants it otherwise would not hold based on requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said his city “will not be intimidated by federal dollars and … will not be intimidated by the authoritative message from this administration.” San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee (D) said “nothing has changed” in his city, noting the lack of specifics in Trump’s order.

“We are going to fight this, and cities and states around the country are going to fight this,” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) said at a press conference Wednesday.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) already began hinting at a legal challenge, releasing a statement that Trump lacks the constitutional authority for his executive order and that he will do “everything in [his] power” to push back if the president does not rescind it.

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) also warned of potential legal challenges to come, saying in a statement that the order “raises significant legal issues that my office will be investigating closely to protect the constitutional and human rights of the people of our state.”

There’s no exact definition of “sanctuary city.” Places like San Francisco and New York use the term broadly to refer to their immigrant-friendly policies, but more generally the term is applied to cities and counties that do not reflexively honor all of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s requests for cooperation. Many of these localities do work with ICE to detain and hand over immigrants suspected or convicted of serious crimes, but they often release low-priority immigrants requested by ICE if they have no other reason to hold them.

“The reason that many local law enforcement officers don’t honor detainers is because courts have said that they violate the Constitution, and if they violate the Constitution, the localities are on the hook financially,” said Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez, a law professor at the University of Denver who teaches on the intersection of criminal law and immigration.

Just on Tuesday, a federal court in Rhode Island joined several others that have ruled in recent years that certain ICE detainers can violate people’s constitutional rights ― even those of U.S. citizens.

But Trump’s executive order seems to overlook this legal reality, and instead frames sanctuary cities with the alarmist rhetoric he used on the campaign trail.

”Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States,” his order declares. “These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.”

(Article continued in the right column)

Questions related to this article:

The post-election fightback for human rights, is it gathering force in the USA?

(Article continued from the left column)

Thomas Saenz, who heads the Mexican American Legal and Educational Defense Fund, said that on paper the order wouldn’t give Trump the authority to crack down on sanctuary cities, as Trump claimed.

“It’s hot air, but it’s extremely dangerous hot air,” Saenz told The Huffington Post. “It’s designed to intimidate community members.”

To force sanctuary jurisdictions to hold detained immigrants at the behest of ICE would require Congress to pass new legislation, but Congress in 2015 already rejected similar legislation, said Cecillia Wang, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and a specialist in immigrants’ rights.

“The federal government and specifically the president is trying to coerce states and localities that have made the decision to protect constitutional rights and provide services without regard to immigration status,” she said.

“I’m not sure what Trump thinks he’s doing that’s different,” Saenz said. “The law is already being enforced. If they ― in practice or in intent ― go beyond existing law, it would be subject to challenge as it’s beyond his authority as president.”

As legal twists would have it, the constitutional source for such a challenge would be the Supreme Court’s landmark 2012 decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, in which the court rebuked the federal government for threatening loss of funding for states that refused to expand their Medicaid programs under the law. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said Congress couldn’t hold “a gun to the head” of the states.

Wang echoed those words and said she’d be monitoring what consequences befall sanctuary cities. “President Trump is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to comply with his priorities,” she said.

But in California, where immigrants make up roughly one-third of the population, lawmakers said they aren’t waiting on challenges in court, vowing to take the fight into their own hands.

In a press conference Wednesday, state Senate President pro tempore Kevin De León said the legislature will fast-track bills in response to Trump’s orders, including a bill to prevent local law enforcement from using their resources for immigration enforcement.

“These are spiteful and mean-spirited directives that will only instill fear in the hearts of millions of people who pay taxes, contribute to our economy and our way of life,” he said of the orders. “We will have no part in their implementation.”

“We will not spend a single cent nor lift a finger to aid his efforts,” he added.

The legislature has already taken several pre-emptive steps to combat Trump’s policies. In December, the senate and assembly passed a resolution calling on Trump to abandon his promise to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. The chamber has also taken up a bill to establish a legal aid fund for those facing deportation, as well as a bill to create training centers to educate legal workers on immigration law.

“It’s sad Donald Trump thinks these executive orders make America safer, and it’s sad he thinks they make America,” said Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon in a statement.

“Today is a shameful day for our country, but it only strengthens my resolve to stand up against the alarming bigotry and hatred emanating from the White House,” Weiner, the San Francisco state senator, said. “If President Trump believes signing a piece of paper will for one second change how San Francisco and California value and protect our immigrant neighbors, he is underestimating our strength and spirit.”

Their statements came just one day after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) dedicated a portion of his State of the State address to praising the contributions of California’s immigrants, a clear rebuke of Trump’s worldview.

“Immigrants are an integral part of who we are and what we’ve become,” he said. “Let me be clear: We will defend everybody ― every man, woman and child ― who has come here for a better life and has contributed to the well-being of our state.”

Jordan: RC societies meeting kicks off Tuesday to promote culture of peace

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from Petra, Jordan News Agency

The meeting of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies for Middle East and North Africa (Mena) region will convene Tuesday [Jan. 24] in Amman under the theme” together for Humanity.”

A statement by Jordan’s Red Crescent Monday said the three-day meeting will tackle a scope of tops including the emergency response to the challenges in Mena region, the importance of promoting a culture of peace, tolerance and non-violence, as well as issues of displacement and migration in the region.

Participants of the ninth edition of the meeting, which will be held under the auspices of Senate President Faisal Fayez, will also focus on issues of reducing urban risks, enhancing humanitarian response in cities and protecting volunteer health and safety.

Some 17 national societies from Mena region are participating in the conference, which is co-organized with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, in addition to a number of observers that represent global and regional humanitarian societies, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and Arab Red Crescent and Red Cross Organization (ARCO).

Question related to this article:

Benin to introduce education for culture of peace

EDUCATION FOR PEACE .

An article from aContonou

Some 100 actors in the Beninese education system have been examining since Thursday in Cotonou the practical modalities of introducing, in the national education system, the manual on education for peace, human rights, citizenship, democracy and regional integration prepared by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).


Paulin Hountondji, President of the National Council of Education © Autre presse by DR
Click on photo to enlarge

Speaking at the opening of the national workshop on education for a culture of peace in Benin, Paulin Hountondji, chairman of the National Council of Education of Benin, deplored the fact that this manual, published by the ECOWAS, is not in use in schools in the subregion and particularly in Benin while the need is urgent on the ground.

“Recognizing the limitations of the security approach that privileges military responses, ECOWAS has deemed it opportune and even imperative to develop, for all member countries of its space, this manual “to construct the defenses of peace in the minds of men.”

He also felt that with the exacerbation of religious terrorism and the tragedies that it brings to life on a daily basis in the world, in Africa and particularly in the West African subregion, the approach to peace by another path becomes a categorical imperative

(Click here for the original version of this article in French)

Question for this article:

USA: Women’s marches fight back against inauguration of Trump

…. HUMAN RIGHTS ….

Information from various news services as indicated.

Only one day into the new administration in Washington, already the post-election fightback for human rights has gathered force in the USA. Here is a map showing the largest turnouts the Women’s Marches on Saturday, January 21.


Number of demonstrators in women’s marches by city
(click on image to enlarge)

As described by the Mercury News: “In a striking sign of solidarity Saturday, more than 2 million people joined Women’s Marches from the nation’s capital to the Bay Area and beyond, promising to fight for a new era of civil rights in the age of President Donald Trump. Aerial images of buoyant, peaceful protesters clogging plazas and streets from cities as far flung as Sydney and Tokyo to San Jose, Oakland, San Francisco and Walnut Creek harkened to 1960s-era protests against the Vietnam War, bringing some nostalgic baby boomers to tears.”

According to the Washington Post , there were at least 500,000 in the Washington demonstration, 150,000 in Chicago and 125,000 in Boston.

There were huge turnouts in other American cities according to local news services:

Los Angeles 750,000

New York 400,000

Denver 200,000

Seattle 120,000

Oakland 100,000

Portland, 100,000

St Paul 90,000

Philadelphia 50,000

(Article continued in the right column)

Questions related to this article:

The post-election fightback for human rights, is it gathering force in the USA?

How effective are mass protest marches?

(Article continued from the left column)

To put this into perspective, compare the map showing the demonstrations above, with the map of election results (Trump states in red and Clinton states in blue) and the corresponding maps showing population density in the 50 states.


(click on image to enlarge)

Put quite simply, urban populations voted against Trump and demonstrated against Trump, while rural and small town populations voted for Trump.

According to at least one commentator, this huge schism betwen sections of the country seems dangerously close to the North/South divide that led to the American Civil War.

LuxLeaks: The case and the latest news from Luxembourg

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

Extracts from the website to Support Antoine Deltour

LuxLeaks is the disclosure of hundreds of tax agreements between Luxembourg authorities and multinational companies, bringing to light a large-scale tax avoidance planning. LuxLeaks is also the name of the investigation conducted by the l’International Consortium of Investigative Journalism (ICIJ) on the disclosed documents.


Me Philippe Penning, Antoine Deltour, and Me William Bourdon © Comité de soutien à Antoine Deltour – CC BY-SA 4.0
Click on the image to enlarge

LuxLeaks “dropped the bomb” and provoked many indignant reactions all over the world. By bringing the tax rulings issue to the worldwide governing authorities –notably the G20 Brisbane Summit and the European Commission– it fostered democratic discussions that will progressively lead to reinforce fiscal justice.

Antoine Deltour, [along with Raphaël Halet] is one of the whistleblowers behind the disclosure of many of the LuxLeaks documents. Today Antoine is on trial in Luxembourg. He needs your support!

Read more on Wikipedia.

LuxLeaks Appeal trial: Fifth and last hearing

The LuxLeaks appeal trial ended on January 9th. On the agenda of the day: the replies from all sides to prosecutor indictment and to the defendants’ lawyers’ pleadings.

Some forty supporters came from France and a few others from Germany, Belgium, and Luxembourg.

Prosecutor’s reply

Prosecutor Mr. John Petry begins his reply by recognising Antoine Deltour and Raphaël Halet as whistleblowers: according to him, “the public interest is not subject to interpretation”. However, apprently trying by all manner of means to justify the conviction of Antoine, he considers that they “can’t benefit from full protection” because they do not meet all the criteria established by the European Court of Human Rights’s jurisprudence. Petry particularly blames Antoine for not being “animated with the intention of a whistleblower” at the time he copied the documents.

Considering the prejudice caused, the prosecutor asserts that “the end doesn’t justify the means”: the “LuxLeaks operation” would have “named and shamed the professionals and clients” and would therefore be considered disproportionate in the light of its public interest.

Only the massive and public feature of the revelations seems to cause problem to John Petry, who even asserts that “if the documents had been used only for the ‘Cash Investigation’ broadcast, acquittal could be a serious option”.

Concerning Raphael Halet, Prosecutor Petry simply considers that the documents he copied would be “irrelevant”, and that their disclosure was “not a necessity”. The acquittal would therefore not be justified.

Finally, in the case of the journalist Édouard Perrin, Prosecutor Petry says he is “very embarrassed” by an appeal that he does not consider “justified”. He recognizes that “the indictment of a journalist in a democratic society should be an exception”, he asks –unsurpringly– for the acquittal of Édouard Perrin.

Plaintiff’s reply [Editor’s note: The plaintiff, PwC, is PricewaterhouseCoopers, the second largest professional services firm and one of the four largest accounting firms in the world.)

Mr. Hansen, plaintiff PwC’s lawyer, maintains his position: “The defense wants to make us believe that an individual conception of morality can be a justification for violating the law”. Then he tries to challenge Antoine’s defense in relation to the European Court of Human Rights’s jurisprudence and reaffirms that Antoine had “no whistleblowing intention at the time he robbed the documents”. Furthermore, Hansen believes that Antoine “gave no consideration to the interests of his employer”. Hansen considers that the damage caused to his client represents “several thousand hours of work lost”, and that, if PwC’s turnover has increased, it is “in spite of the theft of documents, not because of theft”.

Considering Raphaël Halet case, the plaintiff’s lawyer reproaches Halet –as the prosecutor– of having “brought nothing to the public debate”.

In concluding, Hansen gave a rather vindictive reply. He called on the Court of Appeal to uphold the civil judgment and to recognize PwC as a “victim”.

(Article continued in the right column.)

(Click here for the French version of this article.)

Question(s) related to this article:

Free flow of information, How is it important for a culture of peace?

The courage of Mordecai Vanunu and other whistle-blowers, How can we emulate it in our lives?

(Article continued from left column)

Reply of Antoine Deltour’s lawyers

Mr. Philippe Penning, Antoine’s Luxemburgish lawyer, begins by recalling the almost daily progress on tax transparency, which are “the consequences of the LuxLeaks affair”. He then asks, bewildered: “Deltour’s hesitation and the efficiency of the LuxLeaks revelations would lead him to his loss? There is a serious problem!”. The Luxemburgish lawyer also calls on his compatriots to avoid any “self-protection reflex”; He asserts that “Luxembourg survived the war and the oil shock and will survive the end of mass tax rulings”. The audience applauds.

Mr. William Bourdon then takes the floor. He welcomes the fact that the appeal process has brought “better legal questions than at the first instance” and denounces an “intellectual kidnapping” used as a last resort to “take the judicial scalp of Antoine Deltour”. He strongly contests the need to add a “criterion of determination” to justify whistleblower’s good faith, even considering that such jurisprudence would have “damaging, terrible, irrational, perverse, and toxic consequences!”. He recalled that several months before the documents were copied, Antoine already proved his intention by signing a blog comment with the signature “Insider, maybe future whistleblower”.

Mr. Bourdon denounces the plaintiff that has difficulty in justifying itself, he ironizes on the so-called prejudice by questioning: “What is this mute assembly of hurt clients? Not even one document can prove a prejudice!”.

Mr. Bourdon concludes by stating that “in order to be consistent with the European Court of Human Rights’s jurisprudence, the Court must acquit Antoine Deltour”. New round of applause.

Reply of Raphaël Halet’s lawyers

After a short break, the hearing resumes with the reply of Mr. Bernard Colin, for the defense of Raphaël Halet. Colin comes back widely on his denunciation of the illegality of tax rulings’ practice in Luxembourg before 2014. Returning in detail to the “legislative loophole” governing Marius Kohl’s work at the famous Bureau #6, Mr Colin believes that, “by giving the keys to PwC”, the rule of law has been flouted. He calls for the acquittal of his client.

Ms. May Nalepa, second lawyer of Raphael Halet, emphasizes the irony of the reproaches made to Deltour on the massive nature of his revelations, and on the opposite, the reproaches made to Halet on the lack of substance of his leaks: “the next whistleblower will have to be a real tightrope walker to find out the right balance!”.

Reply of Édouard Perrin’s lawyers

Unsurprisingly, Édouard Perrin’s lawyers greet the prosecutor who said he was “embarrassed” by the appeal on their client. Ms. Christel Hénon and Mr. Olivier Chappuis affirm that it would even be “unthinkable” that Perrin be convicted of common law offenses. They naturally call “a last time” for the journalist’s acquittal.

The final words to the defendants

Antoine Deltour speaks first. He begins with confirming his declaration done during the first instance: “I followed a citizen’s approach”. Antoine recognizes that he “did not anticipate the repercussions of the LuxLeaks affair” –no one could– but he insists that he had “obviously intended to draw attention to these practices”. Fearing for his employability or possible legal consequences, Antoine says he could “not act hastily”. As to the proportionality of the damage caused, he recalls that the options for disclosure devised by the prosecution would doubtlessly not have resulted in such a clear public interest.

Antoine then concludes: “I wouldn’t understand a condemnation for having acted as a citizen concerned about the general European interest”. Sustained applause in the room.

Raphaël Halet then speaks up, very incisive: “This trial should be that of tax evasion and the people who covered it!”. Halet insists on Marius Kohl’s administration as a “black hole”. He finally concludes: “Condemning the messenger has never brought victory to a war. On the contrary, it should be the war against tax evasion!”.

Édouard Perrin finally speaks briefly, humbly presenting his apologies to Halet and Deltour “for having brought them in this judicial adventure”. The journalist wishes to thank the two whistleblowers, who have “acted in the general interest”.

Verdict on March 15th

Today’s very dense hearing ends the appeal LuxLeaks trial. Mr. Michel Reiffers, President of the Appeal Court, announces that he defers decision of the verdict. The judgment will be delivered on March 15th, 2017.

Let’s hope for the acquittal of the three defendants!

Following Chelsea Manning’s commutation, UN expert urges pardons for other whistleblowers

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An article from the UN News Centre

Welcoming the commutation of United States army officer Chelsea Manning’s 35-year sentence for leaking classified military documents, a United Nations independents human rights expert today [18 January] called on Governments to recognize the contributions of whistleblowers and pardon those serving prison sentences.


Alfred de Zayas, the UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order. UN Photo/Violaine Martin

“I call on Governments worldwide to put an end to multiple campaigns of defamation, mobbing and even prosecution of whistleblowers like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, the Luxleakers Antoine Deltour and Raphael Halet [See CPNN article] and the tax corruption leaker Rafi Rotem [See this article],” said Alfred de Zayas, the UN Independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order.

Mr. de Zayas added that these are whistleblowers “who have acted in good faith and who have given meaning to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on freedom of expression.”

“A culture of secrecy is frequently also a culture of impunity,” Mr. de Zayas said, noting that because Article 19 is “absolutely crucial to every democracy, whistleblowers should be protected, not persecuted.”

In addition, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defends freedom of expression and information.

The UN expert also directly called on the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom to follow the recommendations of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and to strengthen the human rights system.

Implementing the recommendations of the Working Group could impact one of the whistleblowers who Mr. de Zayas mentioned. Mr. Assange has been under the diplomatic protection of Ecuador in London for more than four years.

Independent experts and Special Rapporteurs are appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a specific human rights theme or a country situation. The positions are honorary and the experts are not UN staff, nor are they paid for their work.

Question(s) related to this article:

USA: Immigrants Prepped For Raids

…. HUMAN RIGHTS ….

An article by Michelle Liu from the New Haven Independent (Connecticut)

A half-dozen immigration officers enter a factory and demand identification. The workers inside look up from their sewing machines in horror. What would you do? What can you do?

This was the first scenario posed to a crowd of 50 at a “Know Your Rights” workshop hosted by Junta for Progressive Action Saturday morning, one of many workshops and rallies held across the country on a National Immigrant Day of Action.


Video of skit
(click on image to watch video)

The workshop, conducted mostly in Spanish at Fair Haven School, guided audience members through their constitutional rights in the face of immigration officials. It is the first in a series of workshops regarding immigration and deportation that the organization is holding in light of the presidential election.

With President-Elect Donald Trump set to begin his term in less than a week, New Haven’s immigrant community is gearing up for what advocates expect to be a tough four years ahead. In spite of the city’s “sanctuary” status, established protocol by local police not to assist in immigration raids and municipal identification cards, many worry about the reach of the federal government. Some who spoke reminded others of the .

So when the president-elect has talked candidly of deporting millions, preparing for ICE to come knocking on your door doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Junta’s Ana Maria Rivera-Forastieri and Mary Elizabeth Smith led a discussion through a video of various scenarios in which undocumented immigrants face police pressure: ICE officials knocking at your doorstep; getting pulled over by a cop; a raid at the aforementioned workshop.

The rights outlined are simple on paper: If cops show up at your home, don’t just open the door. Ask if they have a warrant, and make sure the warrant has 1) your name, spelled correctly and 2) the signature of a federal judge. Otherwise, don’t let them in.

If you’re pulled over, the only piece of information you have to give is your name. You don’t have to answer any other questions. And don’t carry fake papers —  or your passport —  on your body.

(Article continued in the right column)

Questions related to this article:

The post-election fightback for human rights, is it gathering force in the USA?

(Article continued from the left column)

While some attendees asked questions, others in the seats shared their own memories of close run-ins with immigration officials.

Fatima Rojas, the event’s translator, offered her own take culled from experience (though not the advice a lawyer would give you, she acknowledged): Don’t open the door, period. Even if the warrant is right.

Of course, in the moment, you might get nervous. You might forget your rights.

Smith flashed a small red, laminated card to the audience. On one side, the card reminds the holder of her rights; on the other are a set of statements to be presented to a police officer which exercises the holder’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights (see above). Everyone received a card.

Some of the workshop’s youngest teachers were in fact students themselves: seven Fair Haven 6th graders taught by David Weinreb, whose bilingual class consists of kids who’ve moved to the U.S. in the last three years.

The budding thespians played out three confrontational scenarios they themselves had written and staged, set in a car, a workplace and a courtroom. (Watch one above.)

In what Rivera-Forastieri referred to as the Theatre of the Oppressed, the students were acting out situations that could feasibly happen to them and their families. That is to say, they were working through the reality they live in. They’ve built up the skits through a nonfiction unit in class, learning about immigration law and visiting city hall.

Stacy Salazar, who played a lawyer in the courtroom skit, said through a translator that although she felt a little nervous, she was excited to be up on stage. Through her class, she’s learned that in the face of immigration officials, it’s important to remain calm and learn your rights — and she’s inspired to become a lawyer in real life, too.

These are lessons students bring home and share with their parents. “Parents listen to their kids,” Rivera-Forastieri said.

“This is one piece of the puzzle,” Weinreb said of the skits. “My students are working on all fronts … to be able to include them in adult conversations [and] have them be voices of expertise is extremely powerful.”

A second workshop, to be held on Feb. 4, will delve deeper into the logistical concerns of those who might be facing deportation — such as finding a lawyer and figuring out what to do with property or family in which the children are U.S. citizens.

Middle East Peace Conference Joint Declaration

DISARMAMENT AND SECURITY .

Conference Declaration as published by France Diplomatie

I) Following the Ministerial meeting held in Paris on 3 June 2016, the Participants met in Paris on 15 January 2017 to reaffirm their support for a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They reaffirmed that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.


(Click on photo to enlarge)

* They emphasized the importance for the parties to restate their commitment to this solution, to take urgent steps in order to reverse the current negative trends on the ground, including continued acts of violence and ongoing settlement activity, and to start meaningful direct negotiations.

* They reiterated that a negotiated two-state solution should meet the legitimate aspirations of both sides, including the Palestinians’ right to statehood and sovereignty, fully end the occupation that began in 1967, satisfy Israel’s security needs and resolve all permanent status issues on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and also recalled relevant Security Council resolutions.

* They underscored the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 as a comprehensive framework for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, thus contributing to regional peace and security.

* They welcomed international efforts to advance Middle East peace, including the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 on 23 December 2016 which clearly condemned settlement activity, incitement and all acts of violence and terror, and called on both sides to take steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground ; the recommendations of the Quartet on 1 July 2016 ; and the United States Secretary of State’s principles on the two-state solution on 28 December 2016.

* They noted the importance of addressing the dire humanitarian and security situation in the Gaza Strip and called for swift steps to improve the situation.

* They emphasized the importance for Israelis and Palestinians to comply with international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights law.

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for a version in French)

Question related to this article:

How can a culture of peace be established in the Middle East?

(continued from left column)

II) The Participants highlighted the potential for security, stability and prosperity for both parties that could result from a peace agreement. They expressed their readiness to exert necessary efforts toward the achievement of the two-state solution and to contribute substantially to arrangements for ensuring the sustainability of a negotiated peace agreement, in particular in the areas of political and economic incentives, the consolidation of Palestinian state capacities, and civil society dialogue. Those could include, inter alia :

* a European special privileged partnership ; other political and economic incentives and increased private sector involvement ; support to further efforts by the parties to improve economic cooperation ; continued financial support to the Palestinian authority in building the infrastructure for a viable Palestinian economy ;*

* supporting and strengthening Palestinian steps to exercise their responsibilities of statehood through consolidating their institutions and institutional capacities, including for service delivery ;*

* convening Israeli and Palestinian civil society fora, in order to enhance dialogue between the parties, rekindle the public debate and strengthen the role of civil society on both sides.*

III) Looking ahead, the Participants :*

* call upon both sides to officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution, thus disassociating themselves from voices that reject this solution ;*

* call on each side to independently demonstrate, through policies and actions, a genuine commitment to the two-state solution and refrain from unilateral steps that prejudge the outcome of negotiations on final status issues, including, inter alia, on Jerusalem, borders, security, refugees and which they will not recognize ;*

* welcome the prospect of closer cooperation between the Quartet and Arab League members and other relevant actors to further the objectives of this Declaration.*

As follow-up to the Conference, interested Participants, expressing their readiness to review progress, resolved to meet again before the end of the year in order to support both sides in advancing the two-state solution through negotiations.*

France will inform the parties about the international community’s collective support and concrete contribution to the two-State solution contained in this joint declaration.*

UN Security Council underlines need to halt proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article from The UN News Centre

Expressing concern over the threat of terrorism and the risk that non-State actors may acquire or use nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, the United Nations Security Council today [15 December 2016] called on all countries to establish national controls to prevent proliferation of such weapons as well as their means of delivery.

In a resolution adopted today, the 15-member Council also reiterated the need to continue to strengthen ongoing cooperation among various intergovernmental bodies and entities concerning terrorist groups such as Al-Qaida, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh), as well as counter-terrorism, through enhanced information sharing, coordination and technical assistance.

The Council further called on all UN Member States to ensure the full implementation of its resolution 1540 (2004) on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

It also called for strengthening the UN Trust Fund for Global and Regional Disarmament Activities through additional funding so that it is able to better assist countries in implementing their obligations under resolution 1540. . . .

STATEMENT BY JAN ELIASSON

Prior to today’s adoption of resolution by the Council, Deputy-Secretary-General Jan Eliasson issued the following statement:

Mr. President of the Security Council, Mr. Minister, I am extremely grateful for your generous and warm words. I thank the Security Council and the Spanish Presidency for arranging today’s debate. I am honoured to be here before you today in what is my final appearance at the Security Council. Let me take this opportunity to thank all of your for your friendship and cooperation over the past almost five years. I have highly treasured our dialogue and many professional and personal exchanges.

I also want to thank the Resolution 1540 Committee and its Panel of Experts, under the leadership of Ambassador Roman Oyarzun, for their work on the important subject under consideration today.

Preventing non-state actors from acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction is among the most important responsibilities of the international community.

The Nuclear Security Summits, the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the close engagement by this Council on allegations of chemical weapon use have all played an important role in keeping us safe.

The Secretariat has also played its part.

In 2012, the Secretary-General convened a high-level meeting to strengthen legal frameworks against nuclear terrorism.

And after the accident at Fukushima, he chaired a high-level event to emphasize the connection between nuclear safety and security.

In 2013, he launched the investigation into the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic.

Yet in our rapidly evolving global security environment, gaps will continue to open.

We have seen the rise of vicious non-state groups with no regard for human life. They actively seek weapons of mass destruction I am sure. And these weapons are increasingly accessible.

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for an article in french on this subject)

Question related to this article:

What is the United Nations doing for a culture of peace?

(Continued from left column)

We have seen this in the use of chemical weapons by Da’esh in Syria and Iraq.

There are legitimate concerns about the security of large stockpiles of weapons-usable fissile material outside international regulation.

Scientific advances have lowered barriers to the production of biological weapons. And emerging technologies, such as 3D printing and unmanned aerial vehicles, are adding to threats of an attack using a WMD.

We must also beware of the growing nexus between WMDs, terrorism and cyber security.

Malicious actions in cyberspace have real world consequences.

Non-state actors already have the capacity to abuse cyber technologies to create mass disruption.

The nightmare scenario of a hack on a nuclear power plant causing uncontrolled release of ionizing radiation is growing.

To stay ahead of this technological curve, the international community needs robust defences that are nimble and flexible.

Preventing a WMD attack by a non-state actor will be a long-term challenge that requires long-term responses.

Tools such as Resolution 1540 need to be fit for purpose.

I am pleased to see the Comprehensive Review, which has called for greater efforts to build the capacity of all States.

After all, this is a threat to our collective security.

We all need to boost our ability to respond.

A biological attack would be a public health disaster.

Yet there is no multilateral institutional response capability.

The Council also has a role to play in holding those that use chemical or other inhumane weapons accountable.

There can be no impunity.

This is a complex web of global threats and risks that requires a sophisticated global response.

We must take advantage of every opportunity to strengthen our collective defences.

In this regard, the Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference was in many ways disappointing.

I count on all States to work together to prevent potential disasters.

And I count on this Council to lead.

In closing, let me emphasize that it is not simply a case of letting these weapons fall into the wrong hands.

There are no right hands for wrong weapons.

And weapons of mass destruction are simply wrong.

There is only one sure way to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction – that is their complete elimination.

We live in a world that is over armed.

A world where peace is under-funded.

I urge on behalf of the Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon all States to fulfil their commitment to building a world free of all weapons of mass destruction.

Thank you Mr. President.