Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 634
Michael Kirby
View Michael Kirby Profile
Hon. Michael Kirby
2015-06-09 13:03
Thank you very much, Chair. I offer my respects to the Parliament of Canada. It's a great privilege for an Australian and a former Australian judge to come here and to be in the House of the people and in the presence of elected members of Parliament. This is a privilege that Canada has and that Australia also enjoys, which is a great historical tradition that, sadly, the people of North Korea do not enjoy.
The United Nations commission of inquiry was set up in March 2013 for the purpose of examining human rights abuses, news of which was trickling out into the international community from North Korea.
I should say at the beginning with regard to the notice of meeting that whilst I would be proud to be Michael J. L. Kirby, who is of course a very distinguished Canadian and former senator, his middle initials are different from mine. My middle initial is D, after my father Donald. I feel that out of respect for my father, I have to mention the difference.
I also want to acknowledge the presence here today of the Honourable Hugh Segal, a former senator of Canada. We worked together as members of the eminent persons group on the future of the Commonwealth of Nations. I'm very glad he's here. He hasn't been well, but he's gotten to the bottom of the problems and he's looking fine. He will continue to give his enormous service to Canada, the Commonwealth of Nations, and the world.
With regard to the report of the commission of inquiry, we had a very large mandate. It was a mandate of 10 items, ranging over issues such as the starvation of the population during the great famine of the 1990s, the denigration of women, the inability to move about the country, the control of information, the lack of a free press, and the detention camps in which people who were thought to be enemies of the regime and their families were detained. All of those were committed to us with the obligation to report, effectively, in seven months.
We reported in seven months. We reported on time, within budget, and unanimously. We went about our report in a different way. We adopted the anglo-Canadian-Australian methodology of public hearings. That is not the normal way the United Nations conducts its inquiries, but we thought transparency was the way to get the evidence and to place the evidence before the world.
We knew from the beginning that we would not get into North Korea. They protect their secrets by not engaging. Therefore, we opened public hearings and called for witnesses to come forward. There are 28,000 refugees from North Korea living in South Korea, and so, for our inquiries in the public hearings in Seoul, Tokyo, London, Washington, and Bangkok, we had no difficulty getting testimony. In the end, we had to cut the testimony off to be able to report on time.
We found many grave violations of human rights, many rising to the level of crimes against humanity. Crimes against humanity are extremely serious international crimes. If the country itself will not respond to the crimes, it is the duty of the international community to respond by protecting the people from crimes against humanity.
As a footnote, I'd mention that we had considered whether genocide had been found. We ultimately did not find genocide, leaving that to any future investigation, because genocide is defined in the genocide convention of 1948 as destroying a population or part of a population on the grounds of race, nationality, ethnicity and religion.
In North Korea, the destruction of people is on the basis of their assumed political allegiance and belief. We therefore held back from finding genocide, but we found crimes against humanity and we called for action by the international community to fulfill the R2P, the responsibility to protect, the people of North Korea from the crimes that are being committed against them.
In the pursuit of our report the United Nations did everything that could reasonably have been expected. I have to pay a tribute to the secretariat that worked for us and to the officers of the Canadian missions overseas. I'm thinking in particular of Ambassador Golberg, the ambassador of Canada in Geneva, who was outstandingly helpful in organizing our meetings with members of the delegations from Latin America.
By these procedures we gathered together at every stage in the consideration of our report extremely strong votes in the committees and organs of the United Nations. In the Human Rights Council we gathered support from 30 members of the council, 30 of 45, and only six members voted against: China, the Russian Federation, Venezuela, Cuba, Pakistan, and Vietnam. But all the other substantial members voted, some 30 members, and a number abstained.
The report then went to the General Assembly of the United Nations, where there was a repetition of this voting pattern. In the end we gathered the support of 116 countries to vote for the report to send it further, with 20 voting against it, and 55 abstaining. That is an extremely strong vote in the General Assembly.
Then, most unusually and exceptionally, the General Assembly adopted the resolution sending the report to the Security Council. It is very rare for the Security Council to become involved in human rights matters, but we were able to convince the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council that this is a case where peace and security is bound up in the issues of human rights. If you have a violent country doing terrible wrongs to its people, that is an unstable situation for peace and security.
The report was sent to the Security Council and by reason of an initiative taken by France, the United States of America, and Australia, then a non-permanent member of the council, the Security Council ultimately voted 11 to 2 in favour of placing our report and the issues of human rights in North Korea on the agenda of the Security Council. The two against were China and the Russian Federation, and two, Chad and Nigeria, abstained.
That vote by China and the Russian Federation did not amount to a veto because there is a provision in the Charter of the United Nations, copied interestingly from the Covenant of the League of Nations, whereby for procedural votes you need only a two-thirds majority and no veto is applicable.
That is where the report stands at the moment. It has gone through the procedures of the United Nations to the very highest level and, exceptionally, it is on the table of the Security Council awaiting a time when the countries of the Security Council decide they will consider it.
I do hope that Canada in its representation in New York will take such initiatives as are appropriate to ensure that on or before the 12-month anniversary, which means December 22, 2015, some steps will be taken in the Security Council to consider the matter, which is on their agenda.
It's appropriate to say, I think, that the big challenge for the international community now is, what's next? How do we move this matter, where there is such a huge expression of concern in countries that often don't come together, particularly on human rights matters, within the United Nations system?
The commission of inquiry recommended that the Security Council refer the case of North Korea to the International Criminal Court. Under the Rome treaty, which set up the International Criminal Court, only countries that are members of the Rome treaty are subject to its jurisdiction. But again, there is an exception, and the exception is where the Security Council refers the matter to the International Criminal Court. Such a decision would not be a procedural decision. It would be a substantive decision, and it would therefore have to run the gauntlet of the permanent five veto. That is the position we now face.
I think it would probably be most useful if the members of the committee questioned me about the problems, the difficulties, the challenges, and the frustrations that we faced on our path. I do think that, as a consequence of the work of the commission of inquiry, North Korea has to some extent been required to examine itself in a way that it had not done before.
Some very unusual things have happened in North Korea and in their response to the international community. It's not a bad thing that North Korea has begun to take part in the universal periodic review procedures, but it still will not allow the special rapporteur to come into North Korea, and it is still not engaging fully with the United Nations human rights machinery.
But insofar as the commission of inquiry could secure a response from the United Nations, I have to speak in praise of the United Nations. This is one occasion where, I think in part because of the different procedure we adopted—procedures that would be much more familiar in Canada—we have made North Korea an issue in the international community, and that has been a good thing. I hope it will lead on to action, including ultimately referral of the matters of North Korea to the International Criminal Court.
The United Nations often speaks of accountability for crimes against humanity. Well, now we know. Now we have the information. We have a lot of evidence. It's online. It's available to the whole world. The question is what the world will do with it. I am very reassured and heartened by the fact that the Canadian Parliament, elected by the people of Canada, has been sufficiently concerned and involved in the issues of North Korea to invite me to come along today to tell you about the work of the commission of inquiry on North Korea.
I'd add one final observation. I'm not now a mandate holder of the United Nations. The United Nations commission of inquiry completed its report on time and delivered it to the Human Rights Council in March of 2014. The mandate holder is now Mr. Darusman, who was a member of the commission of inquiry, and he continues his obligations as special rapporteur, but with his knowledge and agreement, I am here today explaining the steps that were taken by the commission of inquiry.
So long as I have breath, I will continue to speak up for the people of North Korea, who have suffered grievously and who deserve the attention of freedom-loving people all around the world, including in Canada.
View Irwin Cotler Profile
Lib. (QC)
I'd like to begin, Justice Kirby, if I may, not only by commending you for your testimony today and your comprehensive report, but really also for a lifetime of commitment to human rights and the rule of law.
In your commission's final report, in which you document the wide array of crimes against humanity, you conclude by saying that the gravity, scale, and nature of these violations reveal a state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.
Now this is, as you pointed out clearly, an R2P situation, but if it is an R2P situation, the question arises how can the international community now on the 10th anniversary of R2P best give expression to this imperative in the case of North Korea.
Of course, a reference by the UN Security Council to the ICC would be the best example, and it's always possible this may happen, but I'm not unmindful of the fact that with regard to Syria we were prevented from invoking the R2P there because China and Russia again and again exercised their veto.
My question is what can the international community do either to persuade China and Russia, or if that does not work, other initiatives that we might take, and in particular how may Canadian parliamentarians assist in this regard?
Michael Kirby
View Michael Kirby Profile
Hon. Michael Kirby
2015-06-09 13:47
First of all, Professor Cotler, I pay my respects to you. In our respective earlier lives, you as an academic and me as a practising judge, we met on a number of occasions and I'm most respectful of your question.
I think the answer I would give is the answer I gave when I was asked a very similar question in the General Assembly: what can we do? The answer I gave at the time was that whenever you meet the representatives of DPRK in the corridors, you should tell them that this is not acceptable. Whenever you meet the representatives of China and the Russian Federation, you should give them the same message.
We are, after all, this month and next month celebrating the enormous sacrifices of the Red Army and the Russian people in bringing an end to the Second World War, in which they were close allies of Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the other P5 countries. They have an interest in securing peace and stability.
There will not be peace and stability on the Korean peninsula so long as there is a disrespect of fundamental human rights. This is a reality that I think needs to be brought home to them.
In the meantime, there's work to be done. Next month a field office will be established to continue to collect the testimony, and the greatest peril, as far as the follow-up of the report of the commission of inquiry goes, is that, because of other pressing international concerns, it will go off the agenda.
That is why I'm so grateful to this committee of the Canadian Parliament that you are signalling today that this is not off the agenda but that it is still on the agenda and it has not been repaired. I would hope that this committee will continue to operate and continue to remind people of the work of and the report by the commission of inquiry, but we should not give up on the work that the Security Council can do if it chooses to do so.
Somehow there needs to be a way for Russia and China to see, whatever their geopolitical concerns, that there are deep issues of human rights in a country that has the fifth-largest standing army in the whole world, with a population of 24 million, and which reportedly has 15 to 20 nuclear warheads and increasingly sophisticated missile-delivery systems, and which is now experimenting in submarine technology with the potential of spreading the power of the nuclear arsenal that it has.
This is an extremely serious issue for peace and security, and when you have countries with no respect for the fundamental human rights of their people, that is a very unstable situation. Therefore, it is of deep concern to Canada and people everywhere, and to the lives of people in the Korean peninsula. Accidents, mistakes, and risks are great, and we cannot simply put this into the “too hard” basket. We have to turn the intelligence and the unanimity of the human family to finding a solution to this problem.
Luis Eliud Tapia Olivares
View Luis Eliud Tapia Olivares Profile
Luis Eliud Tapia Olivares
2015-06-02 13:23
Good afternoon.
First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak here on Ángel's case and on the human rights situation in Mexico, knowing that your committee is studying and reviewing what is happening in Mexico.
Today there's a severe human rights crisis in the country. Serious violations of human rights are taking place, and they have increased dramatically. The case of Ángel Amílcar Colón is not a coincidence. There are explanations in that policies have militarized safety under the heading of the so-called fight against drugs. Certain behaviours have become generalized, as was reported by the UN special rapporteur on torture, Juan Mendez, after his recent visit to Mexico. As well, there are forced disappearances of individuals in many areas throughout the country, as the United Nations committee on forced disappearances indicated in January of this year.
As to torture, I would like to share with you our dramatic figures with regard to denunciations of torture. In just three years, the national ombudsman reported, he received 7,000 complaints of torture. These include the torture of innocent individuals, such as in the case of Ángel Amílcar. In other words, in the face of a lack of serious investigation, the use of torture has become, in Mexico, a method of investigation in order to carry forward procedures based on a simple declaration obtained under torture.
This serious crime affects vulnerable groups, as happens with migrant groups crossing Mexico, but it also affects women through the terrible practice of sexual torture, as in the case of Claudia Medina, a lady from Veracruz who was tortured by the Mexican navy in Veracruz. It is documented that military forces, in the navy and pretty much all of the police forces throughout the country, are involved in sexual torture when they're holding a woman. This happens in pretty much all of the cases.
As to the forced disappearance of individuals, according to official information from the secretariat of internal affairs in Mexico, contained in the national data register for people who are lost or disappeared, as of January more than 25,000 individuals have disappeared in Mexico. During the current administration of Enrique Peña Nieto, some 10,000 individuals have disappeared. In other words, in just two years and a couple of months, this large number of individuals has been lost in Mexico. Organizations in civil society in Mexico have compared their list of denunciations with the official list of the government: they matched in only 10% of the cases registered.
During this serious crisis, we saw also the disappearance of the students of Ayotzinapa. This is a pragmatic example I'm giving you, and it's not isolated. There is collusion between Mexican authorities and organized crime. Students between the ages of 18 and 22 years, who were getting ready to become teachers, were disappeared by the state.
Now, some eight months after the event, with the help of two international independent experts, such as the Argentine forensic anthropology team and the group of specialists designated in order to review this case with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, we see that there have been serious inaccuracies in the investigation. The Mexican authorities to date haven't yet clarified what happened on the 26th and 27th of September, 2014. That's why the intervention of these independent groups, in this case, is of fundamental importance as well as the support received from the international community, and in this specific case from the Canadian government.
With regard to extrajudicial executions and massacres, they have grown exponentially in number, linked to the war against drugs. In many cases, there has been intervention by the authorities as though what was occurring was an internal conflict.
On June 20 last year in Tlatlaya State 22 people were killed. In an initial statement the government of the state said that it had been a conflict between groups and that the military personnel had acted in self-defence. However, the national ombudsman made a recommendation concluding that between 12 to 15 people were executed out of court by the Secretary of National Defence.
There is evidence of other possible summary executions in Apatzingán, where 16 people were killed on January 6, 2015, and there's also the case in Tanhuato in Michoacán, where 42 people were killed. It's important to note that investigations must be held in Mexico that are independent, because the legitimacy of state authorities has been lost because we have seen that there have been these summary executions.
With regard to criminal violence the state has responded with more criminal violence, detaining people, torturing innocent people as well, and executing people. There is a lack of funds and they execute civilians in this internal war. According to the overall index of impunity in 2015 from the Impunity and Justice Research Center, Mexico is next to last on the list of the 59 member states of the United Nations that have information and sufficient statistics to calculate the levels of impunity within the country. What this means is that there is only one country that is higher on the list of countries of impunity than Mexico.
According to a report that was issued last month by the International Institute of Strategic Studies with its headquarters in London, IISS, Mexico is the third ranked country in terms of armed conflict. It's only behind Iraq and Syria.
Finally, I would like to say that the Canadian government has close ties with Mexico and that is why we are here today to talk to you about Ángel Amílcar's case. We request that in his case the Mexican government be requested to investigate what happened on March 9, 2009, when Ángel was tortured and we want to know who was responsible for that torture.
We would also like for measures of non-recurrence to be applied not only in his case but also to prevent such cases from ever occurring again. For us there is a great concern because we know the Canadian government is also very concerned about human rights. We would like to have a response. We would like to see recognition of the severe human rights crisis that is present in Mexico. This is a first step toward changing the situation.
There is no other way of dealing with the situation. It is very necessary for Canada to see its relationship of cooperation with Mexico in a way that is conditioned by concrete steps by Mexico to respect the human rights of Mexicans or in Mexico.
Thank you very much.
View Mark Eyking Profile
Lib. (NS)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's an honour to be subbing on your committee today, but it's a shocking story that we're hearing. It's shocking and moving to hear what Mr. Quevedo has gone through.
I have friends and family in Mexico, and I have visited there many times. What I hear on the surface is that in the judicial system there might be a police officer taking a little bribe for a speeding ticket and that, but never have I ever heard anything of this calibre.
You talk about 25,000 people missing, the executions, mass graves. This is almost like Argentina, from years past, where something like this was happening. It's what usually happens with dictators and the military being in charge. You can compare it to Syria and places like that.
What's going on? You have a democratic society in Mexico. You have people elected. You have a president. I mean, the whole system is there. Does it all boil down to the fact that they have passed over the judicial system to the military?
My other question would be on Guatemala. Do they have no capacity to worry about their citizens in another country who are being treated like this? Is there anything that can be done?
My last question is, as Canadians, what should the final message be to these two countries? It's both countries, and there are probably more than those two countries that are being affected throughout Latin America because of this.
Luis Eliud Tapia Olivares
View Luis Eliud Tapia Olivares Profile
Luis Eliud Tapia Olivares
2015-06-02 13:53
Well, definitely the message is that Mexico cannot be called a democratic country that observes the rule of law when there are such scandalous numbers for human rights abuses, when there is no justice for certain cases, and when there is no investigation of what happens in the chain of command. There is no investigation of higher and middle commanders of the military system. There isn't even any punishment, basic punishment, for them, so there is no way to have access to justice.
Someone who has been the victim of the kind of crime that Amílcar has suffered has no possibility of getting anywhere. He had the support of Centro Prodh and Amnesty International for being a prisoner of conscience, and he wasn't even able to get access to justice. I think that shows what kinds of obstacles exist in Mexico.
Therefore, we ask the Canadian government to recognize what is happening, to see the situation from this perspective—from here—and to review programs of cooperation with Mexico to ensure that Canada is not sponsoring human rights violations. It is important to take another look at how the Canadian government cooperates when it comes to the war against drugs, because the war against drugs has led to summary executions, forced disappearances, and torture, as in the case of Ángel Amílcar.
Alex Neve
View Alex Neve Profile
Alex Neve
2015-06-02 13:54
Maybe I could just briefly highlight some key recommendations that we feel the Canadian government should be taking up.
The first, as you've heard repeatedly, is that we think it's crucial that there be more explicit and public recognition by the government that Mexico does face a human rights crisis.
The second, picking up on Luis' point, is the need to review our own laws and programs to make sure we're doing everything we can to promote human rights protection and not either overlook or even contribute to human rights abuses. There, I would flag our ongoing concern about the fact that Mexico is a designated safe country of origin in our refugee system, and I would also highlight the importance of making sure there's ongoing review of bilateral cooperation, especially in the security sector, to make sure that human rights protection is a priority and that it's working.
Third, it's very important that Canada, in Mexico City and in Ottawa, regularly be taking up and highlighting individual cases like Ángel Colón's. It's our hope, given that Ángel now has a close connection to Canadians, that his is one case that we'll be able to count on the government to push in order for this next step to go forward: justice.
The last, beyond the individual cases, is also the need for Canada to formulate, in cooperation with groups like the Centro Prodh, a human rights agenda that we're prepared to champion in our dealings with Mexico that pushes for the kinds of legal and institutional reforms that will hopefully get to the point where cases like Ángel's. aren't happening anymore.
Zul Merali
View Zul Merali Profile
Zul Merali
2015-05-14 16:51
Thank you very much. I would like to thank the committee for this invitation to speak to you about the government's investment in the Canadian Depression Research and Intervention Network and about my perspectives on mental health research in Canada.
The global cost of mental illness, according to the World Health Organization, is that it is a leading cause of disability in terms of adjusted life years lost worldwide. Within the mental illness category, depression is responsible for the largest burden of illness. Indeed, 500,000 Canadians did not go to work today because of depression, and the issue is increasing in magnitude. At the recent World Economic Forum held in Switzerland, mental health was a noted concern for the first time, and mental disorders emerged as the single largest cost, with global projections increasing to $6 trillion—an unimaginable amount—annually by 2030. This is more than diabetes, cancer, and pulmonary disease combined.
Why is mental illness such an issue? It is because it usually starts early in life, and it increases the risk of other concomitant disorders in terms of non-communicable diseases associated with depression.
CDRIN, which is the Canadian Depression Research and Intervention Network, is a pan-Canadian network that is focused on depression and related conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide. We are very grateful to the Government of Canada for its $5.2-million contribution in its federal budget to support the establishment of this network.
Through the stewardship of three founding organizations, the Royal's Institute of Mental Health Research, which is affiliated with the University of Ottawa, the Mental Health Commission of Canada, and the Mood Disorders Society of Canada, I am proud to say that the network is up and running full steam ahead.
The strength and power of this network are to promote discovery and to translate results into practice through its nationally distributed research hubs. These hubs of discovery bring together the best researchers, clinicians, people with lived experience, and young trainees. CDRIN has seven hubs spanning across Canada right now, from British Columbia to the Maritimes, including an indigenous hub in Saskatchewan, which is the newest one.
We have hosted two very successful conferences for the purpose of knowledge exchange and knowledge translation opportunities. Through the network research hubs, the best minds in research are joining forces to understand the causes of depression and to discover more effective ways to diagnose and treat depression. Each hub is akin to a large tent that brings together academic organizations, clinicians, and people with lived experience, creating a true transdisciplinary experience. The discoveries will be shared across various hubs, and the promising practice-changing approaches will be applied locally and then nationally.
Crosscutting opportunities for young researchers will ensure sustainability and progression of this effort. International links have also been forged with like-minded organizations, in particular the NNDC, which is the National Network of Depression Centers in the United States, as well as the European Alliance Against Depression.
CDRIN is taking a leadership role in partnering with people with lived experience through every phase of the research process. We are training people with lived experience how to become active members around a research table, and training researchers to embrace and incorporate the issues and ideas that emanate from people with lived experience. This partnership will ensure that the research being conducted is relevant to those suffering from mental illness, and it will help transform the mental health landscape in Canada.
In terms of military health, at the Royal we are fortunate to house an operational stress injuries clinic, and the Royal is home to NATO's first research chair in military mental health. This chair is held by Colonel Rakesh Jetly, a senior psychiatrist with the Canadian Armed Forces and a mental health adviser to the Surgeon General. It will focus on care and treatment of those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other combat-related injuries. It will also focus on depression, as this illness has a prevalence rate of 8% in the armed forces, higher than PTSD, which stands at about 5.5% in the uniformed services. The work to be done on research will translate into new treatments for those with PTSD. Canada will work with NATO partners and share research and collaborate.
As for suicide, it is, as you know, a major societal concern. Youths, adults in mid-life, and indigenous communities are at particular risk. Whereas mortality due to cancer and to heart disease has plummeted over the last 10 years, if you look at the graph for suicide, it has not budged. We have not moved the needle on that at all. Suicides are, in most instances, associated with mental illness, depression in particular. It is important to always link depression with suicides.
CDRIN has a formal memorandum of understanding with the European Alliance Against Depression. Dr. Ulrich Hegerl, the head of the European Alliance Against Depression, has been a speaker at our CDRIN conferences. As well, we've hosted workshops with parties for collaboration, including the Mental Health Commission of Canada, Health Canada, and PHAC. We have had two such meetings. The European Alliance Against Depression is willing and keen to be working with us here in Canada.
We are interested in testing the Nuremberg model here in Canada as a model that has been shown repeatedly to reduce suicide by up to 20% within a year or two of its implementation in many of the European communities. We need to test this model here in the Canadian context.
I'm happy to say that we have recently created a chair in suicide prevention in partnership with the Do It For Daron foundation and Mach-Gaensslen Foundation. This person is going to be coming on board any day now.
In Canada we spend less less than 5 per cent of our research dollars to support mental health research despite the fact that mental illness is the leading burden of illness nationwide. For every hundred dollars we spend in health care, Canada has invested less than four cents towards mental health research. We spend more than ten times that amount for cancer research. We have the capacity but we do not have adequate resources to fuel these activities that need to bring us to the next realm. We need to invest more in mental health research.
With that, I'd say thank you for your attention. I'll take any questions.
View Nina Grewal Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you to the witnesses for your time.
Mr. Shaheed, in March, you indicated that the situation in Iran was worsening under President Rouhani. You warned that Iranian authority continues to harass, arrest, prosecute, and also imprison many members of society who express criticism of the government or who publicly deviate from officially sanctioned narratives. Our government is deeply troubled by the ongoing and deliberate failure of the Iranian regime to abide by domestic and international human rights obligations and commitments. We have applied sanctions, including sanctions under the regulations implementing the United Nations regulations on Iran, and we have made public statements calling on Iran to fulfill its human rights obligations.
Could you please tell us what more nations could do to improve human rights conditions in Iran?
Ahmed Shaheed
View Ahmed Shaheed Profile
Ahmed Shaheed
2015-05-07 13:45
There's a lot more, in fact, that I think our countries can do.
Of course, continue sustained focus and pressure is one. Another, I think, is engage more broadly the whole community of human rights promoters, including the UN system. There is a UN country team in Iran which has programs in which they are in contact with the government. These could have a sharper human rights focus. The UN membership can support or encourage these people to become more focused on human rights. The UNODC, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, has a program in the country supporting combatting the drug trade. This could become more human rights friendly, or become more focused on rule of law and the judiciary, so there are still avenues open for countries to take them to task in a more fine-grained manner on human rights violations.
View Tarik Brahmi Profile
NDP (QC)
View Tarik Brahmi Profile
2015-05-07 12:12
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to go back to the question about the ISO.
More than 20 years ago, when I began my studies in microelectronics, there was competition in electronics and microelectronics between ISO, which is more European, and the American National Standards Institute, or ANSI, which was American.
Is this competition still ongoing? Is there still a power struggle between Europe and the United States?
Begonia Lojk
View Begonia Lojk Profile
Begonia Lojk
2015-05-07 12:12
Yes, there is a little, even between ISO and the International Electrotechnical Commission, or the IEC. These organizations work together in the sector. ISO and IEC have a joint committee, the JTC 1. Sometimes there is also a bit of competition between the major American standards development organizations, such as ASTM, which sees itself as a global organization that is equal to ISO. ISO, however, considers itself to be the only international organization. In short, I would say that this competition still exists.
However, I don't know about Europe.
View Tarik Brahmi Profile
NDP (QC)
View Tarik Brahmi Profile
2015-05-07 12:13
As Canadian representatives, where do you position yourself in that dynamic?
Begonia Lojk
View Begonia Lojk Profile
Begonia Lojk
2015-05-07 12:13
The CGSB provides a technical contribution, but it is so small that it is not involved in this competitive dynamic.
Mark Lagon
View Mark Lagon Profile
Mark Lagon
2015-05-05 13:16
Mr. Chairman, honourable Vice-Chair, committee members, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today about human rights in Iran.
Let me start by first commending the Government of Canada, which year after year has been a leader in the UN General Assembly in denouncing the systematic abuses that the Iranian regime commits against its own citizens. Freedom House applauds that effort, and we pledge to work with the Canadian government, as ever, on that.
We're at a different juncture from that we experienced two years ago. International engagement on Iran's nuclear program has given hope to Iranians that they might emerge from decades-long isolation imposed on them by their own government.
Dialogue and diplomacy should always be welcomed, but they aren't ends in themselves. The talks with Iran have unfortunately coincided with deprioritizing and delinking human rights from the global agenda, when they should instead advance the concerns of the Iranian people and ensure that the world share concerning the regime's repression of its citizens.
Two years ago, in a tense environment, Iranians were deciding whether to vote in another deeply flawed election in their own country. In a courageous move, many returned to the polls in an attempt to shed an increasingly repressive eight years under the Ahmadinejad administration and to help avert the spectre of conflict between their country and the West. Some Iranian pragmatist described the choice as one of “the best of the worst” among eight candidates approved by senior clerics.
Hassan Rouhani, the self-proclaimed moderate aligned with leading reformists and supporters of human rights, was elected promising to remove restrictions on speech, advance women's rights, and release dozens of political prisoners. Eighteen months later, Rouhani's campaign promises haven't materialized. Despite the president's rhetoric and some superficial steps, he hasn't delivered on his vows of reform, and the administration is focused almost entirely on the nuclear negotiations.
The country's hardliners have deepened repression. The human rights situation has deteriorated further, whether with respect to gender equality, increasing imprisonment and execution of political opponents, as my colleague here has noted, or crackdowns on freedom of expression and religion.
Iranians continue to demand gender equality but have instead seen further deterioration. Vicious acid attacks against women have gone unpunished, and pending legislation restricts the hours during which women are allowed to work and creates a hierarchy for public sector hiring that would marginalize women, particularly those who aren't married. Other bills would empower employers and members of the religious militia to enforce the government's conservative dress code for women, curb the use of modern contraceptives, outlaw voluntary sterilization, and dismantle state-funded family planning programs.
Since 2013, authorities have banned women from 77 fields of study, effectively reversing hard-earned educational achievements. Another law, passed over the fervent objection of Iran's human rights community, effectively legalizes forced marriage by allowing men to marry girls as young as nine, provided that they are adopted daughters or step-daughters.
Iranian women are banned from watching public sporting events and have campaigned for years against this discriminatory policy. In a sign that international pressure works, warnings by international sporting authorities that would refuse Iran hosting privileges have led officials to signal a possible change. Pressure like that works.
In this context, in an especially ill-informed move on April 10, UN members elected Iran to the board of UN Women, a public embarrassment to the body's efforts to advance women's empowerment.
A second and increasingly blatant violation of human rights is the staggeringly high execution rate. Iran is second only to China in the number of executions it carries out, and that's not per capita, but just as an absolute matter. It leads the world in juvenile executions. Let's look at a comparison. As my colleague noted here, Iran reached its highest level in 12 years last year, with 753 individuals put to death, 53 of whom were publicly executed and 14 of whom were juveniles. Think about this in comparison. Saudi Arabia, which is not attractive in its own record on executions, executed 90 in the last year. The execution rate is even higher—it seems to be 20% higher—in the current calendar year.
Iran holds at least 1,150 political prisoners, with likely far more, given many Iranian families' fear of government reprisals if they come forward. Some of these political prisoners are held in solitary confinement in facilities outside the purview of Iran's formal prison authority. The 2009 presidential candidates and leaders of the green movement remain under house arrest without charge for a fourth year in a row. Just this morning, prominent human rights defender Narges Mohammadi was arrested for alleged national security crimes as punishment for her peaceful activism in support of abolishing the death penalty.
Iran's media and online environment are among the most repressive in the world. This is a focus of Freedom House work. In 2014, seven newspapers and magazines were shut down, and blogs and news websites were subject to state censorship and filtering. At least 44 Iranian journalists were imprisoned. Of course, Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian was among them. He's been in prison for nine months under espionage charges.
Iran's conservative Press Supervisory Board recently banned a popular women's magazine that had received a new licence from the Rouhani government after years of being shuttered under the previous government. What was the violation? It was publishing views on the cohabitation of unmarried adults and access to public sporting events by women. How dare they?
Among 65 nations that are studied in Freedom House's Freedom on the Net report, Iran is ranked at the very bottom. Authorities restrict online access to information through control of Internet infrastructure, extensive website filtering, rampant surveillance, and systematic arrests. Millions of websites, including Facebook and Twitter, remain blocked for Iranian citizens.
Last fall, Iran's Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of 30-year old blogger Soheil Arabi for a Facebook post deemed insulting to religious sanctities. Other online offenders were sentenced to between seven and twenty years for blogging, for a technology website, for contributing to a Sufi website, and for a Facebook post deemed blasphemous to the regime.
Religious freedom is also under serious and continued threat. Bahá'ís, Christian converts, Sunnis, and Sufis continue to be targeted and dozens put in prison.
Academic freedom is limited, especially for Bahá'ís and women, but President Rouhani has taken some positive steps to ease repression on university campuses. In 2014, about a dozen student associations were allowed to renew their work after being forcibly shut down under the previous administration, while several new groups have been recently granted permits to operate. However, real reform is unlikely, as the Minister for Science, Research, and Technology, who had lifted restrictions, was impeached by the parliament.
Independent labour unions continue to be banned, and those who participate in protests are fired or summoned to court. At least 230 people were arrested in peaceful labour protests over the last year, and nearly 1,000 were fired in February 2015 for participating in labour protests. Five labour leaders were arrested on the eve of International Workers' Day.
Unfortunately, it appears that these crackdowns will continue. The parliament has introduced new legislation that would further restrict Iranians' rights to expression and association and would enable regime conservatives to control the country's civic and political space ahead of Assembly of Experts and parliamentary elections next year. These measures would bring political parties, journalists, and NGOs firmly under the control of commissions and councils dominated by the hardline authorities and would outlaw any activity that the regime considers harmful to its interests
Indeed elections, which are used in Iran to legitimate theocratic rule, rarely change the country's political reality. They rarely do because unelected institutions—the Supreme Leader, the Guardian Council, and increasingly the judiciary and security services—effectively have a veto over decisions of elected institutions.
While Khamenei may wish to be viewed as an overarching supreme guide, he is in reality a micro-manager over an expanding web of committees and councils and various organs and branches of the government. Khamenei's appointees control, oversee, and influence socio-cultural, foreign, and economic policy and ensure that policy making is in line with the leader's views and that no centre of power gains more influence than the leader.
Similarly, the country's electoral system is designed to ensure that candidate selection and the entire electoral process are carried out under the authority of the Supreme Leader and not the Ministry of Interior. All candidates for high public office are heavily vetted by the Guardian Council on the basis of subjective criteria and non-transparent procedures. In practice, this means that public officials and political hopefuls are accountable primarily to the Supreme Leader and only secondarily to the electorate.
Iranians have repeatedly attempted to achieve reform through the ballot box and through peaceful protests, but two decades of experience have proven that it will be far more difficult and costly, if not impossible, to achieve it without international support. At this critical juncture, the world must not turn its back on Iran's people's aspirations for democratic reform. Governments engaging with Iran should make clear to Iranian authorities that attention to human rights won't take a back seat to the pursuit of strategic and security co-operation.
Leading human rights defender Nasrin Sotoudeh said recently, in April, that with regard to the nuclear negotiations, “To think that reaching an international consensus [on nuclear talks] will by itself lead to an opening in the domestic scene...is a mistake”.
Freedom House looks forward to supporting a Canadian-sponsored resolution again in the UN General Assembly. That General Assembly action should urge the Secretary-General to take additional steps to strengthen his office's engagement with Iran. In particular, Freedom House recommends that the Secretary-General appoint a special adviser on Iran, similar to the one Kofi Annan appointed on Burma since 1995 to provide political guidance to Burmese authorities. This would provide access to the country by the UN special rapporteur on Iran and for other special procedures of the UN and would push for full co-operation by the Iranian government with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Further recommendations are as follows.
We hope that Canada will work in conjunction with the United States and Sweden at the UN Human Rights Council next March to build a stronger resolution than what already exists, that passed in 2011 on the human rights situation in Iran.
The mandate of the special rapporteur needs to be given more heft. The rapporteur's access to Iran should be a priority of international diplomacy, and countries with significant populations of Iranian refugees should allow access to their territories by the rapporteur.
As a final recommendation, I want to emphasize that Iranian officials responsible for human rights abuses should be held accountable with targeted sanctions. Even if comprehensive sanctions are lifted in the context of diplomacy on nuclear capabilities, those targeted sanctions would place effective pressure and stigma on those responsible for violating the basic dignity of women and men in Iran. We hope that Canada will join the United States and the EU in applying asset freezes and visa bans on Iranian officials responsible for abuses.
To close, the human rights situation in Iran is abysmal. Canada has been a leader in calling attention to that point. Your annual accountability week at the subcommittee is part of that leadership effort. Human rights respecting nations of both the global north and the global south need to show their solidarity with ordinary Iranians subject to repression by the government. A focus on nuclear talks and understandings doesn't justify sweeping acute human rights abuses under the rug.
Thank you very much.
Results: 1 - 15 of 634 | Page: 1 of 43

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data