Syria: A year after Raqqa, US-led Coalition’s ongoing denials an insult to survivors

  • Disappointing Pentagon communiqué spurns liability for civilian casualties
  • Coalition strikes destroyed 80% of Raqqa, killing hundreds of civilians
  • Ongoing Amnesty International investigation reveals evidence of dozens of new civilian victims

The US-led Coalition’s ongoing failure to admit to, let alone adequately investigate, the shocking scale of civilian deaths and destruction it caused in Raqqa is a slap in the face for survivors trying to rebuild their lives and their city, said Amnesty International a year after the offensive to oust the armed group calling itself Islamic State (IS).

On 17 October 2017, following a fierce four-month battle, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – the Coalition’s Kurdish-led partners on the ground – announced victory over IS, which had used civilians as human shields and committed other war crimes in besieged Raqqa. Winning the battle came at a terrible price – almost 80% of the city was destroyed and many hundreds of civilians lay dead, the majority killed by the Coalition’s bombardment.

In a letter to Amnesty International on 10 September 2018, the US Department of Defense – whose forces carried out most of the air strikes and all the artillery strikes on Raqqa – made clear it accepts no liability for the civilian casualties it caused. The Coalition does not plan to compensate survivors and relatives of those killed in Raqqa and refuses to provide further information about the circumstances behind strikes that killed and maimed civilians.

“This is an insult to families who – after suffering the brutality of Islamic State rule – lost loved ones to the Coalition’s cataclysmic barrage of firepower” – Kumi Naidoo, Amnesty International’s Secretary General

“Disturbingly, the Pentagon does not even seem willing to offer an apology for the hundreds of civilians killed in its ‘war of annihilation’ on Raqqa. This is an insult to families who – after suffering the brutality of IS rule – lost loved ones to the Coalition’s cataclysmic barrage of firepower,” said Kumi Naidoo, Amnesty International’s new Secretary General, who has just returned from a field visit to Raqqa.

“One year after the battle ended, the obstacles to justice are still insurmountably high for victims and their families. It is completely reprehensible that the Coalition refuses to acknowledge its role in most of the civilian casualties it caused, and abhorrent that even where it has admitted responsibility, it accepts no obligation towards its victims.”

Flawed civilian casualty reporting

The Coalition’s failure to live up to its commitments to carry out ground investigations into the impact of its strikes is one reason why its own civilian casualties count is so implausibly low.

Prior to Amnesty International’s June 2018 report “War of Annihilation: Devastating Toll upon Civilians in Raqqa – Syria”, the Coalition had admitted to causing just 23 civilian deaths in its entire Raqqa campaign. Incredibly, a year after the offensive, the UK Ministry of Defence still maintains its hundreds of air strikes in Raqqa resulted in zero civilian casualties – a statistical improbability.

Following a string of blustery denials from military officials and politicians, at the end of July the Coalition quietly admitted it had caused a further 77 civilian deaths – almost all of those documented in Amnesty International’s report.

Despite its admission of responsibility in these cases – a more than 300% increase on previous reports – the Coalition persists in refusing to detail the circumstances in which these civilians were killed.

“Surely, with hundreds of civilians dead, it begs the question what went wrong. Was it weapon malfunction, poor intelligence, human error, or fundamental negligence? Did the Coalition fail to adequately verify the targets, or was it down to a poor choice of munition?”– Kumi Naidoo, Amnesty International’s Secretary General

“Surely, with hundreds of civilians dead, it begs the question what went wrong. Was it weapon malfunction, poor intelligence, human error, or fundamental negligence? Did the Coalition fail to adequately verify the targets, or was it down to a poor choice of munition? These are crucial details, to establish both facts and assess lawfulness, as well as learn the lessons necessary to avoid similar mistakes in future, which is fundamental to minimising harm to civilians – a legal obligation,” said Kumi Naidoo.

In what it called its “final response” to Amnesty International, the US Department of Defense stated that it does not consider itself bound to answer further questions about the circumstances and reasons behind launching strikes which killed and maimed so many civilians.

Spurious assertions

The Department of Defense also spuriously asserted that experienced Amnesty International researchers, military and legal experts do not understand international humanitarian law (the laws of war). It suggested that Amnesty International based its prima facie case that the law had been broken on the deaths of civilians alone. In doing so, it chose to ignore evidence that, in the cases documented by Amnesty International, IS fighters were not present at the scene of the air strikes that killed and injured civilians – a key part of the analysis: Amnesty International believes this evidence provides a prima facie case that these strikes violated international humanitarian law.

“The crucial question raised by our research is whether the Coalition took the necessary precautions to minimise any potential harm to civilians, as the laws of war require. While the Coalition refuses to provide this information, the evidence shows it did not,” said Kumi Naidoo.

“Protecting civilians is about more than making pledges and using fine words. It requires proactive investigation into civilian casualties, transparency, and a willingness to learn lessons and amend procedures which are failing to minimise the risk of harm to civilians. It also requires acknowledging the full scale of the harm caused to civilians and affording victims the possibility of justice, accountability and reparation.

“Secretary of Defense James Mattis has claimed US forces are ‘the good guys’. ‘The Good guys’ would comply with the laws of war and do whatever is necessary to ensure innocent civilians who suffer as a result of their actions get the justice they deserve.”  

New evidence of wider pattern of civilian casualties

In the absence of a meaningful effort so far by Coalition forces to investigate the impact their Raqqa campaign had on civilians, Amnesty International continues to gather further evidence about the wider patterns of civilian casualties in Raqqa. Among other things, this is based on four field investigations in Raqqa so far – the most recent of which was last week – as well as relying on military expertise and comprehensive expert analysis of satellite imagery.

Amnesty International has recently unearthed details of many more previously undocumented cases in which Coalition strikes killed civilians with apparently no IS fighters present in the vicinity at the time. For example, these include 20 civilians from the Merbad and al-Tadfi families in separate air strikes in June and September 2017.

Amnesty International has recently unearthed details of many more previously undocumented cases in which Coalition strikes killed civilians with apparently no IS fighters present in the vicinity at the time. 

The organisation has also conducted further investigations into the last of a series of Coalition strikes which killed 39 members of the Badran family and 10 other civilians. The Coalition previously acknowledged responsibility for 44 of these deaths and rejected the remainder as “non-credible”. But new details pin down the exact time and date of the final air strike on 10 September 2017, which killed two members of the Badran family and three other civilians, including a 70-year-old man who was the city’s former attorney general.

Amnesty International will soon release the full details of these and many other newly documented cases – amounting to scores of civilian casualties still unacknowledged by the Coalition.

“While the Coalition continues to bury its head in the sand, we will continue to work on the ground and use all the tools available to us to expose the full extent of civilian casualties and demand justice and full reparation for victims and their families,” said Kumi Naidoo.

Religious Freedoms Review: The ‘right to discriminate’ exemptions must go

Responding to news that all 20 recommendations of the report of the Religious Freedoms Review have been leaked to media, Amnesty International Australia’s Advocacy Manager Emma Bull said:

“The Ruddock Review has made 20 recommendations when it really only needed to make one to have the same outcome: implement a national Human Rights Act.

What has been very clear in recent days is that there is little public support for schools to be able to turn away LGBT children. What Amnesty International wants are laws that protect our right to hold a religion, but limit the so-called right to discriminate. This would be best implemented by a Human Rights Act.

Recommendation 15 calls for a Religious Discrimination Act which could address some of the unanswered questions that are worrying the community. But debate over the past few days has shown that there is little public support for the exemptions that the review recommends.

Organisations which provide education or services should not be exempt from anti-discrimination laws – they should provide for all Australians on an equal basis.

A national Human Rights Act would more comprehensively address these issues.

The Government has had the report for four months now and the delay in releasing it is unreasonable. The Government must now release it, and its response to it, in full.”

Minister, activist, refugee: John Jegasothy

Reverend John Jegasothy and his family sought safety in Australia, after fleeing Sri Lanka’s civil war. Today he is a community leader in Sydney helping to promote a fair go for refugees. Story as told to Annika Flensburg.

Fleeing Sri Lanka

When Sri Lanka’s civil war started, I was working as a Superintendent Minister in the Methodist Church; I also chaired a human rights organisation branch in Trincomalee and was a Central Committee member.

I invited local leaders and heads of all forces to peace talks, and I became the voice of the Tamils – I said that there is no reconciliation without saying sorry. It was then that I became a target. Messages came to me that, if I slept in the house or came to the market place, they would cut my throat.

In Chenkaladi, my next church, on a hot Independence Day the Sri Lankan Task Force (STF) Commander came to our premises and asked for water. It was unusual. While he was talking a soldier next to him fired his AK47 into the lane alongside our house. We were carrying our two children in our hands and they were very frightened and screamed. Then the soldiers went out to the road and shot a young boy they had arrested.

An offer of sponsorship

Soon after our 10-month-old son Edward had convulsions and a high fever. My wife, the nanny and I ran to a doctor’s house – there was a curfew outside and it was very dangerous; either side could have shot us. The doctor said that we needed to take Edward to hospital.

“We put up a nappy as a white flag on our car and went 10 miles, risking our lives.”

Edward woke up at the hospital and today he is a lecturer at Sydney University.

When I came back home that night to look after my older son James, the first thing I saw on the table was a letter of sponsorship from Shanti’s younger sister in Canberra. At the time the Australian authorities were granting humanitarian visas to Tamils in danger if they had someone to sponsor.

The letter was sent a long time ago but I’d never read it. Now it was staring at me. I filled in all the papers. When Shanti came home with Edward she sent it to the Australian embassy before I could change my mind. We didn’t want our children to die before us.

A new start

I remember sitting on the plane after being granted a permanent visa still worried that the authorities would call my name and force me off because of my human rights and humanitarian work. I also felt sad and guilty for leaving my people. It was very hard.

We arrived in Canberra in 1986 and I was accepted into The Uniting Church as a minister.

Soon we were invited to the regional New South Wales town of Parkes where I began my ministry in Australia. It was predominantly a white Australian community and I was the first minister with dark skin and from an unknown culture, so in a way it was a new start for everyone.

“People in country towns are famous for ‘dry jokes’, which I couldn’t understand fully!”

I remember once in a Rotary meeting, the community members asked me to lead the singing. I said I was “happy to add colour to any situation”. From that day they didn’t hesitate to crack jokes with me and we became just mates.

Finding belonging

Most importantly, we wanted the other kids to be accepting of our children. In the beginning someone at school called our children black. I told them to say that they were brown like chocolate, which everyone likes. That broke the ice; everyone loved the boys at school.

The community needed a catalyst and I think I became that person. The church became full, people who hadn’t come for a long time started to come. We undertook so many initiatives, including an Annual Church Fete where hundreds of people came, and also a successful art and craft exhibition.

We felt we belonged to this country. People invited us to their homes and farms, saying their doors were always open.

Sanctuary and life

I came to Sydney in 1996 as a minister of the Uniting Church. An asylum seeker, Leonard, asked me to the Villawood Detention Centre in Sydney.

“When I went to see him I saw all the shortcomings in the detention centre and started speaking up for fairer treatment.”

The government started giving Temporary Protection Visas from 1999 to refugees and didn’t assist sufficiently in settlement, so we opened up our home. Many refugees have passed through our house. We helped them to open bank accounts, Medicare, find work, networks. I became their case worker, confidant, social worker and ‘father’.

Welcoming communities

In order for people to settle into their new environments and find safety, mental health and peace, our politicians need to stop playing political football with asylum seekers.

“Australia is a compassionate country.”

If we are going to be truly human we have to think in terms of one humanity and we should be able to provide sanctuary and a new life for these vulnerable people.

I think it is good if newcomers and refugees move to regional areas that are ready to welcome them. Not just churches, but all types of groups can welcome new people – sports groups like cricket and soccer. As organisations, they could sponsor refugees to come here, and they could make significant contributions and maybe they’ll make good players too! In fact recent asylum seekers formed the ‘Ocean’s 12’ cricket team with the help of the Blue Mountains Refugee Group, and became national champions.

No doubt it’s going to be a different Australia altogether when we welcome new talents and skills into the country.

Washington Becomes the 20th US State to Abolish the Death Penalty

Reacting to news that the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled the death penalty violates its Constitution, Kristina Roth, Senior Program Officer at Amnesty International USA stated:

“This is tremendous news for all who fought to abolish the death penalty in Washington. Now that Washington has become the 20th state in the US to end the ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment, other states should follow suit.”

“This is tremendous news for all who fought to abolish the death penalty in Washington. Now that Washington has become the 20th state in the US to end the ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment, other states should follow suit.

“The Court ruled that the death penalty is imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner and is invalid. The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights, it does not deter crime or improve public safety, and it should be ended once and for all.”

Background:

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty unconditionally.

106 countries had abolished the death penalty in law for all crimes by the end of 2017 and 142 countries had abolished the death penalty in law or practice. These figures underscore the global trend towards abolition of the death penalty. Only a few countries carry out executions. Just four countries were responsible for 84% of all recorded executions in 2017.

In 2017, the US had 23 executions in 8 states: Alabama (3) Arkansas (4) Florida (3) Georgia (1) Missouri (1) Ohio (2) Texas (7) Virginia (2). Texas remained the state with the highest number of executions, accounting for 30% of the national total.

USA: Catastrophic immigration policies resulted in more family separations than previously disclosed

The US government has deliberately adopted immigration policies and practices that caused catastrophic harm to thousands of people seeking safety in the United States, including the separation of over 6,000 family units in a four-month period, more than previously disclosed by authorities, Amnesty International said in a new report released today.

USA: ‘You Don’t Have Any Rights Here’: Illegal Pushbacks, Arbitrary Detention and Ill-treatment of Asylum-seekers in the United States reveals the brutal toll of the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine and dismantle the US asylum system in gross violation of US and international law. The cruel policies and practices documented include: mass illegal pushbacks of asylum-seekers at the US–Mexico border; thousands of illegal family separations; and increasingly arbitrary and indefinite detentions of asylum-seekers, frequently without parole.

“The Trump administration is waging a deliberate campaign of widespread human rights violations in order to punish and deter people seeking safety at the US–Mexico border,” said Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas Director at Amnesty International.

“The intensity, scale and scope of the abuses against people seeking asylum are truly sickening. Congress and US law enforcement agencies must conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations to hold the government accountable and ensure this never happens again.”

Approximately 8,000 family units separated in 2017 and 2018

Last month, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) disclosed to Amnesty International that it forcibly separated over 6,000 family units (a term that US authorities have used inconsistently to refer to whole families or individual family members) from 19 April to 15 August 2018 alone – more than US authorities had previously admitted.

CBP confirmed that this figure still excluded an undisclosed number of families whose separations were not properly recorded, such as grandparents or other non-immediate family members, whose relationships authorities categorize as “fraudulent” and do not count in their statistics. In total, the Trump administration has now admitted to separating approximately 8,000 family units since 2017.

“These shocking new numbers suggest that US authorities have either misinformed the public about how many families they had forcibly separated, or they continued this unlawful practice unabated, despite their own claims and court orders to halt family separations,” said Erika Guevara-Rosas.

“Congress must act immediately to investigate and establish a comprehensive record of family separations by US government authorities, and pass legislation prohibiting the separation and indefinite detention of children and families.”

The extreme suffering that US authorities purposefully inflicted by separating families constituted ill-treatment and in some cases torture.

Amnesty International interviewed 15 parents and guardians separated from their children by US border and immigration authorities, including 13 who presented themselves at official border crossings. Those family separations resulted in extreme anguish, and in some instances long-term trauma, for adults and children alike.

In an immigration detention facility in Texas, a 39-year-old Brazilian mother named Valquiria told Amnesty International that CBP agents separated her from her seven-year-old son, without providing any reason, the day after they requested asylum at an official port-of-entry in March 2018.

“They told me: ‘You don’t have any rights here, and you don’t have any rights to stay with your son,’” Valquiria said. “I died at that moment. It would have been better if I had dropped dead… Not knowing where my son was, what he was doing. It was the worst feeling a mother could have. How can a mother not have the right to be with her son?”

Illegal pushbacks and arbitrary detention

In 2017 and 2018, CBP implemented a de facto policy of turning away thousands of people seeking asylum at official ports-of-entry along the entire US-Mexico border.

“Every human being in the world has the right to seek asylum from persecution or serious harm, and request protection in another country,” said Erika Guevara-Rosas.

“US border authorities are flagrantly violating US asylum law and international refugee law by forcing people back to Mexico without registering and determining their asylum claim. People pushed back to Mexico may face direct abuses there or deportation and the risk of serious human rights violations in their countries of origin.”

Since 2017, US authorities have also imposed a policy of mandatory and indefinite detention of asylum-seekers, frequently without parole, for the duration of their asylum claims. This constitutes arbitrary detention, in violation of US and international law.

Amnesty International interviewed asylum-seekers being detained indefinitely after requesting protection, including separated family members, older people, and persons with acute health conditions and medical needs.

The organization also documented the cases of 15 transgender and gay asylum-seekers who were detained for periods ranging from several months to almost three years without parole, including two people who were denied parole despite having suffered sexual assaults while in detention. In several cases, their experiences of indefinite detention constituted ill-treatment.

“It’s plainly callous for US authorities to needlessly detain and traumatize people who have come to request protection from persecution or death,” said Erika Guevara-Rosas.

“Congress must act now to end the detention of children and families once and for all – and fund alternative options, such as the Family Case Management Program, which have been proven to be 99 percent effective in helping asylum-seeking families understand and comply with their immigration hearing requirements.”

Nauru: MSF ousting must spur Australia to evacuate refugees

In response to the urgent call made by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) today for all refugees and asylum seekers to be immediately evacuated from Nauru, Roshika Deo, Pacific Researcher at Amnesty International said:

“Today the world learned first-hand, from medical experts, exactly how wretched the situation is for Nauru’s refugees and vulnerable people. Australian and Nauruan governments were repeatedly warned of the escalating health crisis resulting from a cruel and broken offshore detention system– they can no longer pretend otherwise.”

“Today the world learned first-hand, from medical experts, exactly how wretched the situation is for Nauru’s refugees and vulnerable people. Australian and Nauruan governments were repeatedly warned of the escalating health crisis resulting from a cruel and broken offshore detention system– they can no longer pretend otherwise.

“The Nauru government’s decision to end MSF’s health programme with only 24 hours’ notice was callous and disgraceful. As MSF doctors say, it is medically irresponsible. The Australian government must act now before more lives are lost due to these cruel policies. It is all the more urgent now that these populations have been robbed of a lifeline.”

Background

Médecins Sans Frontières, an independent humanitarian medical organisation, were on Nauru providing critical and independent mental health services to Nauruans, refugees and asylum seekers without discrimination for 11 months pursuant to an agreement with the Nauru government. The agreement was abruptly terminated on 6 October 2018, when the Nauruan government asked MSF to cease providing health services without giving reasons.

There are no equivalent independent mental health services available on the island and MSF claimed at least 78 MSF patients have considered or attempted suicide or self-harm.

Religious freedoms: schools’ ‘right to discriminate’ must not be publicly funded

Responding to news that parts of the report of the Religious Freedoms Review has been leaked to media, particularly the recommendation that religious schools be allowed to reject LGBT students and teachers, Amnesty International Australia’s Advocacy Manager Emma Bull said,

“Amnesty International is alarmed that the Australian Government might use the cloak of the Religious Freedoms Review as cover to water down anti-discrimination laws and further entrench discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality.

“The sanctity of religion should not be used to justify discrimination or marginalisation.

“Organisations which receive public funding to provide education or services should not be exempt from anti-discrimination laws – they should provide services to all Australians on an equal basis.

“Under international law, people have the absolute right to hold the beliefs that they do. The right to manifest that belief however – such as choosing not to hire teachers on the grounds of their sexuality – is not absolute, and can be limited by rules or laws that exist to uphold other rights, such as the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexuality.

“We agree with reports of the Review’s finding that religious freedom is not under ‘imminent threat’ in Australia, but Amnesty International does believe that the rights and responsibilities of all Australians will not be fully protected until a comprehensive national Human Rights Act is enacted.

“If the Government is going to consider changes to the Racial Discrimination Act or the creation of a new Religious Discrimination Act, in order to rectify an obvious gap in our anti-discrimination laws, this must be legislated carefully. Reform must be grounded in international human rights law, not just reflect the opinions of the most powerful lobbyists or the loudest voices.

“The Government has had the report for four months now and the delay in releasing it is unreasonable. Following this leak of parts of the report, the Government must now release it in full.”

She was a teenage victim of domestic violence and rape – last week Iran executed her

Zeinab Sekaanvand was a victim of domestic and sexual violence, arrested as a child, is executed after unfair trial in Iran. This is her story.

“Child bride”, “criminal”, “juvenile offender’. These are some of the many labels assigned to Zeinab Sekaanvand during her short life. Sekaanvand, who was executed on 2 October 2018 in Urumieh Prison in Iran’s West Azerbaijan province, was rarely seen for who she really was: a vulnerable young woman trapped in a cycle of violence and sexual abuse since childhood.

A woman wearing a black head scarf stares at the camera. The background behind her is white.
Zeinab Sekaanvand © Private

Sekaanvand, who was 24 when she was hanged, had spent almost a third of her life in detention. In February 2012, she was arrested and put on trial over the murder of her husband, a crime that took place when she was 17 years old. She had reported being raped by her brother-in-law and tortured by police after her arrest.

What’s especially chilling about Sekaanvand’s case is the number of points at which the Iranian authorities could have intervened to help her. Sekaanvand reported the abuse she suffered. She spoke out, yet she was ignored.

It’s a scenario that is all too familiar to many women and girls. But because Sekaanvand lived in Iran, her story took an even darker turn.

There are many more like Sekaavand in Iran—which is one of the world’s last countries to execute “juvenile offenders.” At least 88 people who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crime are currently on death row, some of whom have been languishing there for over a decade. In particular, Zeinab’s case echoes that of Fatemeh Salbehi, who was executed in 2015 at the age of 23 for the murder of her husband, whom she had been forced to marry when she was 16.

Looking closer, Sekaavand’s case reads like a textbook explainer of the myriad ways the Iranian justice system stacks the odds against women.

Born in northwest Iran into an impoverished and culturally conservative Iranian Kurdish family, Sekaanvand was 15 years old when she ran away from home to marry a man called Hossein Sarmadi. Zeinab had said she saw the marriage as her only opportunity for a better life. But her new husband was violent and the relationship quickly became physically and verbally abusive.

Sekaanvand requested a divorce on more than one occasion but her husband refused. In Iran, the legal system’s deeply-entrenched discrimination against women and girls often prevents them from getting a divorce, even if they are subjected to domestic violence.

Although Sekaanvand registered several complaints about her husband’s violent abuse with the police, they repeatedly ignored her pleas for help and failed to launch an investigation against him.

Desperate, Sekaanvand tried to return to her parents but they had disowned her for running away. She said that, meanwhile, Hossein’s brother was regularly raping her.

Still a child, she was under the power of two violent and abusive men, and no one would help her.

In February 2012, Sekaanvand was arrested for the murder of her husband. She was denied access to a lawyer and said she was tortured and beaten by police officers during questioning. It is under these circumstances that Sekaanvand “confessed” to stabbing her husband.

It was only at her final court hearing, three years after her arrest, that the authorities provided her with a lawyer. At this point, she retracted her “confession” telling the judge that her husband’s brother – her alleged rapist – had committed the murder.

Sekaanvand said in court that her brother-in-law had told her that, if she accepted responsibility, he would pardon her. Under Iranian law, murder victims’ relatives have the power to pardon the offender and accept financial compensation instead.

But rather than request further investigations, the authorities dismissed Sekaanvand’s statement – convicting and sentencing her to death by hanging.

Sekaanvand’s trauma did not end there. In 2015, while in Urumieh Prison, Sekaanvand became pregnant after marrying a male prisoner. Her child was stillborn in September 2015. Doctors said her baby had died in her womb two days earlier due to shock – around the same time that Sekaanvand’s cellmate and closest friend had been executed. The authorities forced Sekaanvand to go back to prison the day after the stillbirth and did not provide her with any postnatal care or psycho-social support.

Before she was executed this week, the authorities carried out a pregnancy test on Sekaanvand. When it came back negative, they took it as a green light to execute her.

Sekaanvand’s life was defined by a legal system which brazenly disadvantages women. A system which sets the age of criminal responsibility at nine years for girls and 15 for boys – and the legal age of marriage for girls at 13. It does not criminalize rape of a woman by her husband.

It violently imposes the abusive, discriminatory and degrading practice of forced hijab (veiling) on women and young girls and then jails those who campaign against it.

It’s a system where a woman’s testimony is worth less than a man’s. That’s why no one in power listened to Sekaanvand’s story. They chose to end it instead.

By Mansoureh Mills, Iran Researcher at Amnesty International

What is Write for Rights?

Fifteen years ago, a young man named Witek met a young woman named Joanna at a festival in Warsaw, Poland. Joanna had just returned from traveling through Africa, where she’d seen activists organising 24-hour marathon events to protest government’s abusing human rights.

Witek invited Joanna to a meeting of his local Amnesty action group, and they decided to organise their own 24-hour marathon.

Every year since, tens of thousands of Amnesty supporters, all around the world, have taken millions of actions to combat injustice.

In 2018 we will take action for women persecuted because they stood up and spoke out for human rights; women in prison because they attended a peaceful protest in Iran, attacked with acid because the stood up for LGBTQI rights in Ukraine, and murdered because the stood up for human rights in Brazil.

Your words make a difference.

The good news is that when tens of thousands of people take action during Write for Rights, we know we can create change. That’s because every year, real change happens as a result of Write for Rights.

Mahadine was thrown in jail in Chad just because he wrote a Facebook post critical of the government. As part of Write for Rights in 2017 690,000 people called on the Chadian government to release Mahadine, including 12,000 Australians. Then, in April 2018, Mahadine walked free.

“I want to express my gratitude to you all. I appreciate you, I love you, I respect you.”

Teodora Del Carmen was sentenced to 30 years in prison after suffering a stillbirth under El Salvador’s total ban on abortion. She was released in 2018.

“International support is the most powerful tool that women like me can get. Every single signature for the petition to get me free, made a difference. Now I’m free. I’m no fairy tale, I am a true story.”

Phyoe Phyoe Aung the Secretary General of one of Myanmar’s largest student unions, was arrested and detained for peaceful demonstrations. Over 20,000 Australians took action for her during Write for Rights in 2015 and she was freed on April 8, 2016.

“Thank you very much each and every one of you. Not just for campaigning for my release, and the release of other prisoners, but for helping to keep our hope and our beliefs alive.”

Albert Woodfox spent more than 43 years in solitary confinement in a Louisiana state prison. More than 650,000 actions were taken for his release during Write for Rights in December 2015. After all that time, he walked freed on his 69th birthday in February 2016.

“I can’t emphasise enough how important getting letters from people around the world is … It gave me a sense of worth. It gave me strength.”

 

 

How you can help

Luckily, to get involved in Write for Rights, you don’t need to organise an all-night event like Joanna and Witek. You simply need to sign a petition or share an action on your Facebook.

Whatever you do for Write for Rights, your words will help free people from human rights abuses worldwide.

These women demonstrate exceptional courage every single day of their lives, they continue to stand up for human rights even though they face imprisonment, harassment, discrimination, and even death.

The world would be a poorer place without women like these standing up for human rights.

So let’s stand with them.

Questions? Ideas? Feedback?

Reach out to your community organiser or activism support coordinator at your local action centre.

What has climate change got to do with human rights?

Climate change is one of the greatest human rights challenges of our time, says Savio Carvalho, Senior Advisor on International Development and Human Rights.

What has climate change got to do with human rights?

Extreme weather-related disasters and rising seas will destroy homes and ruin people’s ability to earn a living. What’s more, unless emissions are reduced significantly, around 600 million people are likely to experience drought and famine as a result of climate change. So you can see there’s a direct link between climate change and human rights, including the rights to life, health, food, water and housing.

How are women affected by the changing climate?

Across the world, women form the majority of self-employed, small-scale farmers, so droughts, floods and crop failures will hit them first and hardest. They’re also more likely to take on the burden of collecting water, so will be acutely affected by severe water shortages.

What does it mean for Indigenous Peoples?

Indigenous Peoples are often at the frontline of global warming because of their dependence on the environment. Many live in fragile ecosystems that are particularly sensitive to changes in climate. This threatens their cultural identity, which is closely linked to their traditional land and livelihoods.

Will climate change mean more refugees?

As famines, droughts and natural disasters become more frequent, so the numbers of people on the move across borders will increase. While not all of these people will meet the legal definition of “refugees”, they should still be entitled to support from the countries most responsible for climate change.

Will things like rising temperatures and sea levels lead to more wars?

Quite possibly. We do know that climate change will exacerbate well-known causes of war, such as competition over natural resources. And this will increase the risk of violent conflict in the future.

What should governments do?

They must do all they can to reduce carbon emissions, including phasing out subsidies for fossil fuels. They must also help people adapt to climate change, and provide compensation, for example to those who have lost their homes because of rising sea levels.

What is Amnesty doing?

Together with partners, we’re pressing governments and institutions like the UN to take concrete and urgent actions on climate change. This isn’t about charity or aid, it’s about human rights and justice.