This page summarizes cases raised with Fiji by the Special Rapporteur between May 1, 2011, (when the Special Rapporteur took up his functions) and February 28, 2017 (the date of the last public release of communications). Communications are released to the public once per year. This page also contains observations on these communications and on responses received from Fiji. Communications and observations are divided into sections based upon which observation report they originally appeared. Each communication is referenced as urgent appeal (UA), allegation letter (AL), joint urgent appeal (JUA) and joint allegation letter (JAL) - the hyperlinks lead to these documents. This is followed by the date the communication was issued, as well as the case number and the State reply (also hyperlinked if available). Summaries and communications are published only in the language of submission (in the case of Fiji, English). First Report (May 1, 2011 to March 15, 2012) Joint allegation letter, 01/09/2011. Case no. FJI 2/2011. State Reply: None to date. Alleged illegitimate restrictions on the exercise of workers‟ rights to freedom of association and of expression, right to collectively bargain and right to strike due to the promulgations of the “Essential National Industries (Employment) Decree”;... Continue reading →
This page summarizes cases raised with Australia by the Special Rapporteur between May 1, 2011, (when the Special Rapporteur took up his functions) and February 28, 2017 (the date of the last public release of communications). Communications are released to the public once per year. This page also contains observations on these communications and on responses received from Australia. Communications and observations are divided into sections based upon which observation report they originally appeared. Each communication is referenced as urgent appeal (UA), allegation letter (AL), joint urgent appeal (JUA) and joint allegation letter (JAL) – the hyperlinks lead to these documents. This is followed by the date the communication was issued, as well as the case number and the State reply (also hyperlinked if available). Summaries and communications are published only in the language of submission (in the case of Australia, English). First Report (May 1, 2011 to March 15, 2012) None Second Report (March 16, 2012 to February 28, 2013) None Third Report (March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2014) None Fourth Report (March 1, 2014 to February 28, 2015) Joint allegation letter, 04/09/2014. Case no: AUS 3/2014. State reply: 23/12/2014; 05/11/2014 (response extension request). Alleged undue restrictions... Continue reading →
GENEVA – Three United Nations human rights experts have urged the State Parliament of Western Australia not to adopt new legislation which would result in criminalising lawful protests and silencing environmentalists and human rights defenders. Members of the regional parliament have indicated that the Bill aims at preventing protestors from locking themselves onto equipment, trees, and other objects with innovative methods in order to frustrate or delay development sites. The anti-protest Bill is scheduled to be debated on Tuesday 16 February. “If the Bill passes, it would go against Australia’s international obligations under international human rights law, including the rights to freedom of opinion and expression as well as peaceful assembly and association,” said the UN Special Rapporteurs on freedom of expression, David Kaye, on freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, Maina Kiai, and on human rights defenders, Michel Forst. “The Bill would criminalise a wide range of legitimate conduct by creating criminal offenses for the acts of physically preventing a lawful activity and possessing an object for the purpose of preventing a lawful activity,” they explained. “For example, peaceful civil disobedience and any non-violent direct action could be characterized as ‘physically... Continue reading →
GENEVA – United Nations Special Rapporteur Maina Kiai today welcomed the introduction of a bill by the Victoria State’s government in Australia into the lower house of the Parliament to repeal restrictive laws regulating protests. “In my previous thematic reports, I identified a series of best practices that provide valuable advice for compliance of State authorities with international law,” the expert stated. “Authorities not only have the duty to protect public safety and order as well as the rights and freedoms of others, but also the obligation to facilitate the holding of peaceful assemblies”, Mr. Kiai stressed. “Public space must be made available for individuals and groups in order for them to exercise their fundamental freedoms.” In that regard, the Special Rapporteur welcomed the government of Victoria’s intention to revoke the state’s 2014 controversial ‘move-on laws,’ which grant police extensive powers to move protesters who might be obstructing buildings or traffic or ‘causing people to have a reasonable fear of violence.’ The 2014 law, which expanded Victoria’s original Summary Offenses Act, allows authorities to impose harsh penalties on offenders, including arrest, fines, and exclusion orders banning individuals from entering specified public spaces... Continue reading →
GENEVA - Three UN human rights experts, including Maina Kiai, have urged the State Parliament of Tasmania in Australia to refrain from adopting legislation against protests that disrupt businesses. The proposed bill, the experts say, could silence legitimate and lawful protests, is disproportionate, and targets specific issues such as the environment. “If passed, the law would almost certainly run afoul of Australia’s human rights obligations, which Tasmania is also obliged to uphold. State governments in Australia need to ensure the legislation they adopt is in line with the country’s international obligations under international human rights law,” they said. The Tasmanian Government argues the law is necessary to prevent businesses being disrupted by protesters, especially as Tasmania has been the focus of debate and demonstrations on environmental concerns. The bill, which is now before Tasmania’s Upper House, prohibits protests, whether on private or public property, that hinder access to business premises or disrupt business operations. It imposes mandatory penalties, including fines up to 100,000 Australian dollars (US$ 93,000) for organisations and up to 10,000 Australian dollars (US $9,300) for individuals. Repeat offenders face a mandatory minimum prison sentence of three... Continue reading →
