WUNRN
INCREASED
REPRESSION OF CIVIL SOCIETY FREEDOMS, RIGHTS – ALARMING GLOBAL TREND - WOMEN
Civil
society is being repressed by many alarming restrictions throughout the world,
as laws that require registration, raids and forced closures of organizations,
media, labor groups. Funding from abroad is increasingly monitored or
forbidden. Peaceful rallies require advance approval or are met with military
force. Violence against civilians has become rampant, including sexual
violence. Women and men are arbitrarily arrested and held without due justice.
Reporters and independent media are threatened, detained. Media is regularly
censored or blocked, including social media. Extrajudicial arrests, violence,
missing persons, can be especially insidious.
What
does all this mean for women as we are encouraged to engage in the Post-2015
Development Goals?? As women are the largest number of poor, they may well not
know about the restrictive laws and requirements until they are caught in the
web of harassment as at a protest over a land dispute. Women rarely have money
to have strong legal representation, access to courts. Women in NGO’s may find
their “lifeline” for activity cut because of foreign funds restrictions. Women
also feel the trauma of these repressions when family members are targets of
surveillance, threats, arrests.
Where
can a woman feel totally safe in this complex world, where polarized power and
profit seem to rule? In conflict countries, she is rarely at the peace table,
and yet may be forced into displacement and lose all dear to her, see her life
and family fragmented without security for the future.
Coercive
practices by governments often are created without civil society knowledge and
participation. These restrictions on free movement, gatherings, speech, media,
organization functions, are often against democracy and even international law.
But, do women trying to combat poverty, women not with power, clout, and
leverage, have the tools and advocacy skills and experience to defend their
rights, individually and collectively? Yet, as part of the women’s movement,
this is our mandate: to be aware, to publicize, to offer good practices, to
create coalitions, to prevent repression. Governments, even private sector or
international financial institutions, do not want negative exposure, publicized
evidence that they are violating human rights and social justice. We must
persevere as women, for women, with women, to protect our rights, always and
ever, everywhere! WUNRN
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=5d5693a8f1af2d4b6cb3160e8&id=bf25e7622e&e=1e22dbc3a0
Repression of Civil Society in
Cambodia Reflects an Alarming Trend Globally
By Clothilde Le Coz on Oct 11, 2015
Protesters rallied in Phnom Penh, Cambodia’s
capital, this summer to vent frustration over a new law restricting civil
society. ©LICADHO
PHNOM PENH — Accused of organizing an
“insurrection” last year, nearly a dozen Parliament ministers from the
political opposition were sentenced to prison terms from 7 to 20 years by a
Phnom Penh court this summer. The charge stemmed from demonstrations held in
July 2014, rallying the opposition to end the national ban on public
gatherings.
In a joint statement published right after
the sentencing, 13 civil society organizations working in Cambodia condemned
it.
Now civil society in Cambodia finds itself in
serious jeopardy as the National Assembly and the Senate passed a law in July,
blandly titled “Law on Associations and NGOs,” requiring all associations and
nongovernment organizations to register with the government and to be
“politically neutral.”
Such a restriction is a violation of
international human-rights law and could dry up modes of free expression and
assembly in the country, a route that dozens upon dozens of other governments
are taking as they squeeze the rights of civil society, including in China,
Egypt, India and Russia, notably. It’s a list of nations that the United
Nations human rights commissioner, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, said has grown far too long to compile.
In some countries, the notion of the public
standing up for its rights is nonexistent. But the phenomenon of restricting
civil society is not relegated only to repressive societies. In Britain, for
example, surveillance of the rights group Amnesty International has become
public knowledge; in the United States, mass surveillance by the government in
the name of counterterrorism continues to be hotly debated.
How new and expanding restrictive laws, which
have been promoted by countries for a wide range of reasons, play out will
depend on a country’s politics. But few of the groups affected by the laws are
welcoming the changes.
Yet bright spots prevail, not only in the
open-minded model of Norway, for example, but also in the public’s use of
social media and litigation. Amnesty International, for one, is widening its
regular constituency to draft new supporters in Brazil, India and Mexico and
other countries.
As Thomas Carothers, an expert on civil
society at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said in an interview
with PassBlue, small and large groups can create a variety of counternarratives
to protect human rights and rule of law when these liberties are being
suppressed or taken away.
Such suppression, however, acts in insidious,
minute ways. In Cambodia, the new registration law was enacted in August; less
than a week later, a representative for 69 families involved in a land dispute
in the central region of the country was asked by the local police force to
register the families with the Ministry of Interior before the group could
continue action on its claim.
Forced registration with the Cambodian
Ministry of Interior presents a broader problem, says the Cambodian Center for
Human Rights, a leading organization that defends universal human-rights
principles. Chak Sopheap, the director, said, “Cambodian authorities are
more concerned about silencing critical voices, rather than building on those
to create a better country.”
Civil society in Cambodia is fighting the new
law. As a member of the Cooperation Committee for Cambodia, a consortium
regulating ethics and professionalism in the development sector, the Cambodian
Center for Human Rights is part of a campaign
called Stop & Consult to resist enactment of the law.
“We will continue exercising our role of
watchdog, no matter the new challenges that [the law] will impose,” Chak
Sopheap said in an interview. The center receives money from the European Union,
the US Agency for International Aid (USAID) and the Open Society Foundations.
Legally, the Cambodian Constitution requires
the regulation of nongovernment organizations, but that doesn’t mean it is
viable internationally.
David Moore, the vice president of legal
affairs with the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, based in Washington,
D.C., confirmed that “a compulsory registration requirement — especially one
that is backed up by criminal penalties for unregistered groups — is a direct
violation of international law.”
The International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which Cambodia signed in 1992, Moore emphasized, recognizes
that freedom of association includes the right to work freely without
government consent.
According to the Washington center, more than
60 countries have proposed or passed restrictions to block civil society
organizations from working freely. In the last decade, this trend has been
affecting state-citizen relations negatively, Moore noted. Other experts
say that censorship and blocking social media or graver acts like
“disappearances” of human-rights defenders or killing journalists reaches far
beyond 60 nations.
“These legal measures shrink the available
legal space for civil society,” Moore added. “As others have noted, strong,
stable countries need strong, stable civil societies. Legal impediments against
civil society will eventually weaken not only independent CSOs [civil society
organizations], but the country itself by undermining the ability to solve
problems.”
Just think about the repercussions of such
restrictions, said Maina Kiai, the UN’s special rapporteur on the rights to
freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
“The simple fact of joining with your fellow
citizens to pursue a cause as a group makes you criminals, unless you register
in advance,” Kiai said. “This is a clear violation of international law, and it
lacks common sense. It’s frankly none of the government’s business, which is
why freedom of association is a fundamental right.”
No government likes criticism, but Kiai also
said that “a government isn’t really democratic unless it submits itself to
open, honest and sometimes blunt criticism from the people it governs.
Otherwise it’s just playing at democracy.”
Being required to show political neutrality
is a main concern of nonprofit groups under the Cambodian law, as it has become
recently for many foreign nonprofit groups operating in Russia, like the
MacArthur Foundation, which has departed the country. When Cambodia started to
consider drafting its law in 2010, nongovernment groups
detected that it would confer excessive powers to government officials,
building obstacles to the registration of organizations.
Restrictive registration laws can work
against civil society in more internal ways, like weeding out stronger
organizations and associations from lesser ones, encouraging them to compete
with one another more for space in their environment.
It’s all about a country keeping control in
coercive and other ways. Thomas Carothers, the director of the democracy and
rule of law program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has
written extensively on the undermining of civil society internationally.
In his 2014 report, written with Saskia
Brechenmacher, “Closing Space: International Support for Democracy and Human
Rights Under Fire,” it notes that “Allowing international aid actors some
leeway to carry out democracy and rights programs within their borders has
typically been a way for semiauthoritarian governments to burnish their image
abroad. But increasingly, when they come under stress, governments close the
tap on that assistance.”
Billy Chia-Lung Tai, an independent
human-rights consultant who works with Cambodian grassroots groups, looks at
the situation in his country more specifically.
“Stating [that] the government feels civil
society has too much freedom is a speculation,” he said. “The Cambodian
government never engages with NGOs or CSOs. They let international donors do
so. But they realized that CSOs can be dangerous, because they have developed
many grassroots movements in the past decade.”
Indeed, most aid money to nonprofit groups
can come with strings attached, so some governments contend that outside
foreign entities threaten a country’s sovereignty.
Yet civil society can find ways to work
around or oppose new restrictions. Carothers advised groups to use “alternative
narratives” as to who the groups are and what they do. “Public image is often
not very good,” he said, about grassroots entities, who are often viewed as
troublemakers. So one approach could be to “invest more in public relations to
position better themselves in society” when a group comes under pressure.
“It’s kind of a new thing, exploring
counternarratives; people are talking a lot about it, how to change how they
describe themselves,” he said.
Other nongovernment groups are trying to
“forge effective coalitions,” Carothers said, aiming to develop stronger
local partners or getting foreign funders to work with rich individuals in the
country, he said. Some organizations are also forming informal coalitions to
resist legislative changes. This approach, he said, “sometimes works, like in
Kenya, but not in others.”
In Kenya, a new regulatory and administrative
framework for nongovernment organizations is expected to come into force.
Called the Public Benefits Organizations Act of 2013, it provides that a new
body, to be called the Public Benefits Organizations Regulatory Authority, be
established, but its implementation was halted when the government sought to amend the law to
restrict external funding of NGOs.
The law states that every organization
registered under the Act shall have the freedom to join in association with
other organizations as desired. Anne Waiguru, who heads the Cabinet Secretary
for Devolution and Planning in Kenya, told the press that the Act “contain[s]
impeccable regulations for the sector,” and civil society is urging the
government to allow the Act in its current form. A coalition of 40
nongovernment organizations recently managed to postpone the adoption of new
amendments, stating in a declaration that they would create mistrust between
them and the government.
Such direct dialogue with governments can
indeed work. Emilie Domzee, a program manager for Ariadne, a private
network that connects European donors and foundations supporting social change
and human rights, said that “several coalitions have been created in the past
10 years to try and counter this threat against civil society and find more
appropriate solutions.”
Working with regional and international institutions, such as
the UN, is one prescription, though broadening the democratic sphere “takes
time,” she said.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: WUNRN LISTSERVE
[mailto:wunrn1@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 7:20 PM
To: WUNRN ListServe (wunrn_listserve@lists.wunrn.com)
<wunrn_listserve@lists.wunrn.com>
Subject: Russia - Additional Legislation Further Restricts NGO's in
Russia & Limits Relations & Funds from Abroad - Impact on Women's NGO's
in Russia?
WUNRN
WUNRN
ASKS – HOW WILL RUSSIAN WOMEN’S NGO’S COPE WITH THESE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS,
LIMITS ON FOREIGN FUNDING, NETWORKING WITH FOREIGN WOMEN’S & HUMAN RIGHTS
NGO’S?
Russia – Legislation Further Restricts NGO’s - Gives
Authorities Power to Shut Down Foreign & International Organizations in
Russia – Curbs on NGO Funds from Abroad – Gender Impact?
By Thomas
Grove – May 25, 2015
MOSCOW—New restrictions signed into law
over the weekend by President Vladimir Putin give Russian authorities the power to shut down
foreign-backed groups deemed “undesirable,” in a step activists say is likely
to further pressure the country’s beleaguered civil society.
The new law allows any foreign or
international NGO to be shut down and introduces cash fines, restrictions on
movement or jail time of up to six years for those who violate it. It builds on
a law passed in 2012 that branded groups as “foreign agents” for their supposed
political activities as well as funding they received abroad. About 60
organizations have been officially listed in that category.
The term “undesirable” hasn’t been widely
used in Russia before, and in the legislation it is only vaguely defined,
leaving room for broad interpretation. Critics of the law said that lack of a
clear definition will allow for abuse. The new law is the latest step in what
rights groups say is the Kremlin’s policy of clamping down on critical voices,
some of whom have been accused of being pawns in a Western plot to repeat a
Ukraine-style revolution in Russia.
Pavel Chikov, head of a group that
provides legal services to nongovernmental organizations, said Monday that the
new law increases the scope and severity of the foreign-agent law, which has
sent authorities to the doorsteps of numerous rights organizations, including
Amnesty International and groups probing the alleged deaths of Russian troops
in Ukraine.
“The law allows the forbidding of any
social and political activity once it is declared an ‘undesired’ organization,
and those who continue to work can be sent to prison,” said Mr. Chikov, whose
own group, Agora, has been declared a foreign agent.
“Most of all, this is about
rights-advocacy organizations, ecologists and all other groups that champion
liberal values, because the Kremlin considers them a risk to the current
political regime,” he added.
Lawmakers who introduced the bill, which
was passed quickly in three readings with little debate, said when it was first
brought before parliament last year that it was meant to prevent outside forces
from instigating a violent overthrow of the government.
“It is unacceptable that one of our
foreign organizations would have the ability to distribute weapons as was the case
in Ukraine,” said lawmaker Anton Ishchenko, speaking to a Russian
newspaper at the time.
Lawmaker Vitaly Zolochevskiy wrote a
letter to Russia’s chief prosecutor Yuriy Chaika requesting him to probe five
of Russia’s top international rights groups. The letter, which was uploaded to
his Facebook page, asked for checks on whether the likes of Transparency
International, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Russia’s oldest
rights group Memorial fit the criteria for closure under the new law.
Russia’s human rights commissioner Ella
Pamfilova said the lack of court proceedings or clarity over the criteria of
what constitutes an undesirable organization under the new law may contradict
the constitution.
“There are no clear legal criteria to
determine the status of an undesirable foreign or international organization on
the territory of the Russian federation,” she said in a statement on her Web
page.
The U.S. quickly criticized the law,
which allows prosecutors to declare an organization “undesirable” without court
proceedings.
“We are concerned this new power will
further restrict the work of civil society in Russia and is a further example
of the Russian government’s growing crackdown on independent voices and
intentional steps to isolate the Russian people from the world,” State
Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said.
Tanya Lokshina, senior researcher
for Human Rights Watch in Moscow, said the law was aimed not at closing
organizations down, so much as raising the stakes for Russians who want to work
in groups that could be critical of the government.
Mr. Putin supported the foreign agent law
after vote-monitoring group Golos cataloged numerous alleged voting violations
during the 2010 parliamentary election. Anger at the irregularities sparked some
of the biggest protests in Russia since Mr. Putin took over the presidency in
2000.
Pro-Kremlin media has run purported exposés on
pro-democracy groups receiving money to inspire a revolution in Russia, like
those that toppled Middle East and North African regimes during the Arab
Spring.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: WUNRN LISTSERVE [mailto:wunrn1@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 5:08 PM
To: WUNRN ListServe (wunrn_listserve@lists.wunrn.com) <wunrn_listserve@lists.wunrn.com>
Subject: Russia - Continued Laws that Restrict Free Expression, Free
Media, NGO Activity, Relations, Funding - How Does All This Affect Women's
NGO's in Russia?
WUNRN
OSCE
– Organization for Security & Co-Operation in Europe - http://www.osce.org/fom/159081
OSCE
Calls on President of Russia to Veto Newest Restrictive Law that Would Have a
Negative Effect on Free Expression & Free Media
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
WUNRN
ASKS: HOW ARE RUSSIA WOMEN’S & HUMAN RIGHTS NGO’S RESPONDING TO THESE
RESTRICTIVE RUSSIAN LAWS THAT WOULD LIMIT FREE EXPRESSION, FREE MEDIA,
RELATIONSHIPS WITH FOREIGN NGO’S, FOREIGN FUNDING, MANY HUMAN RIGHTS
ACTIVITIES, & WITH POTENTIAL FINES, CLOSURES, ARRESTS??
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
RIGA, 20 May 2015 – OSCE Representative on
Freedom of the Media Ms. Dunja Mijatoviæ today said new restrictive laws
in the Russian Federation would have a negative effect on freedom of
expression, media freedom and pluralism of opinions.
“The broad and imprecise wording of this
legislation would impose serious restrictions on a wide-array of important
democratic rights, including freedom of expression and media
freedom,” Mijatoviæ said.
On 19 May, 2015, the Russia State Duma adopted
a law which gives the Prosecutor General and his deputies the authority to
declare foreign or international NGOs “undesirable”, which means they can be
banned as a threat to the country’s constitutional order, defense or national
security. On 20 May, the law was approved by the
Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly.
“I call on the President of the Russian
Federation to veto this legislation in order to protect pluralistic debate,”
Mijatoviæ said.
Among other things, the law:
- suspends the right of the
banned organizations to be among the founders of Russian media outlets;
- prohibits Russian mass media
and online portals to disseminate information materials produced by these
organizations;
- deprives local civil society
organizations, including media NGOs, from receiving assistance from the
banned foreign counterparts.
Mijatoviæ noted concerns about the legislation
raised by various local and international human rights organizations, including
the Council for Civil Society and Human Rights under the President of the
Russian Federation, which presented its critical expert opinion on the law in
March.
In 2012 another restrictive law was adopted requiring NGO’s
to register as “foreign agents” on the basis that they engage in political
activity and receive foreign funding. It has had wide-reaching crippling
effects for NGO’s working to protect and promote media freedom in Russia. The
Representative issued public statements on this issue which are available
at www.osce.org/fom/142391 and at www.osce.org/fom/100569.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: WUNRN LISTSERVE [mailto:wunrn1@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2015 8:15 PM
To: WUNRN ListServe (wunrn_listserve@lists.wunrn.com)
Subject: Russia - Continued Tighter Laws Restrict NGO's - Foreign
Funding, Cooperation - Impact on Women's NGO's?
WUNRN
Russia – Increased Government
Restrictions for Cooperation with Foreign Organizations
RUSSIA
– BILL PRESENTED IN PARLIAMENT TO CRIMINALIZE COOPERATION WITH FOREIGN
ORGANIZATIONS – ADDITIONAL THREAT TO WOMEN’S HUMAN RIGHTS WORK
Paris-Geneva, 19 January 2015 - The State Duma must drop the
Bill on “undesirable foreign organisations” that will be debated on January 20,
said the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders today. If
adopted, the law will complement an already very restrictive legislative
arsenal used to silence all forms of criticism against the regime in
contradiction with international human rights instruments ratified by Russia
and will allow authorities to ban legitimate human rights activities, though
they are protected under international law.
On January 14, the State Duma Committee on Constitutional
Legislation recommended that the lower house pass a bill to ban “undesirable
foreign organisations” in Russia and ban cooperation with them. The bill,
presented initially by two members of Parliament, would allow the Prosecutor
General’s Office, upon consultation with the Foreign Ministry and based on
information provided by the interior and security agencies, to ban foreign and
international organisations that “threaten the defence or security of the
State” or “public order and health”.
“ Countless human rights NGOs and defenders have been
criminalised by the authorities for allegedly threatening security or public
order. We fear that these vague terms will again be used to criminalise
legitimate human rights activities implemented by INGOs in Russia ”,
said Gerald Staberock, OMCT Secretary General. “ A law that
effectively criminalizes human contacts or institutional partnerships with
other human rights actors is indeed unprecedented ”.
Russian organisations have become over the last decades a vital
and proud part of a global movement participating in international meetings and
sharing their knowledge, experience and advice in global human rights networks
and federations. This law risks to isolate Russian activists and to break
international solidarity and support.
Under the bill, the designation of a foreign or international
organisation as undesirable would be followed by the closure of branch offices
in Russia. It would also ban the distribution of information, including online.
Furthermore, individuals involved in the operation of an
undesirable foreign or international organisation in Russia would be fined
between 10,000 and 100,000 Rubles (185 – 1,850 Euros). And the employees of an
undesirable organisation that continued to work in Russia could face criminal
charges and fines ranging between 300,000 and 500,000 Rubles (5,560 – 9,260
Euros) or up to eight years in prison. If adopted, this measure would
negatively impact the work of those who are members of international NGOs in
Russia and will make it impossible for human rights defenders based abroad,
should their organisation be registered as “unwanted”, to enter Russia.
The Observatory recalls that, if adopted, this bill would add to
an already very restrictive legislation for civil society organisations further
shrinking the space for freedom of association in the country. In 2012 the
State Duma adopted a law that required NGOs to register as “foreign
agents” if they engaged in “political activity” and receive foreign funding.
Because “foreign agent” can be interpreted only as “spy” or “traitor”, such
label aims at discrediting NGOs and obstructing their working environment.
“ Following the adoption of the NGO law in 2012 which
led to the registration of more than 30 prominent Russian NGOs as foreign
agents and the closing down of 4 others, including FIDH member organisation ADC
Memorial, it seems clear that this new bill will be used to ban the presence of
international human rights NGOs in Russia. Slowly but surely, Putin is getting
rid of all human rights organisations in the Russian Federation ”,
said Karim Lahidji, FIDH President.
The Observatory, a joint programme of the International
Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture
(OMCT), therefore opposes the possible adoption of this bill on the strongest
terms and calls for the State Duma to drop it.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: WUNRN LISTSERVE [mailto:Wunrn1@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 12:00 PM
To: WUNRN ListServe
Subject: Russia - Tighter Laws Restrict NGO's, Foreign Funding - Impact
on Women's NGO's?
WUNRN
Full Article:
RUSSIA - WOMEN'S NGO'S FACE EVEN MORE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTANT FOREIGN FUNDING
- NGOs working in Russia are facing more repression in the form of even tighter legislation on foreign funding as part of what some rights activists say is a concerted campaign to “liquidate” civil society in the country.
Under legislation proposed earlier this month in the upper chamber of Russia’s parliament, NGOs receiving foreign funding could be registered as “foreign agent” without their consent.
The legislation would strengthen an existing law which forces such NGOs to register as “foreign agents” – a controversial term with cold war connotations which affected NGOs says makes it almost impossible for them to work with local partners or government bodies – or face stiff fines and possible jail sentences. The new proposals have met with stinging criticism from local rights activists who say they are part of a concerted plan by the Kremlin to stifle civil society.......
______________________________________________________
-----
Original Message -----
From: WUNRN
ListServe
To: WUNRN ListServe
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013
11:41 AM
Subject: Russia - Laws Restrict
NGO's, Foreign Funding - Impact on Women's NGO's?
WUNRN
RUSSIA - LAWS RESTRICT NGO'S & PLACE LIMITS ON ASSOCIATION WITH FOREIGNERS AND FOREIGN FUNDING
Human Rights Watch:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/04/24/russia-worst-human-rights-climate-post-soviet-era - Website Link Includes Video.
Direct Link to Full 82-Page Report:
"Russian authorities have introduced a series of restrictive laws, begun a nationwide campaign of invasive inspections of nongovernmental organizations, harassed, intimidated, and in a number of cases imprisoned political activists, and sought to cast government critics as clandestine enemies."
"Two of the new laws - the "foreign agents" law and the "Dima Yakovlev law - clearly seek to limit, or even end, independent advocacy and other NGO work in Russia by placing new limits on association with foreigners and foreign funding..."
Moscow – The Russian government has unleashed a crackdown on civil society in the year since Vladimir Putin’s return to the presidency that is unprecedented in the country’s post-Soviet history.
The 78-page report, “Laws of Attrition: Crackdown on Russia’s Civil Society after Putin’s Return to the Presidency,”describes some of the changes since Putin returned to the presidency in May 2012. The authorities have introduced a series of restrictive laws, begun a nationwide campaign of invasive inspections of nongovernmental organizations, harassed, intimidated, and in a number of cases imprisonedpolitical activists, and sought to cast government critics as clandestine enemies. The report analyzes the new laws, including the so-called “foreign agents” law, the treason law, and the assembly law, and documents how they have been used.
“The new laws and government harassment are pushing civil society activists to the margins of the law,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The government crackdown is hurting Russian society and harming Russia’s international standing.”
Many of the new laws and the treatment of civil society violate Russia’s international human rights commitments, Human Rights Watch said.
Several of the new laws seek to limit, or even end, independent advocacy by placing new, draconian limits on association with foreigners and foreign funding. The “foreign agents” law requires organizations that receive foreign funding and supposedly engage in “political activities” to register as “foreign agents.”Another law, adopted in December, essentially bans funding emanating from the United States for “political” activity by nongovernmental organizations, and bans groups whose work is “directed against Russia’s interests.” A third law, the treason law, expands the legal definition of treason in ways that could criminalize involvement in international human rights advocacy.
The report documents the nationwide campaign of intrusive government inspections of the offices of hundreds of organizations, involving officials from the prosecutor’s office, the Justice Ministry, the tax inspectorate, and in some cases the anti-extremism police, health inspectorate, and the fire inspectorate. The inspection campaign, which began in March 2013, was prompted by the “foreign agents” law.
Although many organizations have not received the inspection results, at least two have been cited for failing to register as “foreign agents,” and others have been fined for fire safety violations, air quality violations, and the like, Human Rights Watch said. Inspectors examined the groups’ tax, financial, registration, and other documents. In several cases they demanded to inspect computers or email. In one case, officials demanded that an organization prove that its staff had had been vaccinated for smallpox, and in another the officials asked for chest X-rays of staff to ensure they did not have tuberculosis. In yet another case, officials demanded copies of all speeches made at the group’s recent seminars and conferences.
“The government claims the inspections are routine, but they clearly are not,” said Williamson. “The campaign is unprecedented in its scope and scale, and seems clearly aimed at intimidating and marginalizing civil society groups. This inspection campaign can potentially be used to force some groups to end advocacy work, or to close them down."