Congress Considers Major Change to the Americans with Disabilities Act

By Sarah Purtill
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S. – Currently, Congress is contemplating the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 (H.R. 620). H.R. 620’s protestors believe it would place major increases on the burden of people with disabilities. As the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) stands now, owners of businesses open to the public – such as hotels, restaurants and movie theaters – must make sure their businesses are accessible for people with disabilities. When a business fails to comply with these rules, a person with disabilities can either take them to court or file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice.

H.R. 620 would change this process and allow businesses to delay fixing the problem for months at a time. The process under the new bill includes many more steps. These steps start with a written notice to the business owner of the inability of the disabled person to access their business. After that, the business has two months to respond and then another four months to actually begin addressing the violation. During that six-month period, the person with disabilities sees no relief.

In the 1990’s when the American’s with Disabilities Act was passed, it contained a provision that required businesses to “remove architectural barriers and other obstacles that impede access to the establishment,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union. This provision is known as Title III. The provision makes it possible for people with disabilities to have access to businesses such as groceries stores or shopping malls as well as facilities such as public restrooms and libraries.

Crowd comes together to support disability rights. Photo Courtesy of Getty Images.

The goal of H.R. 620 is to allow for businesses to opt out of Title III. By allowing businesses to opt out of Title III, the responsibility falls on the person with disabilities to make sure businesses have the proper accommodations. Essentially, the person with disabilities has to invest a considerable amount of time and effort to get the necessary accommodations from a business. Whereas, the way the bill stands now, businesses are much more likely to fix a problem sooner in order to settle cases or appease the U.S. Department of Justice.

Supporters of H.R. 620 believe that amending Title III would reduce the number of frivolous and unwarranted lawsuits. After Title III was instituted, there were many lawsuits against businesses for failure to comply with Title III. Those against H.R. 620 believe that there are many reasons for why the amendment is unwarranted.

Currently, the ADA offers free educational resources to businesses that explain how they can comply with Title III. According to Rewire, “an analysis of ADA lawsuits in 2016 identified just 12 individuals and one organization that have filed more than 100 lawsuits each.” Those who oppose H.R. 620 believe that shows most law suits are not abusing Title III. They also say that the ADA already has methods to deal with those frivolous lawsuits.

The passage of H.R. 620 will have a major impact on the lives of people with disabilities. Many believe their civil rights are on the chopping block. With 18 co-sponsors, the bill was voted to advance by the House Judiciary Committee on September 7th, 2017. Now, many wait to see if this bill will become a reality and if it does, how it affects their lives.

For more information, please see:

Romper – What is HR 620? It Could Threaten the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities – 14 September 2017

Human Rights Watch – Will the US Weaken its Disability Laws? – 13 September 2017

Action Together Massachusetts – Action: Protect the American Disabilities Act – Oppose H.R.620 – 12 September 2017

Rewire – Congress Makes Progress in Destroying the Americans with Disabilities Act – 11 September 2017

Rewire – The Americans with Disabilities Act is Under Attack in Congress – 30 May 2017

Universal Rights Group: Analysis of high level speeches to UNGA72 – What are the World’s Human Rights Priorities in 2017-2018?
What are the world’s human rights priorities in 2017 and what to look out for in 2018?
Human rights analysis of high level speeches at the 72nd session of the United Nations General Assembly
5060384e-8ab2-41ac-9135-5a4529a2ac30.jpg
What are the human rights situations and issues that keep world leaders up at night in 2017? What are the human rights priorities of governments for the next twelve months?

The best place to get a sense of both is the general debate of the UN General Assembly (GA) in New York, held each year in October, where the world’s presidents, prime minsters, foreign ministers and assorted dignitaries meet to pronounce on global developments, crises, and trends.

With that in mind, today the Universal Rights Group NYC launches the first of what will become an annual analysis of the speeches of world leaders at the UNGA – a human rights-orientated analysis designed to pick out key words, key themes and key ideas from the nearly 200 high level speeches delivered every year at beginning of each GA session.

Every year, the general debate focuses on a different main theme – although leaders are of course free to address any issue. This year, the 72nd session of the GA (GA72) addressed the overall theme: ‘Focusing on People: Striving for Peace and a Decent Life for All on a Sustainable Planet.’

The debate, chaired by the incoming President of the GA, Miroslav Lajcak of Slovakia, began on 19th September and ended yesterday afternoon, 25th September 2017. It saw the participation of over 197 high-level dignitaries, including UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, two kings, two princes, one emir, 69 presidents, 35 prime ministers, eight vice presidents, and 58 ministers.

URG NYC’s detailed analysis of their 196 speeches identified reference to 1,874 human rights-related topics or subjects. When clustered and prioritised (only themes raised by at least four different speakers were included in the final analysis), it was possible to identify around 107 broad themes.

The results of this groundbreaking assessment are presented below via two ‘word clouds,’ one summarising key thematic human rights issues and one relaying the most talked about country-specific human rights situations (i.e. situations of alleged violations). For each, the size of the word reflects the total number of mentions of the given theme or situation.

Key findings from URG NYC’s analysis include:

  • The most widely referenced human rights topic, by States in 2017, was sustainable development / SDGs / 2030 Agenda and human rights. This mirrors an increased focus on the relationship between implementation of the SDGs and implementation of human rights obligations – something the Secretary-General has termed ‘two converging agendas’ – at the Human Rights Council in 2017.
  • Again mirroring developments at the Council, URG’s analysis of speeches at the GA found a strong focus on the prevention of human rights violations and strengthening the UN’s response to emerging crises.
  • Other key human rights issues and priorities for 2017-2018, include: the human rights dimension of climate change, terrorism, extreme poverty, and preventing violent extremism/radicalisation…
9b740305-bfd6-4ea9-9f38-1a198383597b.jpg
Copyright © 2017 Universal Rights Group, All rights reserved.

Turkish government continues journalistic suppression, prosecution of reporters

By: Justin D. Santabarbara
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East 

ISTANBUL, Turkey – On 2 September, Turkish security officials arrested Çagdas Erdogan for allegedly photographing the National Intelligence Agency building. Upon the initial court appearance on 3 September, Turkish officials accused Erdogan of being a member of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The PKK has long been categorized as a domestic terrorist organization by the Turkish government. Moreover, the charges against Erdogan are tailed toward committing acts of terrorism as a member of the PKK, rather than a photojournalist who took illegal pictures. Moreover, Turkish prosecutors have carefully made the distinction between the charges placed against Erdogan and less severe “mistakes”.

Turkish photojournalist Cagdas Erdogan. Photo courtesy of Twitter @cgd_erd.

The International Committee to Protect Journalists has vocally expressed its displeasure with the investigation. “Photographing a building is not even a crime, much less an act of terrorism,” exclaimed the Committee’s Executive Director, Robert Mahony, at a recent press conference. Additionally, the International Committee to Protect Journalists has launched a number of other initiatives, including appealing to the international human rights community for support and requesting that sanctions be placed against the Turkish government for suppressing members of the media. Further, Erdogan’s extensive photojournalistic coverage of the Kurdish conflict is said to have subjected him to additional scrutiny. Aside from his alleged membership in the PKK, Erdogan is said to have been critical of the Turkish government’s treatment of the Kurdish population and the rejection of their participation in the policymaking process. Erdogan’s work is not only highly critical of the collective Turkish government, but also the security forces’ gross violation of human rights in the Kurdish regions – alleging the involvement of enforced disappearances and torturous detainment of Kurds, regardless of their purported membership in the PKK.

Erdogan’s prosecution marks the continuation of a concerted effort by the Turkish government to suppress journalistic interests under a veil of national security. There is little determinative evidence of a time frame for prosecutions against journalists. For example, Turkish prosecutors just tried thirty journalists after they were held for 414 days after their arrest. Although the trials continue to be pending, past cases have shown that prosecutors often seek lengthy prison terms, despite criticism from the international community.

Though the majority of the cases receive adverse dispositions, there are limited instances in which the international pressures influence a humanitarian release, such as the release of French journalist Loup Bureau on 18 September, who spent seven weeks in Turkey after his arrest for criticism of the Turkish government. Although the future remains uncertain for Erdogan, an intense effort by the international community has shown to have positive effects, when conducted appropriately. It will be important to note how long the Turkish government waits before progressing in the trial.

For more information, please see:

France 24 – French journalist Loup Bureau arrives home after being released from Turkish jail – 18 September 2017

Turkish Minute – 30 Zaman journalists appear in court after 414 day detention – 18 September 2017

British Journal of Photography – Cagdas Erdogan arrested in Istanbul – 14 September 2017

 

ICC Asked to Investigate Crimes Against Humanity in Burundi

By: Ethan Snyder
Impunity Watch Reporter, Africa

2015 demonstration amid failed coup d’état in Burundi. Photo Courtesy of BBC News.

BUJUMBRA, Burundi – On Monday, September 4, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Burundi called upon the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate alleged crimes against humanity. Established in 2016, the commission was charged with examining reports of human rights violations from April 2015 to present.

President Nkurunziza announced in April 2015 that he intended to seek incumbency for a third term in conflict with Burundi’s Constitution. After an unsuccessful coup and increasing political unrest, security forces cracked down violently on suspected opposition throughout the country. It is estimated that more than 350,000 people have fled to neighboring countries that include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda.

The commission interviewed approximately 500 witnesses who corroborated allegations of sexual violence, detention of opposition and journalists, extrajudicial executions, torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment. The Burundian government denies all allegations relating to state agents being responsible for crimes against humanity.

Chair of the Commission of Inquiry, Fatsah Ouguergouz, announced that the commission is “struck by the scale and the brutality of the violations” and that they are concerned by the “lack of will on the part of the Burundian authorities to fight against impunity and guarantee the independence of the judiciary.”

Despite multiple requests over the year-long period of investigation, the U.N. Commission was not allowed to go to Burundi and was forced to conduct the majority of their inquiry from neighboring countries.

Burundi’s lower house of parliament passed a law in 2016 to withdraw from the Rome Statute – the treaty that established the ICC. Burundi would be the first country to withdraw from the ICC. Many countries on the continent have threatened similar action citing a disproportionate number of cases and charges being brought against African nations for human rights violations. Burundi is projected to exit the ICC by October of 2017.

The ICC continues to have jurisdiction to investigate allegations of human rights violations in Burundi until their formal exit. If Burundi successfully withdraws from the Rome Statute, the ICC investigation would require a resolution from the U.N. Security Council referring the case to the ICC to continue its inquiry.

Presently, only African states have been charged in the six cases that are either ongoing or about to begin since the court was established. There are preliminary investigations that have been opened into events elsewhere in the world.

The Burundi commission noted that “[t]here is a climate of pervasive fear in Burundi. Victims have been threatened, even in exile.” Many witnesses have reported that they have been threatened or confronted by supporters of the Nkurunziza regime after fleeing to nearby countries.

Although Burundi has a history of high ethnic tensions, the commission does not find that the human rights violations are ethnically motivated.

For more information, please see: 

Human Rights Council: Interactive Dialogue on Burundi – Oral Briefing by Fatsah Ouguergouz – 19 September 2017

Africa News – UN asks ICC to investigate Burundi ‘crimes against humanity’ – 5 September 2017

New York Times – U.N. Group Accuses Burundi Leaders of Crimes Against Humanity – 4 September 2017

United Nations Human Rights: Office of the High Commissioner – Burundi: Commission of inquiry calls on the International Criminal Court to investigate possible crimes against humanity – 4 September 2017

Human Rights Watch – Burundi’s refusal to cooperate with inquiry in contempt of membership on UN rights body – 4 September 2017

United Nations Human Rights: Office of the High Commissioner – Burundi: UN investigation urges strong action in light of gross, widespread and systemic human rights violations –  20 September 2016

Syria Justice and Accountability Centre: De Mistura versus the Commission of Inquiry: Where does the Syrian conflict actually stand?

SJAC Update | September 27, 2017
UN Special Envoy to Syria Staffan De Mistura prepares to brief press | Photo Credit: U.S. Department of State

De Mistura versus the Commission of Inquiry: Where does the Syrian conflict actually stand?
On August 30, UN Special Envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura delivered a Security Council briefing regarding the situation in Syria, wherein he spoke of de-escalating violence, advancing the political process, and combatting terrorism. In doing so, the Special Envoy painted an illusorily warm portrait of the current situation. The same week, the UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) on Syria released its latest report, highlighting a tenuous de-escalation process, widespread human rights and humanitarian law violations committed by government forces, and a peace negotiation process lacking inclusion and consensus. The stark contrast in perception of the Syrian peace process’ nature and prospects from two entities of the United Nations is concerning. De Mistura’s briefing fails to acknowledge the realities of the conflict and the peace negotiation process as they stand today. To underscore these inconsistencies, we have juxtaposed statements made by the Special Envoy with conflicting information provided by the COI’s most recent report.

  1. Praising de-escalation zones without acknowledging the risk to civilians. 

Both the Homs and Ghouta de-escalation agreements include the evacuation of fighters. Although neither agreement mentions the evacuation of civilians, in the past, civilians have been forced to evacuate alongside fighters after a truce or local ceasefire agreement. Given the past trends and significant harm on local populations, De Mistura’s statement fails to acknowledge the risks and condemn any attempt to coerce civilians to leave their homes: “Following a series of agreements with armed groups, including with the active support of Egypt and the Russian Federation, we have seen a significant reduction of violence in parts of the Ghouta de-escalation zone, although not in all of it.” 

The COI Report, while discussing truces (local agreements between the government and fighting factions that differ from broader de-escalation zones), nonetheless acknowledged the forced displacements that have occurred: “In May, pro-Government officials and mediators on one side, and armed group members and/or local council representatives on the other, negotiated and implemented truces in Barza, Tishreen and Qabun, in eastern Damascus . . . All truces mentioned above have incorporated evacuation agreements, which has led to the forced displacement of thousands of civilians from those areas.” The COI report then calls upon all parties to end the forcible displacement of civilians.

It must also be noted that the Ghouta de-escalation agreement provided for the release of 1,500 detainees – yet few have in fact been released. While the reduction in violence due to the de-escalation agreement is praiseworthy, De Mistura should use his position to exert pressure to ensure that the parties abide by international humanitarian law and the terms of the agreement itself.
READ MORE
The Syria Justice and Accountability Centre (SJAC) is a Syrian-led and multilaterally supported nonprofit that envisions a Syria where people live in a state defined by justice, respect for human rights, and rule of law. SJAC collects, analyzes, and preserves human rights law violations by all parties in the conflict — creating a central repository to strengthen accountability and support transitional justice and peace-building efforts. SJAC also conducts research to better understand Syrian opinions and perspectives, provides expertise and resources, conducts awareness-raising activities, and contributes to the development of locally appropriate transitional justice and accountability mechanisms. Contact us at info@syriaaccountability.org.

This email was sent to dmcrane@law.syr.edu
why did I get this?    unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences
Syria Justice and Accountability Centre · Laan Van Meerdervoort 70 · Den Haag, 2517 AN · Netherlands

Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp