This was given to staff at MigrationSverket accommodation yesterday immediately upon signing they messed me about having the document in Swedish. @AmnestyDdorf @amnesty_digital_de @AIIndia @un @who @AlJazeera@flipboard.com @aljazeera@squeet.me @humanrights@lemmy.sdf.org @HumanRightsWatch @lawyerliz @lawyer @HRandbusiness @humanrights@kbin.social @amnestychinese @AmnestyBochum @amnestyireland @SkyNews @Huffingtonpost @newyorktimes @newyorkcityfc @TexasTechMBB @Denmark @commissionerHR @UEfrance @EUCommission @UEfrance www.gab.com/LarLau

@AmnestyDdorf @amnesty_digital_de @AIIndia @un @who @AlJazeera@flipboard.com @aljazeera@squeet.me @humanrights@lemmy.sdf.org @HumanRightsWatch @HRandbusiness @humanrights@kbin.social @amnestychinese @AmnestyBochum @amnestyireland @Huffingtonpost @newyorktimes @newyorkcityfc @TexasTechMBB @Denmark @commissionerHR @UEfrance @EUCommission @UEfrance www.gab.com/LarLau Evidence of Swedish authorities playing games and that I’m not mentally ill suffering from “persecutory delusions “ “paranoid delusions” as British government framed me for

@AmnestyDdorf @amnesty_digital_de @AIIndia @un @WHO @AlJazeera@flipboard.com @aljazeera@squeet.me @humanrights@lemmy.sdf.org @humanrightswatch @LawyerLiz @lawyer @HRandbusiness @humanrights@kbin.social @amnestychinese @AmnestyBochum @amnestyireland @SkyNews @skynews.com @huffingtonpost @newyorktimes @newyorkcityfc @TexasTechMBB @denmark @commissionerHR @UEfrance @EUCommission @UEfrance see my previous posts for more details and www.gab.com/LarLau for more details and Facebook account: Chinese herbalist or TikTok account ChineseHerbalist1

@AmnestyDdorf @amnesty_digital_de @AIIndia @un @WHO @AlJazeera@flipboard.com @aljazeera@squeet.me @humanrights@lemmy.sdf.org @humanrightswatch could a human rights organisation or lawyer contact me to support or assist with these procedures/ paperwork @LawyerLiz @lawyer @HRandbusiness @humanrights@kbin.social @amnestychinese @AmnestyBochum @amnestyireland

@AmnestyDdorf @amnesty_digital_de @AIIndia @un @WHO @AlJazeera@flipboard.com @aljazeera@squeet.me @humanrights @humanrightswatch could a human rights organisation or lawyer contact me to support or assist with these procedures/ paperwork

@AmnestyDdorf @amnesty_digital_de @AIIndia @un @WHO @AlJazeera@flipboard.com @aljazeera@squeet.me @humanrights @humanrightswatch

@AmnestyDdorf @amnesty_digital_de @AIIndia @un @WHO @AlJazeera@flipboard.com @aljazeera@squeet.me @humanrights @humanrightswatch

@AmnestyDdorf @amnesty_digital_de @AIIndia @un @WHO @AlJazeera@flipboard.com @aljazeera@squeet.me @humanrights @humanrightswatch

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/latw959fd9rz0r1hx1c89/MigrationStillmessingWithMeInSweden.m4a?rlkey=g1encz6vb9jw91sr256fevxoq&st=vxf5osw3&dl=0

Link to audio recording Swedish government holding me hostage in Sweden executing human rights abuses on me
Gab.com/LarLau for the most updates @amnesty_digital_de @AIIndia @AmnestyBochum @amnestyireland @AIIndia @un @WHO @AlJazeera@flipboard.com @aljazeera@squeet.me @aljazeera_gotgrip @humanrightswatch @humanrights@lemmy.sdf.org @humanrights@a.gup.pe @SkyNews @BBCBrasil

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ypcna1yhd7p3fb61rvp73/SimonAtAsylumAccommodationTryingToForceMeIntoTheirMigrationOfficeStockholmAirportToPutPsychiatricHol.m4a?rlkey=7phvpc7oebr2uugsxan1vqv4e&st=mijp32hc&dl=0 @AmnestyDdorf @un @WHO @humanrights @humanrightswatch head over to gab.com/LarLau
Or LarLau at gab.com because this site isn’t uploading my content properly

I would like to know if vegans have any protection for their practice under human rights laws. Veganism is essentially a boycott against all industries that exploit non-human animals. And more broadly, are boycotts of any kind protected?

These laws could potentially be relevant:

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Self-determination seems quite vague and would seem to imply autonomy in general. Does that imply that someone can boycott whatever they want, like fossil fuels, credit cards, cars, meat, Internet, etc?

I also wonder about the language effect of using “peoples” in that wording. It would seem to imply that individuals do not get self-determination, but a people (a group of people) have that right. Can anyone clarify?

UDHR

Article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 18

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Vegan is not religion but this seems to say you can manifest a belief and practice it. So then I wonder about (for example) a vegan in prison. Can a vegan prisoner insist on a plant-based diet?

I wonder to what extent ¶3 can reduce these rights. To say it’s okay to limit ¶1 rights in pursuit of “public order” is quite broad. Any action by a gov to repress ¶1 would be argued to be in the interest of “public order”.

If an Amish person or luddite were to say “fuck the Internet -- I’m done with CAPTCHAs, tracking and surveillance, forced use of email…etc“, and develop beliefs against Internet and thus unplug from it, couldn’t the gov argue that going analog compromises “public order” (as governments increasingly impose the use of Internet on people)?

(edit) A big fuck you to the cowardice assholes silently downvoting this thread for asking questions. Contempt for people knowing their rights is despicable.

Public notice to mi5 mi6 etc @un @unitednationsclimatechange @amnesty_digital_de @amnestychinese @AmnestyDdorf @WHO @humanrightswatch @humanrights

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/683dvx8h67pod93ark69i/SimonFromReceptionObstructingMeFromuploadingpostTosocislMedia.m4a?rlkey=ksdawhqv5dtmkle0hojsabyg6&st=02qus95r&dl=0

@amnestychinese @un @humanrights @WHO

@WHO @amnestyireland @amnesty@social.undernet.uy @un @un @unitednationsclimatechange @humanrights@lemmy.sdf.org @humanrights @Sky @SkyNews

@amnestyireland @un @unitednationsclimatechange @amnestyireland @amnesty@social.undernet.uy @WHO @humanrights @humanrightswatch @humanrights@lemmy.sdf.org @BBCNews @SkyNews

Continuation of previous post. @amnestyireland @amnesty@social.undernet.uy @WHO @un @unitednationsclimatechange @un @humanrightswatch @EURightsAgency @humanrights@kbin.social @commissionerHR @humanrights@lemmy.sdf.org

Comedic Joke: Beautiful lyrics of Erotic Countertransference from MHP/ therapist @amnestyireland @WHO @unitednations @humanrightswatch @humanrights@lemmy.sdf.org @humanrights

@amnestyireland @amnestynl @un @unitednationsclimatechange @WHO @humanrights@kbin.social @humanrights@lemmy.sdf.org

From women activists feeding thousands of vulnerable families amid the brutal war in Sudan, to young Bangladeshis working to stamp out child marriage, human rights defenders worldwide are helping to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

In fact, they are integral to ensuring that the 17 Goals – which include ending poverty, reducing inequality and protecting the environment – become reality, said Mary Lawlor, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders.

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4186240

Governments, even democratic ones, are willing to aid autocracies in silencing exiled dissidents if the host nation thinks it’s in its economic interest.

That is what we found when looking into cases of transnational repression – the act of governments reaching across their national border to repress diasporas and exiles – from 2014 to 2020.

Since 2014, international watchdog Freedom House recorded 1,034 cases of governments reaching across borders to illegally deport, abduct, intimidate or assassinate their citizens.

The most frequent offenders were autocratic countries such as China (213 cases), Turkey (111), Egypt (42), Tajikistan (38), Russia (32) and Uzbekistan (29).

These governments have extended their reach into over 100 foreign countries to silence critics abroad. While autocracies sometimes act alone or collaborate with nongovernment actors, the most common form of transnational repression involves the governments of countries to which targeted people have fled. This includes democracies working closely with autocratic regimes to arrest, detain and deport people who face the risk of persecution and repression in the home country.

[...]

We found strong quantitative evidence that international cooperation on transnational repression relies on a country’s economic ties to the origin country and the quality of the country’s rule of law.

[...]

Our findings suggest that many countries are willing to sacrifice the civil liberties of foreign dissidents for economic opportunities with authoritarian governments. Autocracies also appear to be strategically targeting vulnerable states with weak rule of law institutions, such as the police, courts or immigration authorities.

Foreign countries that are less concerned about the consequences of breaking the rule of law are easier to co-opt and coerce, especially when they’re more financially dependent on the autocratic partner.

[...]

case 1: account closure

Cashless banks have no vault and no cash services apart from the ATMs. ATMs in Europe never handle denominations smaller than €20. This means that even when you are closing an account at a cashless bank, the most you can pull out is a multiple of €20 from your balance. The bank expects you to open an account somewhere else first and transfer the remainder to the other account. This is to keep people trapped in the banking system.

It seems to violate article 17 ¶2:

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

This is not exactly up there with genocide and torture. It’s perhaps the smallest human rights infraction I can think of. But nonetheless, banks should be structured to comply with human rights no matter how trivial, no? It seems like even a cashless bank should (in effect) be required to keep some petty cash on-hand for account closures.

case 2: withdrawal limits

The same question applies for bigger cases. E.g. a bank (cashless or not) may have a daily withdrawal limit; weekly, and monthly too. Perhaps it is fair enough to have a fee or penalty for exceeding their limits, but if I understand correctly the bank has a human rights obligation to allow you to withdraw all your money. At the moment banks with limits simply refuse to execute withrawals that exceed their limits.

case 3: card refusal

ATMs and shops refuse people access to their money for countless arbitrary reasons.

• When a customer’s ID card copy on the bank’s files expires, some banks do not bother to inform the customer or request an updated copy. They just freeze the account. When money is denied, the customer magically presents themselves to the bank to find out why. Cutting off access to funds is the bank’s way of communicating.
• ATMs reject cards for undisclosed reasons. Sometimes a faulty AI bot falsely triggers and claims a transaction looks fraudulent. Sometimes ATMs are discriminating against people based on their origin (locally issued cards get a higher limit than foreign ones, but the ATM does not tell the customer what the limit is or why their transaction is denied).

Here is the study: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp1274

Most people in most countries state that they wish to have a democratic government. But the definition of democracy has been constantly contested. Without understanding what people really mean by democracy, the concept is vulnerable to being exploited by dictators and anti-democratic politicians for their own ends.

[...]

A new research study led by the University of Oxford, National University of Singapore, and Emory University has now shed light on the question: "How do people around the world define democracy?"

The study surveyed over 6,000 people from the United States, Italy, Egypt, India, Thailand, and Japan- countries with highly different political regimes, democratic histories, geographic regions, levels of development, and cultural backgrounds. The study explored how people prioritize nine different attributes in their understanding of what makes a country democratic, using examples of hypothetical countries.

[...]

• Overwhelmingly, participants were significantly more likely to view countries that select their leaders through free and fair elections as more democratic than countries without elections.

• Participants were also significantly more likely to view countries with strong protections for civil liberties as more democratic compared with countries without such protections.

• The relevance of these was consistent regardless of people's age, gender, education, minority status, or political ideology.

• After elections and liberties, the two most important attributes were gender equality, then economic equality. Countries in which men and women have equal rights are more likely to be seen as democratic than countries with highly unequal gender rights. Relative equality between the rich and poor (compared with high inequality) also increased the likelihood that a country was seen as more democratic.

• Then, countries where leaders must respect the legislature and courts' authority in decision making were more likely to be perceived as more democratic compared with countries in which the leader frequently bypasses the legislative and judicial branches when making decisions.

• In contrast, the researchers found little evidence of an "authoritarian" redefinition of democracy taking root anywhere. Even within authoritarian countries such as Egypt or Thailand, democracy was still perceived as being rooted in elections and liberties.

cross-posted from: https://links.hackliberty.org/post/38945

Question about #humanRights— Article 20 of the #UDHR¹ states:

“① Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

② No one may be compelled to belong to an association.”

How does that apply in the context of forced banking? If a government forces you to enter the marketplace and register for a bank account, does that qualify as being compelled to belong to an association?

¹UDHR: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

#askFedi

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/3823927

"The dehumanization of Palestinians and the collective punishment they endure from Israel's war in Gaza have shattered the very fabric of their society, much like what China has inflicted upon my people," writes exiled Uyghur human rights lawyer Rayhan Asat.

The Palestinian mother watching a bulldozer tear through her house reminds me of every Uyghur mother whose home was invaded by Chinese forces. The rubble of schools and mosques destroyed in Gaza takes me back to my homeland, where the oldest shrines have been leveled, and our teachers handed life sentences. The surveillance system China tested against the Uyghurs has been exported to the streets of occupied Hebron. As Israeli settlers flood the West Bank with the full support of Israel's government, I'm reminded of the millions of Han people that China brought into my homeland, where they receive special privileges in an apartheid system the world has ignored for decades.

[...]

Israeli atrocities in Gaza, and the intentional blocking of humanitarian aid that has led to starvation and the spread of polio in the besieged territory, have sparked global outrage, especially among young people. However, this same level of outrage has not been directed toward China's systematic efforts to slowly eradicate the Uyghur people in its prison camps. Some argue that the differing reactions are due to America's direct support for Israel's war in Gaza, but victims do not suffer less because of the identity of their perpetrator. If human rights are truly universal, then what happens in Gaza and Xinjiang should equally outrage us all.