China Tries To Discredit Female Uighur Witnesses By Releasing Private Sexual Health Data

BEIJING (Reuters) — China, under growing global pressure over its treatment of minority Muslim Uighurs in far west Xinjiang, is mounting an unprecedented and aggressive campaign to push back, including explicit attacks on women who have made claims of abuse.

As allegations of human rights violations in Xinjiang mount, with a growing number of Western lawmakers accusing China of genocide, Beijing is focusing on discrediting the female Uighur witnesses behind recent reports of abuse.

Read More

Human rights in Pakistan

Pakistan’s human rights record has dramatically improved since the reforms that took place after the tenure of President Zia-ul-Haq in 1988. The situation of human rights in Pakistan is a complex one, as a result of the country's diversity, large population, its status as a developing country and a sovereign, Islamic republic as well as an Islamic democracy with a mixture of both Islamic and colonial secular laws. The Constitution of Pakistan provides for fundamental rights, which include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and the right to bear arms. These clauses are generally respected in practice. Clauses also provide for separation of executive and judiciary, an independent judiciary and freedom of movement within the country and abroad.

The founder of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a moderate secular state blended with some Islamic values and principles. No Pakistani Government has ever come up with a detailed conclusion on what he exactly meant by this. Nevertheless, Pakistan's status as an Islamic Republic should not be confused or compared with other Islamic Republics in the region, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran. Unlike Iran, Pakistan is not a theocracy, but rather an Islamic democracy where elections regularly takes place on time and are mostly free and fair. Most of Pakistan's laws are secular in nature, most of which were inherited from the United Kingdom's colonial rule of modern-day Pakistan before 1947. In recent times, there has been increasing pressure on Pakistan to amend or replace some of its outdated laws made during the time of the British Empire.

Although the government has enacted measures to counter any problems, abuses remain. Furthermore, courts suffer from lack of funds, outside intervention, and deep case backlogs that lead to long trial delays and lengthy pretrial detentions. Many observers inside and outside Pakistan contend that Pakistan’s legal code is largely concerned with crime, national security, and domestic tranquility and less with the protection of individual rights.

The 2009 Freedom in the World report by Freedom House gave Pakistan a political rights rating of 4 (1 representing free and 7 representing not free), and a civil liberties rating of 5, earning it the designation of partly free.

Humanitarian response to conflict

Violence in Pakistan and the Taliban conflict with the government have heightened humanitarian problems in Pakistan. Political and military interests have been prioritised over humanitarian considerations in their offensives against the Taliban, and issues likely to get worse as people are encouraged back home prematurely and face once again being victims of the insurgents. Displacement is a key problem and humanitarian organisations are failing to address the basic needs of people outside displacement camps, nor are they able to address issues such as the conduct of hostilities and the politicisation of the emergency response. Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute argue that aid agencies face dilemmas with engaging with the government, as this does not always produce the desired results and can conflict with their aim of promoting stability and maintaining a principled approach. A principled approach limits their ability to operate when the government emphasises political and security considerations.

Internally displaced people

There were over 500,000 people displaced in 2008, mainly from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) on the border with Afghanistan, and a further 1.4 million from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa in May 2009. By mid-July 2009, Pakistan’s National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) put the total of Internally Displaced People (IDPs) at just over 2m, while unofficial figures are as high as 3.5m. Most of those displaced (up to 80%) were taken in by relatives, friends and even strangers - Pashtun communities in particular have displayed great efforts in assisting the displaced despite their own high levels of poverty. Still others use schools, but only a small minority live in approximately 30 official camps, mainly in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.

There is little support for those living outside of camps, official support consists only of some food and non-food items and government cash grants. Many of those who have been taken in are looked after by political and religious groups providing assistance in return for membership or support. The government has been struggling to provide support to an area traditionally marginalised and remote and is also keen to downplay the scale of the crisis. Before military operations are undertaken, little preparation is made for the predictable increase in displaced peoples in order to avoid attracting the attention of opposing forces.There are also suggestions that help given to IDPs is informed by cultural and political expediency, as in the case of a $300 family cash grant.

The international community's assistance is marginal in comparison to local efforts due to the rate and scale of displacement; the scattering of displaced populations among host families and in spontaneous settlements; access difficulties due to insecurity and the role of the military in the relief effort.International humanitarian organizations have focused on camp-based populations and this limited interaction has hampered their attempts to analyse the full complexity of the situation, the context, its different actors and their interests – all of which are key to ensuring that the humanitarian imperative is achieved in this complex operating environment.

"Friends of Pakistan"

Many donors see the conflict as an opportunity for more comprehensive engagement in an effort to promote stability in the region, to promote a legitimate government and curtail transnational threats. The ‘Friends of Pakistan’ group, which includes the US, the UK and the UN, is key in the international community's drive to promote stability. The US has adopted a joint ‘Af-Pak’ (Afghanistan and Pakistan) strategy in order to suppress the insurgency and defend its national security interests. This strategy seeks engagement with the government and the military intelligence communities, develop civilian and democratic governance, for instance through the provision of services and support in ‘cleared areas’ in FATA and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, and increasing assistance including direct budget support, development aid and support with counter-insurgency work. The UK equally sees an opportunity to counter instability and militancy through a combined military and 'hearts and minds' approach, through judicial, governance and security sector reform. The UNDP/WFP takes a similar line.

Yet the success of this approach is by no means clear, as both the government and society at large are not welcoming of foreign interference. USAID takes into account political as well as humanitarian dimensions in its decision making process. Many civilians see little distinction between aid agencies, the military operations and "western interests"; ‘you bomb our villages and then build hospitals’. Many humanitarian organisations thus avoid being too visible and do not mark their aid with their logos.friends of Pakistan must come forward to assist in her committment.

WorkChoices

Workplace Relations Act 1996, as amended by the Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005, popularly known as Work Choices, was a Legislative Act of the Australian Parliament that came into effect in March 2006 which involved many controversial amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996, the main federal statute which regulated industrial relations in Australia.

Work Choices was passed by the Howard Government in 2005 and was claimed to improve employment levels and national economic performance by dispensing with unfair dismissal laws for companies under a certain size, removing the "no disadvantage test" which had sought to ensure workers were not left disadvantaged by changes in legislation, and requiring workers submit their certified agreements directly to Workplace Authority rather than going through the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. It also significantly compromised a workforce's ability to legally go on strike, requiring workers to bargain for previously-guaranteed conditions without collectivized representation, and significantly restricting trade union activity and recruitment on the work site.

The passing and implementation of the new laws was strongly opposed by the left side of politics, particularly the trade union movement. Critics argued that the laws stripped away basic employee rights and were fundamentally unfair. The Australian Council of Trade Unions consistently ran television advertisements attacking the new laws.

Introduction of the Bill into Parliament

The Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 (Cth) was introduced into the Australian House of Representatives on 2 November 2005 by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews.

The Australian Labor Party claimed it was not provided with enough copies of the Bill when it entered the Parliament. They mounted a campaign against the Bill in Parliament throughout the day. During Question Time, Opposition members continually interjected while Government members were speaking, leading the Speaker (and later the Deputy Speaker) to remove 11 of them.

The Bill passed through the House of Representatives on 10 November and was introduced into the Senate later that day by Special Minister of State, Senator Eric Abetz. The Bill was passed, with amendments, by the Senate, by a vote of 35-33 on 2 December 2005.

The Bill received the Royal Assent on 14 December and the parts concerning the Australian Fair Pay Commission, wages for school based trainees and apprentices, and redundancy pay for small employers became enacted immediately from that date

Opposition to the changes

In response to the Howard Government's Work Choices package, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the peak association for Australian trade unions, launched its "Your Rights at Work" campaign opposing the changes. The campaign has involved mass rallies and marches, television and radio advertisements, judicial action, and e-activism.

The week of action culminated on Friday 1 July 2005 with a "SkyChannel" meeting of union delegates and members organised by Unions NSW. The meeting was followed by a large rally in Sydney and events in regional areas.

Campaigns

The ACTU's media campaign triggered a government counter-campaign promoting the reforms. Stage one of the government campaign preceded the release of the legislation and cost approximately $46 million, including advertisements from both the government and the BCA, information booklets and a hotline.

Government polling of the period August 2005 - February 2006, not released until March 2008, revealed that the government's advertising campaign failed to make workers less apprehensive about Work Choices.

Scope of the System

Before the commencement of Work Choices the Commonwealth relied on the concilliation and arbitration power of which provides that Commonwealth may make laws with respect to "conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State."

The Howard Government sought to bring as many employees under Work Choices as was within its constitutional powers.

Relying on the corporations power of Section 51(xx), the Howard Government extended the coverage of the federal industrial relations system to an estimated 85% of Australian employees. All employees of "constitutional corporations" (i.e. trading, financial, and foreign corporations) are covered by the Work Choices system. Other constitutional powers used by the Federal Government to legislate industrial relations matters include the Territories power to cover the Australian Territories, including the external territories of the Christmas and Cocos Islands, the external affairs powers, the interstate and overseas trade and commerce power, and the powers of the Commonwealth to legislate for its own employees. Victoria voluntarily referred its industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth in 1996.

Significant changes

[edit]Changing dismissal protection laws for most employees

Work Choices contains provisions relating to both unfair dismissal and unlawful termination, which are separate matters. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) retains some of its role in hearing unfair dismissal and unlawful termination cases, but increased the emphasis on mediation and conciliation. It also reduced the timeframe within which employees are able to lodge such claims; claims must be lodged within 21 days from the date of termination. Employees can apply for an extension of this timeframe,but a review of published decision shows that extensions are infrequently granted. Fees apply for applications, currently $55.70.

Both unfair dismissal and unlawful termination claims go through an initial hearing and compulsory conciliation conference at the AIRC. Only when the conciliation has been unsuccessful and a conciliation certificate issued can the claim proceed to the next step. For unfair dismissal claims, the claim proceeds to arbitration by the AIRC, where a Member of the Commission may issue a binding decision. For unlawful termination claims, the claim proceeds to a court with appropriate jurisdiction such as the Federal Court or the Industrial Division of the Federal Magistrates Court.

Legacy

Kevin Rudd took over the Australian Labor Party leadership on 4 December 2006, and in the process reaffirming his opposition to Work Choices. As Labor won government at the 2007 federal election, it will retain a federal rather than states-based system. Additionally, it plans to phase out Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) over a period of years with a preference of collective agreements and awards with an exclusion to those earning over $100,000. Unfair dismissal laws would be restored to all businesses, however, employees joining companies with under 15 employees will be placed under a twelve month probationary period. Restrictive right of entry rules in to workplaces for unions introduced under Work Choices will remain and secret ballots (rather than open ballots) to decide on carrying out strikes will continue, which would become banned except during periods of collective bargaining.The dismantling of the group of industrial relations bodies created by the government would also occur, and in their place a service known as "Fair Work Australia" would be created.

Kevin Rudd used part of the 2007 election debate to argue that the Liberal Party was being influenced by the H. R. Nicholls Society to make further reforms to industrial relations, citing Nick Minchin's attendance to last year's H. R. Nicholls Society conference, where he told the audience that the coalition knew its reform to Work Choices were not popular but the process of change must continue, and that "there is still a long way to go... awards, the IR commission, all the rest of it..." The Australian Labor Party stated that "We know the HR Nicholls society supports the abolition of awards, supports the abolition of the minimum wage, supports the abolition of the independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission.