You are currently browsing the monthly archive for December 2012.
The conclusion in a series by Marissa Goldfaden as she works her way through “Introduction to minority rights, regional human rights mechanisms, and minority rights advocacy,” a new online course offered to the public free of charge by Minority Rights Group International. The course’s stated objectives are to introduce concepts of minority rights and discrimination, develop awareness and understanding of international and regional mechanisms for minority rights, and improve practical skills in lobbying and advocacy.
Topic 11: Guide to advocacy campaigns, Part 2
Section 1: Identifying target audiences
The target audiences of an advocacy campaign can be (individually or a combination of):
e. Authorities – such as the police
f. National government, including specific ministries
h. Other countries’ governments
i. Regional bodies, such as the African Union
j. United Nations
- Legal – the country’s laws as well as international law, especially treaties that the country has ratified. Governments that respect the rule of law will listen. Others may say that international human rights standards are just ‘a Western construct’.
- Moral – even if the government does not follow international standards, it may wish to do (or be seen to do) the right thing. There may be powerful arguments based on religious practice or tradition that may work.
- Practical – finally, there may be very pragmatic reasons for the government to improve its record. Minority rights prevent conflict and promote stability, for example.
It is imperative to formulate a strategy to impart the campaign’s messages. An advocacy strategy should set out:
- The SMART goals & sub-goals (as discussed in the previous topic)
- An activity plan
Monitoring is defined as the regular collection and analysis of information to follow the progress of a campaign’s implementation. Evaluation, which is the analysis of the effects of the campaign to assess whether it has achieved its stated goals within the given time and budget, occurs at the end of or after an advocacy campaign.
Part 12 in a series by Marissa Goldfaden as she works her way through “Introduction to minority rights, regional human rights mechanisms, and minority rights advocacy,” a new online course offered to the public free of charge by Minority Rights Group International. The course’s stated objectives are to introduce concepts of minority rights and discrimination, develop awareness and understanding of international and regional mechanisms for minority rights, and improve practical skills in lobbying and advocacy.
This is the first of two topics explaining how to carry out advocacy campaigns. The first topic introduces advocacy. It shows how to identify problems that need to be addressed through advocacy, and how to set goals for a campaign.
Topic 10: Guide to advocacy campaigns, Part 1
Section 1: What is advocacy?
Advocacy is defined as the process of changing, or trying to change or influence, laws, policies or practices.
Advocacy involves the following nine steps:
- Identifying the problem.
- Understanding one’s own organization.
- Understanding the environment.
- Devising goals.
- Identifying target audiences.
- Creating the messages.
- Creating the strategy.
- Carrying out the strategy.
- Measuring the outcome.
Section 2: Analysis of the problem
It is important for activists or NGOs to first understand the problem to be addressed through advocacy. Notes MRG, “At this stage, it is very important to involve the minority or indigenous community: Activists should listen to the human rights issues that community members raise and what their priorities are.”
Some considerations in understanding the nature of the problem
- Extent of problem
- Social attitudes
- Level of awareness
- Access to justice
- Legal framework
Section 3: Analysis of the environment – internal and external
Having identified the problem that needs addressing through advocacy, activists and NGOs must next understand the environment in which they are going to be working. This process involves analyzing both the NGO for which the activist works, and the general situation.
Internal (i.e. organizational) analysis
This element contains two main points.
What can the activist’s organization work on, and what is it not allowed to work on?
The answers to these questions will depend on:
- The organization’s charter or constitution, if it has one
- The organization’s board and its decisions
- National legislation and government regulations
2. Resources, both financial and human
It will be important to establish the following:
- What are the organization’s strengths and weaknesses?
- Is the organization too small to carry out a large-scale campaign?
- What is the organization’s capacity for given areas of work?
When looking at the external environment, it is important to identify the following four groups of people: stakeholders, supporters, potential allies, and obstacles.
Stakeholders are those persons who have an interest in the advocacy campaign. They can be directly involved and/or affected by it. They may also influence the campaign and its outcomes. A clear group of stakeholders when advocating on behalf of minority rights are the members of a minority community themselves.
Supporters are people who are not stakeholders but are in favor of the work. They may include members of other communities or the majority who favor the outcome being sought. Supporters may also be drawn if the campaign seeks a change in the law that will benefit another community too.
Allies are supporters who can influence the outcome, such as university professors, journalists, politicians, and government officials.
Obstacles are those people who will work against the campaign.
Section 4: Setting ‘SMART’ goals
Having analyzed the environment, the next step in an advocacy campaign is to choose its goals. A useful tool for identifying appropriate goals is SMART, an acronym for the following words:
Specific – it is important to be as precise as possible when identifying a goal(s).
Measurable – there must be a way of identifying how the goal has been achieved or how advancement has been made towards it.
Agreed upon – consultation is conducted with stakeholders and everyone is agreed that these goals are important.
Realistic – depending on the organization’s resources and the situation in the country, the goals should be achievable.
Time-bound – a deadline for the strategy is required.
Outputs are the activities that you do, while outcomes are the achievements that you make. Sub-goals can also be incorporated as a way of measuring success.
On 4 December, the Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham Law School presented a panel discussion entitled “Overcoming Genocide Denial.” Professor Martin Flaherty, the event’s moderator, gave the opening remarks.
The first panelist to speak was Dr. Gregory Stanton, founder and president of Genocide Watch. His talk focused on how to deny a genocide, as he notes that denial is the final stage of all genocides. Denial occurs both during and after a genocide, and triples the probability of further or future genocide. It also extends the crime of genocide to future generations of victims. Because of its prevalence, the tactics of genocide denial are predictable:
- Question and minimize the statistics.
- Attack the motivations of the truth-tellers.
- Claim that the deaths were inadvertent (i.e., as a result of famine, migration, or disease, not because of willful murder).
- Emphasize the strangeness of the victims.
- Rationalize the deaths as the result of tribal conflict.
- Blame “out of control” forces for committing the killings.
- Avoid antagonizing the genocidaires, who might walk out of “the peace process.”
- Justify denial in favor of current economic interests.
- Claim that the victims are receiving good treatment.
- Claim that what is going on doesn’t fit the definition of genocide.
- Blame the victims.
- Say that peace and reconciliation are more important than blaming people for genocide.
According to Dr. Stanton, there are ways to prevent denial, such as:
- If the state that is committing the genocide (or in which it occurs) is not a State-Party to the Rome Treaty of the International Criminal Court, the UN Security Council should confer jurisdiction over the situation on the ICC.
- If the genocidal regime has been overthrown, the UN should help the successor government form courts to try the perpetrators.
The next panelist to present was Professor Taner Akçam, who focused on Turkey’s denial of the Armenian Genocide. He posits that one of the main reasons for this denial is that to acknowledge it would be to turn national heroes into villains. Another result of/hurdle to acknowledgement would be that Turkey would have to pay reparations. While state policy may differ from societal attitudes, the lie has gone on too long to simply reverse it and admit the truth–an entire society and culture has been built upon this secret/lie to the point of creating what Professor Akçam refers to as a “communicative reality.” The existence of the Turkish people has been contingent upon the non-existence of Armenians. [Read the full text of Professor Akçam’s presentation.]
The third and final speaker was Professor Sheri Rosenberg. Her presentation was on her experiences with genocide denial in Rwanda. She started by saying that genocide denial impedes healing, reconciliation, and transitional justice. In Rwanda, where perpetrators live side by side with survivors, there are laws against genocide ideology, as well as against discrimination and sectarianism. The genocide ideology law is simultaneously retrospective and prospective but problematic in that it constricts the public space and suppresses meaningful dialogue. This, in turn, can have a negative effect on individual and group conceptions of identity.
After the panelists concluded, the floor was opened for a Q&A session. In discussing Europe and Holocaust denial laws, Dr. Stanton said he believes such laws in general create a problem by instantly opposing free speech. Moreover, they don’t make a distinction between incitement and having amorphous genocidal thoughts. The next topic was Turkey and Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which makes it illegal to insult Turkey, the Turkish ethnicity, or Turkish government institutions. Professor Akçam said that if the United State acknowledged the Armenian Genocide, the problem would be solved in about three years because of the economic pressure that would be put on Turkey. Additionally, regional security must include historic injustices.
Another audience member asked about accountability for atrocities committed in Burma/Myanmar. That could be accomplished through the Alien Tort Statute, a section of the United States Code that states, “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” In other words, U.S. courts can hear human rights cases brought by foreign citizens for conduct committed outside the United States. Dr. Stanton ended the evening by saying that Iran should be brought in front of the International Court of Justice for “Direct and public incitement to commit genocide,” a punishable act under Article 3 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Part 11 in a series by Marissa Goldfaden as she works her way through “Introduction to minority rights, regional human rights mechanisms, and minority rights advocacy,” a new online course offered to the public free of charge by Minority Rights Group International. The course’s stated objectives are to introduce concepts of minority rights and discrimination, develop awareness and understanding of international and regional mechanisms for minority rights, and improve practical skills in lobbying and advocacy.
Topic 9: Thematic focus: Multiple forms of discrimination
Section 1: Key concepts
Sex and gender defined
Sex refers to biological difference between men and women.
Gender refers to socially constructed roles, behavior, or activities that are considered appropriate for men and women.
There is little variation in aspects of sex between different human societies. However, gender roles may vary greatly. Because gender differences are based on societal attitudes of what is considered appropriate for men and women, they can and do change over time.
Section 2: Identifying discrimination on more than one ground
Discrimination: Expanding the concept
As we learned in Topic 1, direct discrimination means less favorable or detrimental treatment accorded to an individual, or group of individuals, due to their possession of one or more specific characteristics. International law specifies those protected characteristics as: race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Intersectional discrimination occurs when two or more layers of discrimination act together to double or triple the disadvantage experienced by the individual.
Section 3: Focus on minority women
The concept of gender affects both men and women. However, intersectional discrimination on the grounds of both gender and minority status frequently affects and disadvantages minority women in a different way than men. Members of minorities frequently face threats and increased discrimination from the majority when they try to defend their rights. A dominant majority usually has an interest in keeping the situation the same. When minority women assert their rights, the backlash may have a gender dimension – often sexual violence.
It is important to remember:
- Minority women may face particular discrimination or violence because they are both members of a minority group and women.
- No culture is homogenous.
- All cultures are constantly adapting and changing.
- Minority women have the same rights as other women.
Section 4: Balancing cultural rights with the individual rights of minority women
Protection of identity and restrictions
Culture and gender
For many communities, women and girls are the custodians of cultural identity. Often, cultural practices of men will change, whereas the cultural practices of women are maintained. This is one reason why, when there are tensions between the rights of a minority to protect their cultural identity and the rights of individual members of the minority, frequently, the tensions relate to cultural practices of women or those that affect women.
Cultural identity of minorities: A limited right
Writes MRG, “Members of minorities have the right to protect and promote their identity. However, this right is not unlimited. The UN Declaration on Minorities permits states to restrict cultural practices ‘where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards’.
States may not enact laws to restrict any practice they choose, because this would make the right to protection of cultural identity meaningless. Prohibitions on cultural practices must be based on reasonable and objective grounds. States should prohibit practices that violate other human rights standards.”
International law sets out principles to which restrictions on cultural practices, including religious practices, must adhere if they are legitimate:
- Restrictions must not be discriminatory.
- Restrictions must be necessary to protect one of the following:
- public safety
- public order
- public health, or morals
- the fundamental rights and freedoms of others
- The restrictions should be the minimum necessary to meet the aim for which they have been employed.
Undue influence is a legal term defining a situation whereby one person improperly exerts influence over another to act in a certain way.
The right to identity is not unlimited, and there are legitimate restrictions that governments can make on minority cultural practices. However:
- Restrictions must not discriminate (directly or indirectly), and must conform to international standards.
- Cooperation with affected communities is important in ensuring that already marginalized groups do not perceive restrictions to be attacks against them.
- The opinions of diverse sections of minorities are important, since there are likely to be different views on cultural practices and restrictions within the community.