”No Work No Pay ”: An Infringement of Workers’ Fundamental Human Rights- Oyo TUC Chairman

The Federal Government has announced that henceforth, any worker or group of workers that embark on any form of industrial action, will not be paid for the duration  the action lasts. In this interview with Federationews2day, the Chairman of the Trade Union Congress (TUC)Oyo state council, Comrade Emmanuel Ogundiran, says the action of Government is an infringement on the Fundamental Human Rights of workers in the country. Excerpts :


What is your reaction to Government’s decision to introduce ‘No Work, No Pay’ for the period workers go on strike  ?

We are not surprised by the action of the Federal Government and the position of the  state Governments. You see, when our Government starts behaving like a private sector employer, then we now want to look at the social  contribution  of such state  Governments. But be that as it may, those who have forgotten certain aspects of the Nigerian constitution, especially those dealing with fundamental Human Rights-Right to life, Right to dignity of human person, Right to personal liberty, Right to fair hearing, Right to private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, Freedom of Expression and that of the Press, Right to Peaceful Assembly and Association, Right to Freedom of Movement, especially the  section 42 of that chapter four, Right to Freedom from discrimination. So, maybe the state Governments have forgotten all about these. If they can with hold our salaries, claiming that there is no money, and we do the work without much ado and they refuse to pay us, when we now know that they have the money, even at the fact that they live extravagant  lives, indeed, the cost of governance is killing this country.

So, Government will now go ahead to dissuade us from using  whatever means we know, we can use to collect that which is due to us from them, let them start and see. Maybe, they will bring their immediate family, their immediate family  who  are not  even in Nigeria, to start doing the dirty jobs, that we have been doing and then pay them peanuts, that they have been paying us. So, we are not moved, they have said it,  let them exercise it and let’s exercise our rights too and let’s see who will be the first  to blink.

Join Network Marketing                About Attitude                About Behaviour


Tanzania: Media Gets 7 Days to Air Views On Draft Laws

THE Ministry of Information, Culture, Arts and Sports has given seven days to media stakeholders to submit their views on the draft of the electronic and postal communications (content regulations) of 2017 and that of online content regulations.

00431444 2874db7b2c624eac3bfb3f307c6f2645 arc614x376 w140 us1

Such a move was reached at by the Ministry’s Permanent Secretary, Prof Elisante Ole Gabriel during a stakeholders’ meeting on the draft of the Electronic and Postal Communications content regulations of 2017 and the Online Content Regulations in Dar es Salaam, yesterday.

Visit Best Buy

According to Prof Gabriel technology is growing too fast and its advancement is taking the world to an undefined place which requires preparedness. “As a nation, if we do not devise regulations and laws that will govern the sector, then its tantamount to moving on the wrong side of the road.

It is the obligation of the Ministry to put in place regulations that will set a good vision in the management and supervision of the information sector,” said Prof Gabriel. He observed that the contribution of key stakeholders is vital in coming up with regulations.

“We should have reliable systems that will supervise our local content and this will only be realized by focusing on the interest of the entire nation. There is no freedom without boundaries… the government respects the profession, therefore we should avoid producing content that may harm or disrupt the peace and privacy of others,” noted the PS.

He further cautioned the media to be very sensitive with the nature of content being fed to the public. The media should know that news can be dangerous than a nuclear bomb.

The Ministry’s Legal Officer, Mr Evod Kyando high lighted on some of the issues that have been emphasized on the Electronic and Postal Communications including the need to consider challenged persons and protection of children.

He pointed out that content of education nature should not be less than two percent, where as music that is being aired out by the stations should not be less than 80 percent.

“Among other issues include content of sexual nature being broadcast from 10pm onwards … at times programmes have been aired live without notifying viewers,” said Mr Kyando.

Source : Tanzania Daily News(Dar  es Salaam)

About Behaviour               About Values            About Attitude

Africa: Child Sex Traffickers Turn to Rural Areas, Internet for Business

Bogota — Working undercover in bars and brothels across Southeast Asia to combat child sex slavery, campaigner Kevin Campbell has posed many times as a tourist looking to buy sex with a girl.

00360623 396bb26a3b486b4e15323de0466d6cb1 arc614x376 w285 us1

But these days, Campbell, who works for the anti-trafficking group The Exodus Road, says it is far less common to see young girls for sale in sex tourism hotspots in cities, as child sex traffickers turn to out-of-the-way places – and the internet.

Visit Best Buy

“Three or four years ago I could walk into…sex tourism areas and you could see girls that were 14, 15 years old very easily,” said Campbell, vice president of global operations at U.S.-based The Exodus Road, which helps local authorities rescue children sold into forced prostitution.

“But now you are not going to find that. You will find maybe 17-year-olds, 18-year-olds … where we do still see very young girls being sold are in rural areas,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

He said traffickers operate in suburbs or small towns and villages, “where they feel they can operate with impunity because the national police aren’t as active there.”

Human trafficking is the world’s fastest growing criminal enterprise worth an estimated $150 billion a year.

More than 40 million people are trapped in modern slavery, according to new estimates by the International Labour Organization, human rights group Walk Free Foundation, and International Organization for Migration.


In Latin America, women and girls trafficked into sexual exploitation is the most common form of trafficking.

Campbell said Venezuelan women and girls are increasingly at risk of falling prey to traffickers looking to exploit poverty as tens of thousands head to neighbouring Colombia and Brazil to escape a humanitarian and political crisis at home.

“There’s a market right now for victims that is very enticing to traffickers,” said Campbell, adding Venezuelan women are being trafficked within Latin America and beyond.

“Traffickers are experts in exploiting the vulnerabilities of marginalised people. They are really adept at manipulating the desperation of the poor.”

Campbell trains people to work undercover and raid places where children are sold for sex, from bars and brothels to hotels and squares, to identify victims and gather evidence.

Typically evidence includes video footage taken with hidden cameras of children being sold that can be used by police to rescue them and put sex traffickers behind bars, he said.

For the past five years, The Exodus Road has worked mainly in Southeast Asia and India but recently moved into Latin America, a region known as a hub for online child porn, Campbell said.

The charity has trained five local investigators who are working undercover and in cyber forensics, he said.

Some of the techniques being used to crack child porn rings and identify victims include technology to decode encrypted files and data scrapping, which can pull information off the internet on traffickers.

“And then there’s just the pornography side, the live streaming of child rape and so you can have tens of thousands of men logging in and watching these things take place,” he said.

“There is an issue in Latin America where it’s kind of a hub for a lot of the trafficking and recruiting of young, young children and the live streaming is done from Latin America.”

He said traffickers are increasingly distributing child pornography and selling children via instant encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp, social networks such as Facebook, and sites on the dark web that can allow users to remain anonymous.

“It’s certainly is safer for the trafficker to sell online,” Campbell said.

Source : Thomas Reuters Foundation

Should “hate speech” be free?


Recent events in the US have not only shown clearly the disturbing levels of hatred espoused by those following neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideologies, but they have also shown the power of challenging such views, and highlighted the issues around ‘hate speech’ and freedom of expression. 

Our latest Q&A looks at how to challenge hateful and discriminatory expression, while protecting free expression and promoting equality.


Can the right to freedom of speech be limited? If so, what limits are allowed?

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right – crucial not only to how we express and exchange ideas – but to the very functioning of democracies. It is how we learn what our governments are doing, and how we exercise dissent and demand accountability.

Because freedom of speech is so important, any limits on it have to be exceptional, clearly defined, and justified. International human rights law doesn’t just draw a line around what can and cannot be said, but sets out strict criteria which States must adhere to in order to justify any measures they take to restrict speech.

These requirements are often called “the three-part test”. Any restriction must be:

  1.  Clearly set out in an accessible law;
  2. Pursue one of a few narrowly defined objectives (such as protecting the rights of others, for public order or national security); and
  3. Be necessary and proportionate in a democratic society.

Within this, for example, direct threats of violence may be prohibited in order to protect public order.

Similar limitations apply to the freedom to peacefully assemble. It is permissible, for example, for a government to prohibit the carrying of weapons during an assembly, to both ensure public order and the rights of others to peacefully engage in proximate counter-protests.

At the same time, international human rights law recognises that certain categories of speech can be so harmful that prohibitions may be mandatory. This includes, for example, the advocacy of discriminatory hatred to incite discrimination or violence. Assemblies that have incitement as their aim may similarly be restricted.

However, limiting speech solely because it is critical of the government, or because some people find it offensive, is never justified.

What is the definition of ‘intolerance’ and ‘hate speech’?

There are no universally agreed legal definitions of “intolerance” or “hate speech”.

“Intolerance” and “hate speech” are very broad terms – they can be used to describe any discriminatory expression that denies the humanity of others or incites harm against a particular group. Such speech undeniably has a negative impact on societies, in particular for minority and marginalised groups.

International human rights law is clear that expression cannot be limited solely on the basis that it is offensive or insulting, and this includes speech that may be hateful. However, governments are required to limit speech where it is so clearly dangerous that limitations are the only way to prevent serious harms from occurring. These types of speech may be understood as the most severe forms of “intolerance” or “hatred”, namely the advocacy of discriminatory hatred, intended and likely to incite violence or discrimination. Restricting direct threats of discriminatory violence, may similarly be restricted.

Generally speaking, national governments define these terms in their own laws, which is why approaches vary so greatly between countries. Confusion has led to many laws being enacted that do not comply with international human rights law.

ARTICLE 19 observes two main problems with “hate speech” laws as governments define them. On the one hand, we see powerful individuals inciting or threatening violence with impunity where they should be held accountable. On the other hand, we commonly see these laws abused to target legitimate dissent in many parts of the world, when such speech should be protected.

If racists aren’t allowed to speak freely, how can societies fight back against their ideologies? Is it better to allow them to speak out so that their ideas can be challenged?

Yes – ARTICLE 19 believes that more, counter speech is definitely the best response to “hate speech.”

Since hatred is rooted in fear and in ignorance, and peddled through propaganda and disinformation, it is only by countering this with solidarity for the oppressed and with informed and accurate argument, that equality and justice can win out.

But this isn’t the only reason. Before rushing to advocate greater controls on expression, we should consider the unintended consequences of giving the government too much power to control what we can and cannot say. It is only in the most extreme cases, where a person intends to incite harm and that harm is likely to occur, that limiting speech may be necessary.

Once censorship powers broader than this are created, they are difficult to roll back and can easily get into the wrong hands. For example, a racist demagogue could rise to power and turn these laws against advocates for equality and justice. It is then easier for them to entrench their power to see off any form of opposition, and commit other human rights violations.

Even where only the most serious forms of “hate speech” are prosecuted, censorship can prove ineffective at addressing the root causes of hatred and counter-productive to the aim of promoting inclusion and equality. There is little evidence that censorship, in particular criminal prosecutions, changes hearts and minds, whereas education, combined with a range of positive measures seeking to break down barriers between groups does. Rather, censorship may be used by hate-mongers to feed their paranoid conspiracy theories as their movements go underground, while prosecutions may elevate racists from the fringe to greater prominence by turning them into martyrs for their “cause”.

It is important to remember that the true cause of racists and fascists is not “freedom of speech”, no matter how often they might claim that it is.

Fascists are often the first to respond with violence to their ideas being challenged, and when in power to react to dissent with censorship. The weakness of their arguments is why in Charlottesville they brought guns and other weapons to a battle of ideas; the intimidatory tactic these groups trade in is censorship, not free speech. Free speech has never meant an obligation for one group to acquiesce to ideas another imposes by force, in particular where that means staying passive in the face of bigotry and hate. Free speech requires one to expect that when one’s ideas are vile, others will shout back louder and with greater moral force and clarity and win the argument.

It is incumbent on all people, but most importantly political leaders and other influential figures, to firmly denounce racism and hatred, and speak out for those who are oppressed and marginalised. It is entirely coherent to do this while defending free speech.

What is the role of a free press when it comes to supremacist demonstrations? Should journalists provide an equal platform to let everyone defend their ideas?

The media are among those who have a special responsibility to ensure the public is informed on matters of current affairs, and to use their privileged position in the information landscape to challenge discrimination and promote equality. In order to play this role, the press needs to be free and able to operate independently in an environment that favours the development of pluralistic and diverse media landscapes.

It is not the role or obligation of a journalist to simply convey all views they encounter, for example by giving an uninterrupted platform for persons to advocate hatred without challenge. At the same time, issues around racism and other forms of discrimination are clearly matters that are in the public interest to be openly debated, and which the public has a right to know about.

Journalism is a profession that is informed by robust rules of ethics. Professional standards guide journalists on how to approach difficult questions around racism and incitement to violence in the course of reporting on current events.

Journalists must not become passive intermediaries. They have a role to play in avoiding drawing false equivalencies between opposing views; they should inform the public where one side of an argument is based on deliberate lies, and when another is based in evidence and experience. They ought therefore play an active role in determining that the public receives timely and accurate information on matters in the public interest. It requires determining whether a hateful viewpoint is newsworthy at all, and whether covering such fringe groups risks elevating their status. If it is newsworthy, it means ensuring that when proponents of hate spout lies, that these are contested with facts (there can be no “alternative facts”), and that when hateful stereotypes are peddled, they are countered with the voices of marginalized groups whom the hatemongers seek to disparage.

Unfortunately, this is too often not the reality. Sensationalism is often favoured over accuracy and impartiality, and marginalized groups are widely denied any meaningful opportunity to speak for themselves on outlets with the largest audiences. This can often be a product of a media sector lacking diversity, media ownership being monopolized or concentrated among a privileged few, and increasing economic strains in a changing media landscape. This is why it is important that governments support independent media, and promote policies that promote pluralism and equality in the media sector.

Lastly, in the digital age we are all more easily publishers of content if we chose to be, and can in our own ways fulfill the function of journalists through the various social media and blogging platforms we use. We should therefore all become more active as consumers and producers in the media landscape, and recognize our own responsibilities to challenge hatred wherever it exists and promote equality.

Source : Article 19

China Tells Women to ‘Go Home and Live Well’

Beijing Urging Women to Quit Their Jobs, Focus on Family

Sophie Richardson

China Director

On August 21, Chinese women’s rights activist Wu Rongrong went to a police station in Shanxi province to check on her application for a travel permit to Hong Kong, where she has been accepted to graduate school. Police denied her application because Wu—one of the “Feminist Five”—was detained in March 2015 for her role in a campaign against sexual harassment. Adding insult to injury, an officer told her, “Don’t continue to go to school. What’s the point? Go home and live well.”

Poster hung in the Beijing marriage registration office reading, “Being a good housewife and good mother are women’s biggest achievements.”

© screenshot from Weibo

Despite claims to gender equality, Chinese authorities are sending that same “go home” message to women across the country. Continue reading……

US: Trump Threatening to Expel ‘Dreamers’

Repealing DACA Would Harm Thousands With Close US Ties

201708us_daca_presserA woman carries a sign supporting immigrants during a rally demanding the Trump administration protect the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in Washington, U.S., August 15, 2017

© 2017 Reuters

(Washington, DC) – US President Donald Trump’s threatened repeal of a program protecting from deportation immigrants who arrived in the United States as children would harm hundreds of thousands of people with strong ties to the US, Human Rights Watch said today. Based on media reports, Trump would protect the “Dreamers,” those protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in exchange for congressional support for the RAISE Act, which would drastically reduce legal immigration to the US, as well as increased funding for the border wall and detention centers.

“Trump’s repeal of DACA would expose hundreds of thousands of people to deportation by a cruel and unjust immigration system that fails to take into account their deep ties to the US,” said Jasmine L. Tyler, US advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “Using the ‘Dreamers’ as political pawns for drastic cuts in legal immigration and increased detention undercuts Trump’s promise to treat them ‘with heart.’”

The Obama administration created the DACA program in 2012, in response to repeated failures by Congress to create a permanent path to legal status for people who came to the US as children. Many have lived in the US almost their entire lives, have gone to school here, and have US citizen spouses and children. Typically, the US is the only country they consider home. Over 750,000 have received DACA status and an estimated 1.1 million are eligible. Continue reading…….


No Way to Treat Children Fleeing Danger

Published in Harvard International Review

Michael Garcia Bochenek

Senior Counsel, Children’s Rights Division


Refugee children take part in a protest in March 2015 against their resettlement on Nauru and living conditions on the island.

© 2016 Private

Migrant children might soon be separated from their parents as a matter of course when families enter the United States irregularly, Homeland Security  Secretary John Kelly told CNN in early March. Under the proposal, which another Homeland Security official described as among the options the department is considering to discourage(others)from even beginning the journey”,separated parents would be detained in jail-like facilities while children would be placed in foster homes or shelters for children. Read more……

Missing Burundi Journalist Yet to Be Found

Missing journalist,  Jean Bigirimana has been missing since  22 July, 2016 and there has not been any evidence that he is dead.


His colleagues in Iwacu Press Group, recently marked the first anniversary of his disappearance.

Bigirimana’s wife and children are worried, they are at a lose as to what has happened to their breadwinner. Read more…..

Activist who accused Bahrain security forces of sexual assault is rearrested

A  prominent human Rights Activist,Ebtial-Saegh has been arrested and  detained by Security agents in Bharain for tweeting remarks considered  to be attacks on the   kingdom’s ruler and security forces.


However, the activist is accusing the members of the security agency of sexually assaulting her. Read more……

Visit Marley Spoon



Mexico: Investigate state wrongdoings, not watchdogs



ARTICLE 19 is extremely concerned about yesterday’s statement by the President of Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto, in relation to recent revelations documented by ARTICLE 19 Mexico and partners on the use of surveillance technology against journalists, victims of human rights violations and human rights defenders in Mexico. In his statement, the President asserted that the state prosecutor should launch an investigation of those who have raised “false accusations.” Read more….