#icescr

[twitterexile]

[chaotic-carnifex]

What they (you know who) think “food is a human right” means: empty buzzwords, basically communism, you can’t just give people things, you have no right to other people’s labour, so you can’t force us to give anyone anything, that’d be slavery, you’re trying to oppress us!!!

What “food is a human right” actually means:

(credit to Wikipedia user Gulpen)

[chaotic-carnifex]

Some USAmerican who's never left their country: "libtards acting like food and healthcare are human rights smh"

People from the 164 countries that ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including article 11: "is your country okay??"

[sevics]

Article 17 of the #UDHR states: Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of hisproperty. This makes me wonder the legitimacy of the Land Use Act Decree or the proposed Cattle colonies in Nigeria. Does the government have the right to grab lands of indigenous peoples against their collective wish? #standupforhumanrights #icescr #sevicsng #sevics

[sevics]

Access to Water and Sanitation is a human rights. 4 500 Children die every day from illnesses caused by drinking unsafe water. #udhr #icescr #sevicsng #sevics #standupforhumanrights Photo credit: @glamour_snipes_photography @chiommy_chocolate

[meistrworld]

Junior minister suggests world ‘realities’ mean government attacks on rights are likely to continue

Junior minister suggests world ‘realities’ mean government attacks on rights are likely to continue

Any cherished hope that the government could embrace the opportunity of doing something positive for disabled people seems misplaced.

This came to light when a justice minister effectively dismissed calls for government action. That is, action to do more to protect the social and economic rights of disabled people and others.

Dr Phillip Lee.

The hard truth was revealed by a junior justice…

View On WordPress

[hongkongfp]

City of broken promises: Is self-determination the only way left for Hong Kong?

https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/10/22/city-broken-promises-self-determination-way-left-hong-kong/

[thespaghettibowl]

In Billy Bragg’s The Internationale the first verse reads as follows:

Stand up all victims of oppression For the tyrants fear your might Don't cling so hard to your possessions For you have nothing if you have no rights Let racist ignorance be ended For respect makes the empires fall Freedom is merely privilege extended Unless enjoyed by one and all

The Internationale has obvious communistic roots, and the line ‘don’t cling so hard to your possessions’ belie this. But the theme of the Billy Bragg’s version is not so ideologically confined. His talk of oppression, rights, and freedom are all themes that I feel Economic, Social and Cultural rights seek to address too. For obvious reasons, these rights were the subject of fierce ideological debates between the USSR and American (and their respective allies). The story of the song is essentially redistributive, and it speaks to the disutility of freedom without equality. 

In my work as an electorate officer for a Federal Member of Parliament, I speak to many constituents who are concerned or affected by the government's proposed laws and policies. After the budget was announced, I had a call from a constituent regarding the proposed drug testing of welfare recipients.

The Australian government's 2017 budget proposed to introduce a drug testing programme for welfare recipients. The programme intends to test 5,000 randomly selected recipients of Newstart and Youth Allowance payments for cannabis, methamphetamine, and ecstasy. A recipient who fails the test once will be placed on a cashless welfare card (which limits the use of the money to specified purchases). A person who fails the test more than once would be referred for medical assessment and possible treatment (not provided by the government). A penalty applies to recipients who refuse to submit to drug testing. This is in addition to introducing a demerit points system for recipients who fail to meet mutual obligation requirements, the highest penalty of which is cancellation of payment and a four week exclusion from reapplying. (It is in effect less of a demerit points system but graduated penalty system.)

The constituent told me about her son who had suffered from substance misuse problems in the past. She explained to me that if her son had not had access to welfare, he would have found it harder to treat his problem, struggled to support himself at all, and it likely would have pushed him into committing other crimes. She was distraught as to the possible effects the measures would have on others in a similar disadvantaged position; especially that it criminalised and stigmatised individuals so harshly. I told the constituent that I full-heartedly agreed with her, not something I often get to say in my job. My concern with the proposals is that it criminalises and punishes people on welfare, and those with substance misuse issues, rather than taking any restorative, rehabilitative, or preventative steps to tackle the causes and consequences of the issue. It is a law and order response to what is rather an issue of poverty and disadvantage.

I noticed that I did not think about the proposals in human rights terms, and the constituent definitely did not talk about the issue in this way either. But it is quite easy to discuss them as a human rights problem. The use of a cashless welfare card limits a person’s autonomy by restricting their liberty to use their money for the purchases they choose (contra the statement in art 1(2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)). It  also has implications for equality before the law; use and possession of illicit substances is illegal for all individuals, but welfare recipients are targeted by these programmes and subject to special regulation above everyone else. They are treated with prima facie suspicion of committing a crime, and subject to invasive tests that interfere with their privacy and bodily integrity. The triggering factor for the interference with their rights are that they are disadvantaged enough to receive welfare payments and are exercising their right to access social security payments. Importantly, receiving welfare is not a crime but rather, an internationally recognised human right. 

The right to social security is recognised in Article 9 of ICESCR. ICESCR also recognises inter alia the rights to health (art 12), education (arts 13 and 14), and housing (art 11). The preamble to ICESCR states that material conditions promoting its expounded rights are essential for achieving the ideal of free human beings who enjoy freedom from fear and want. The preamble also recognises the social duties individuals have to one another and their community in promoting these rights. It is essentially an idealistic and aspirational document in the sense that it sets forth and promotes an image of humanity whereby people have the material conditions to support their self determination and full enjoyment and exercise of their rights. Social security, healthcare, education, and housing all intend to alleviate suffering and poverty and to empower the disadvantaged to greater self fulfilment. It could be said that there is a socially democratic, and redistributive emphasis behind ICESCR that encourages states to direct resources towards these ends in recognition of the barriers to exercising rights and protection of human dignity.  Further, because states have an obligation to individuals and the community, it is beholden on them to introduce poverty alleviating measures. In essence, poverty is the responsibility of everyone, and governments are beholden to take measures to address it. 

While ICESCR recognises that these measures can be progressively realised and subject to resource limitations (art 2(1)), it is not open to states to indefinitely put off attempting to fulfil its freely assumed obligations under the treaty. In the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ Third General Comment, the Committee noted that progressive realisation did not mean that state parties did not need to take steps towards full realisation. The Committee also stated that ICESCR ‘imposes an obligation to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible’, and any ‘retrogressive measures in that regard would require the most careful consideration and would need to be fully justified by reference to the totality of the rights’.

Further, art 4 of ICESCR states that any limit on such rights must be lawful, compatible with the nature of the rights, and ‘solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society’. By implementing the proposed measures, the Australian government would have to pass them into law (it likely intends to do so). However it is hard to see how they could be in keeping with the nature of ICESCR rights to limit access to welfare generally. The government could argue that it intends to target criminals who take drugs, and reducing the incidence of which would promote the general welfare. But it is hard to see how the measures would promote general welfare overall and could be justified with reference to the totality of rights. They introduce a penalty system, reduce the availability of an essential safety net for the nation's most disadvantaged, potentially increase the incidence of crime (by depriving legal access to money and incentivising illegitimate ways to get money such as theft), and criminalise people with substance abuse issues (with all the stigma that goes with it). A more comprehensive, rights focus would aim to increase access to healthcare and be slower to deny a person's social security, perhaps at the very least, guarantee substance misuse treatment programs for people who fail tests. 

Department of Social Services, ‘Welfare Reform: 2017 Budget’, Factsheet, May 2017 <https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2017/budget_2017_-_welfare_reform_-_fact_sheet_for_web_0.pdf>.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, GA Res 2200A (XXI), 16 December 1966 (entered into force 3 January 1976) <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx>.

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General comment No. 3:  The nature of States parties’ obligations (art. 2, para. 1, of the Covenant), Fifth Sess, 1990.

Rashida Yosufzai, ‘Budget 2017: Welfare recipients to be drug tested’ SBS News (online), 10 May 2017 <http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/05/09/budget-2017-welfare-recipients-be-drug-tested>.

Josh Butler, ‘Here's How The Welfare Drug Tests Will Work’, Huffington Post (online), 10 May 2017 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/05/10/heres-how-the-welfare-drug-tests-will-work_a_22078785/>.

Hon Christian Porter, Social Services Minister, ‘A fairer welfare system that supports more people into work’, Media Release, 9 May 2017  <http://christianporter.dss.gov.au/media-releases/a-fairer-welfare-system-that-supports-more-people-into-work>