Podcasts about international covenant

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - अस्ट्रेलिया ‘इन्टरनेशनल कोवेनेन्ट अन सिभिल एण्ड पोलिटिकल राइट्स' भनिने नागरिक र राजनीतिक अधिकार सम्बन्धी अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय सम्झौतामा रहेको देश हो। यो सम्झौताले हरेक मानिसलाई सुरक्षित रूपमा आफ्नो धर्म मान्ने स्वतन्त्रता दिन्छ। तर विभिन्न स्थानहरूमा यो सम्झौताको कानुनी रूपमा फरक-फरक हुन सक्छ। यदि तपाईँले पनि काममा धार्मिक भेदभावको अनुभव गर्नुभएको छ र उजुरी दिने वा कानुनी रूपमा मुद्दा चलाउने विचार गर्नुभएको छ भने त्यो भन्दा पहिला के-के गर्न सकिन्छ भनेर जान्न महत्त्वपूर्ण छ।

For the past nine years, Hans-Peter Plag has taken on the perspective of an alien ecologist coming to Earth. And when he looks at Earth, he sees a crisis of overgrowth. Humans, he says, have become a virus. If we don't learn to do more with less, he fears that we will irreparably disrupt the planetary system that keeps us alive. And: America is one of the largest donors to global humanitarian aid. But the sheer size and red tape involved in the emergency response can inadvertently undermine the goal to help people in need. Daniel Beers says there's a global movement towards working more with local organizations where these humanitarian crises happen because the people closest to the crisis are uniquely aware of how to create efficient solutions. Later in the show: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows states to suspend certain rights during emergencies, but only if necessary. Evan Criddle says that in the past 25 years, American presidents have invoked emergency powers with increasing frequency. And those measures have been deeply controversial. Plus: It's reassuring to know that wherever we are across the country, we can rely on a warm and comforting voice to get us the help we need just by dialing 9-1-1. Liz Ellcessor says that 9-1-1 is an intricate national media network of hyperlocal dispatch centers.

With guests Andy Anderson and Leah Gunn Barratt of Respect Scottish Sovereignty we take a closer look at the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR) and what incorporation of these rights into Scots Law could mean to the Scottish people. Key themes include: 00:01:00  Overview of Human Rights legislation 00:03:30  Why should we incorporate ICCPR? 00:06:00   Petition before the Scottish Parliament 00:08:50   Example - Switzerland 00:10:30   Example - Taiwan 00:13:15   Example - South Korea 00:16:30   Scottish Referendums Act 2020 00:19:14   Popular initiatives 00:25:27    UK Supreme Court 00:27:48    So what could Scotland do differently? 00:32:41    Does Article 1 apply to Scotland? 00:44:27    UN Convention of the Rights of a Child (UNCRC) 00:49:21    People power! 00:52:51    Our Conclusions Previous episodes mentioned in this one: Respect Scottish Sovereignty https://scottishindypod.scot/grassroots-indy-campaign/respect-scottish-sovereignty/ Building a Local Scotland https://scottishindypod.scot/all-scottish-independence-podcasts-episodes/building-a-local-scotland/ Petition 2135 https://www.parliament.scot/get-involved/petitions/view-petitions/pe2135-implement-the-international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights Websites mentioned: Respect Scottish Sovereignty https://respectscottishsovereignty.scot/ Scottish Human rights Commission https://www.scottishhumanrights.com/ Case study South Korea https://europeandemocracyhub.epd.eu/exploring-worldwide-democratic-innovations-south-korea/ Case study Taiwan https://europeandemocracyhub.epd.eu/exploring-worldwide-democratic-innovations-taiwan/ Lord Reed on why the Supreme Court matters to Scotland #ICCPR #sovereignty #scottish The Scottish Independence Podcasts team produce a NEW podcast episode every Friday search for Scottish Independence Podcasts wherever you get your podcasts.  Remember to like and subscribe! Contact Us: indypodcasters@gmail.com  Visit our website https://scottishindypod.scot for blogposts, newsletter signup and more episodes Subscribe for free to our Youtube channel @scottishindypodExtra for more of our video footage and clips.  video premieres most Tuesdays at 8pm If you've enjoyed this podcast you might like to buy us a coffee?  https://ko-fi.com/scottishindependencepodcasts or choose us as your Easyfundraising good cause. Music: Inspired by Kevin MacLeod  

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental legal principle in many legal systems, including the United States, designed to protect the rights and interests of individuals accused of a crime. Here is a full summary of what the right to a speedy trial means:Legal Right: The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional or statutory right granted to individuals facing criminal charges. In the United States, it is protected by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.Timely Adjudication: It guarantees that a defendant has the right to have their case adjudicated in a timely and expeditious manner. This means that the legal process should move forward promptly from the time of arrest to trial.Reasonable Timeframe: While the exact definition of a "speedy" trial can vary from one jurisdiction to another, it generally implies that the accused should not have to endure unnecessary delays in the criminal justice process.Purpose: The primary purpose of this right is to prevent injustices that may arise from prolonged pretrial detention or the delay in bringing a case to trial. It helps ensure that a person is not held in jail for an extended period without facing formal charges and trial.Balancing Act: Courts must strike a balance between the defendant's right to a speedy trial and the state's interest in conducting a thorough and fair trial. This may involve considering factors like the complexity of the case, the availability of witnesses, and the reasons for any delays.Dismissal as a Remedy: If the right to a speedy trial is violated, it can lead to the dismissal of the charges against the defendant. This serves as a deterrent against prosecutorial and judicial misconduct that might unnecessarily delay a trial.Factors Considered: Courts typically consider several factors in determining whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial has been violated. These factors may include the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of their right, and any prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the delay.Waiver: In some cases, a defendant may choose to waive their right to a speedy trial if they believe it's in their best interest to delay the proceedings for strategic reasons, such as giving their legal team more time to prepare.International Context: The right to a speedy trial is recognized not only in the United States but also in international human rights law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These documents emphasize the importance of a fair and timely trial.Importance: Ensuring a speedy trial is crucial for safeguarding the rights of the accused, preventing unnecessary incarceration, and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.(commercial at 7:57)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Kohberger Idaho murder trial not expected until at least 2024 | Idaho Statesman

Children trying to seek refuge in Australia have been detained on Nauru. They argue that Australia is still responsible for them.Australia made a carefully worded agreement with Nauru to avoid responsibility. If Australia has no responsibility, Australia says it is not obliged to ensure the human rights of these children. Um, okay, weird flex about not protecting literal human children, Australia.The UN Human Rights Committee has found that Australia is responsible, and breached Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. To read the decision, click here: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F142%2FD%2F2749%2F2016&Lang=enEuphemisms are very fun. Unaccompanied minor = child, all alone with no parent or guardian

What does the phrase, “education should be a right, not a privilege” mean to you? If you believe that access to education is not a privilege, but a right as is the human rights law guarantees, then, why are  61 million children not in school, and most of them girls? Educating children no matter where they are is one of the biggest factors toward ending extreme poverty. Education is not a privilege. It is, in fact, a human right. Education as a human right means: the right to education is legally guaranteed for all, without any discrimination; simply, there is an obligation to protect, respect, and fulfill the right to education.  Just to share some background: International human rights law guarantees this right. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights was adopted in 1948, in Article 26: 'everyone has the right to education'. Since then, the right to education has been widely recognized and developed by a number of international normative instruments elaborated by the United Nations, including the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960, CADE), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966, CESCR), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989, CRC). The right to education has also been reaffirmed in other treaties covering specific groups (women and girls, persons with disabilities, migrants, refugees, Indigenous Peoples, etc.) and contexts (education during armed conflicts). It has also been incorporated into various regional treaties and enshrined as a right in the vast majority of national constitutions. What I find so interesting is that, there are laws to protect the right to education although, we are often globally failing to fulfill this right, but there are no laws to protect the kind of education offered. In some cases, as in the U.S. there was an attempt in 2001 with the No Child Left Behind Act, signed into federal law in 2002, aimed at improving primary and secondary education which in many cases reduced rich curricula into rote standards where schools were evaluated. This changed slightly in 2015 where states had more leeway in determining their evaluative criteria, but it certainly didn't address the issue of quality. There still remains a huge divide in the US with the quality of education. We know girls suffer more statistically in terms of their access to learning that aids in their potential to both better themselves and their communities. I have always believed that it is far better to have an educated society as it creates good competition and offers the likelihood that individuals will be self-sustaining and will then improve the larger collective. Girls DO MATTER and that became the charge of an incredible organization, Girls Matter as well as a friendship between the three Founders Melissa Deally, Malcolm Trevena and Megin Alverez that brought that dream to reality in 2017. Girls Matter, celebrates girls by increasing their access which includes financial support to high school and post secondary education in developing countries; their vision is to support the education of girls in these countries which will in turn, increase the respect, visibility, and equality for girls in their communities. Their 3 key program areas: Educate girls to complete high school. In select cases, consider educating girls to complete University. Support girls to attend classes all year long, by providing menstrual pads (currently they regularly miss 1 week of classes per month without this support). Through education, reduce the number of teenage marriages & teenage Moms A child born to a literate mother is 50% more likely to survive past the age of five. Educated mothers are more than twice as likely to send their children to school, ensuring that her own girls are educated, creating a positive ripple effect for generations to come A girl with an extra year of education can earn 20% more as an adult. Educating Girls Will Break the Poverty Cycle! As a recipient,  Evelyn Kawola who graduated from fashion & design school shared: “Your support has pushed me to another level, I can see my future is going to be good. Girls Matter has really changed my life, taking me from being illiterate to literate.” Their holistic approach supports the girls and their communities in both Uganda and Kenya:  Their motto is: Breaking the Poverty Cycle 1 Girl, 1 Family, 1 Village at a time! In developing countries, education comes at a cost. Families are caught in a quandary, torn between investing in schooling and affording essential needs. When affording necessities becomes a challenge, daughters are often married off, passing the responsibility of feeding them to a man they don't know or love. In a single year, an estimated 150 million girls are victims of sexual violence. 14 million girls under 18 will be married this year, 38 thousand today; 13 girls in the last 30 secondThe #1 cause of death for girls 15-19 is childbirth. For more information, check out their website: https://girlsmatter.ca/      

Menschenrechtliche Diskurse drehen sich oft primär um die sogenannten politischen und bürgerlichen Rechte: Meinungsfreiheit, Religionsfreiheit und Privatsphärenschutz stehen (primär) als Abwehrrechte für die Begrenzung staatlicher Gewalt. Insbesondere im internationalen Menschenrechtsschutz sind darüber hinaus aber auch wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte fest etabliert. Erik Tuchtfeld spricht in dieser Folge mit Ibrahim Kanalan über die Kritik an ihrer Rechtsqualität, ihre Einklagbarkeit und ihre Wirkung im nationalen Recht. Im Grundlagenteil stellt Isabel Lischewski den Internationalen Pakt über wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte (UN-Sozialpakt) vor und erklärt, dass auch gegen europäische Länder immer wieder erfolgreiche Individualbeschwerden vorgebracht werden. Wir freuen uns über jede Rückmeldung! Wie immer sind natürlich Lob, Anmerkungen und Kritik auch an podcast@voelkerrechtsblog.org herzlich willkommen. Abonniert unseren Podcast via RSS, über Spotify oder überall dort, wo es Podcasts gibt. Es gibt die Möglichkeit, auf diesen Plattformen den Völkerrechtspodcast zu bewerten, wir freuen uns sehr über 5 Sterne!   Hintergrundinformationen: Kanalan, Die universelle Durchsetzung des Rechts auf Nahrung gegen transnationale Unternehmen, 2015. Pinto, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in: United Nations: Audiovisual Library of International Law, 2020. Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte, Internationaler Pakt über wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Rechte Djazia/Bellili v. Spain (Right to Adequate Housing), Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Views adopted under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights with regard to communication No. 5/2015, UN Doc: E/C.12/61/D/5/2015.   Moderation: Erik Tuchtfeld, LL.M (Glasgow) & Philipp EschenhagenGrundlagen: Dr. Isabel LischewskiInterview: PD Dr. iur. Ibrahim Kanalan & Erik Tuchtfeld, LL.M (Glasgow) Schnitt: Daniela Rau   Credits: Stephan Harbarth, Urteilsverkündung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, tagesschau: 20:00 Uhr, 05.11.2019

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - ඔස්ට්‍රේලියාව ආගමික නිදහස සඳහා පුළුල් ආරක්ෂාවක් සපයන සිවිල් සහ දේශපාලන අයිතිවාසිකම් පිළිබඳ ජාත්‍යන්තර සම්මුතියේ පාර්ශවකරුවෙකි. කෙසේ නමුත්, නිශ්චිත නීතිමය ආරක්ෂාවන් විවිධ ප්‍රාන්ත සහ විවිධ අධිකරණ බල සීමා අනුව වෙනස් වේ. ඔබ රැකියාවේදී ආගම මත පදනම්ව වෙනස්කම්වලට මුහුණ දී ඇත්නම්, ඔබ පැමිණිල්ලක් ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමට හෝ ඒ පිළිබඳව උසාවියට යාමට බලාපොරොත්තු වනවා නම් ඔබේ විකල්පයන් දැන ගැනීම වැදගත් වේ.

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - አውስትራሊያ ለሃይማኖት ነፃነት መጠነ ሰፊ ጥበቃዎችን የሚቸረው የዓለም አቀፍ ሲቪልና ፖለቲካዊ መብቶች ውል ፈራሚ ናት። ይሁንና፤ የተወሰኑ ድንጋጌያዊ ጥበቃዎች እንደ ስልጣነ ግዛቱ ይለያይሉ። በመሥሪያ ቤትዎ ሃይማኖታዊ መድልዖ ደርሶብዎት ከሆነ፤ አማራጮችዎን ማወቁ ጠቃሚ ነው። ቅሬታ ማቅረብ ወይም ጉዳዩን ፍርድ ቤት ዘንድ ማቅረብ ይሹ እንደሁ።

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - د آسټراليا د بېلابېلو قضايي حوزو په کارځايونو کې د مذهبي تبعیض ضد قوانين توپير لري. د آسټرالیا پېژندنې په دغه رپوټ کې د مذهبي تبعیض په اړه مهم معلومات اورېدلی شئ.

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - 호주는 종교 표현의 자유를 포함해 광범위한 보호법을 제공하는 시민적 정치적 권리(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)에 관한 국제 규약 당사국이다. 그러나 종교차별금지법 제정을 위한 절차는 여전히 진행 중이다. 그러므로 직장 내 종교적 차별을 경험하고 있을 경우 불만을 제기하거나 법적 소송을 진행하는 등 어떤 대처법이 있는 지 알아놓는 것은 중요한 일이다.

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - သြစတြေးလျသည် ဘာသာရေးလွတ်လပ်ခွင့်ကို ကျယ်ကျယ်ပြန့်ပြန့် အကာအကွယ်ပေးသည့် နိုင်ငံသားနှင့် နိုင်ငံရေးအခွင့်အရေးများဆိုင်ရာ နိုင်ငံတကာပဋိညာဉ်တွင် ပါဝင်သည့်အဖွဲ့ဖြစ်သည်။ သို့ရာတွင်၊ သီးခြားဥပဒေပြုထားသော အကာအကွယ်များသည် တရားစီရင်ပိုင်ခွင့်များအလိုက် ကွဲပြားသည်။ လုပ်ငန်းခွင်တွင် ဘာသာရေးအရ ခွဲခြားဆက်ဆံမှုများ ကြုံဖူးပါက၊ တိုင်ကြားချက် တစ်ခု တင်ပြရန် သို့မဟုတ် တရားရုံးတွင် အမှုဖွင့်ရန် စဉ်းစားနေသည်ဖြစ်စေ သင့်ရွေးချယ်ခွင့်များ ကို သိရှိရန် အရေးကြီးပါသည်။

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - នៅប្រទេសអូស្ត្រាលី ច្បាប់ប្រឆាំងនឹងការរើសអើងនៅកន្លែងធ្វើការផ្អែកលើសាសនា ប្រែប្រួលតាមរដ្ឋនិងដែនដីនិមួយៗ។ ក្នុងករណីខ្លះ វាក៏អាចមានហេតុផលស្របច្បាប់សម្រាប់ការរឹតត្បិតសេរីភាពរបស់បុគ្គលិកកម្មករ ក្នុងការអនុវត្តសាសនារបស់ពួកគេដូចគ្នាដែរ។ មិនថាជាការពិចារណាដាក់ពាក្យបណ្តឹងទៅអាជ្ញាធរពាក់ព័ន្ធ ឬបន្តប្តឹងរឿងនោះដោយស្របច្បាប់នោះទេ វាជាការសំខាន់ណាស់ដែលត្រូវដឹងពីជម្រើសរបស់អ្នក ប្រសិនបើអ្នកបានជួបប្រទះការរើសអើងសាសនានៅកន្លែងធ្វើការ។

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - ອອສເຕຣເລັຍ ເປັນສ່ວນນຶ່ງ ຂອງສົນທິສັນຍາສາກົນ ວ່າດ້ວຍສິດທິພົນລະເມືອງ ແລະການເມືອງ (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) ຊຶ່ງໃຫ້ການປົກປ້ອງຢ່າງກວ້າງຂວາງຕໍ່ອິດສຣະພາບ ທາງສາສນາ. ເຖິງຢ່າງໃດກໍຕາມ, ການປົກປ້ອງທາງກົດຫມາຍ ສະເພາະ ແມ່ນແຕກຕ່າງກັນ ໃນແຕ່ລະເຂດອຳນາດສານ. ຖ້າຫາກວ່າ ທ່ານໄດ້ປະສົບກັບການເລືອກປະຕິບັດ ທາງສາສນາ ຢູ່ບ່ອນເຮັດວຽກ, ມັນເປັນສິ່ງສໍາຄັນ ທີ່ຈະຮູ້ທາງເລືອກຂອງທ່ານ, ບໍ່ວ່າ ທ່ານຈະພິຈາຣະນາ ທີ່ຈະຍື່ນຄໍາຮ້ອງຮຽນ ຫຼືດຳເນີນການເລື່ອງນີ້ ໃນຂັ້ນສານ.

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - 在澳大利亚，针对基于宗教的工作场所歧视的立法因司法管辖区而异。 在某些情况下，限制工人信奉宗教的自由也可能是合法的。 无论是考虑向相关部门投诉还是通过法律途径解决，如果您在工作中遭遇宗教歧视，了解自己的选择非常重要。

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - ઓસ્ટ્રેલિયાના લોકોને ધાર્મિક સ્વાતંત્ર્ય પ્રાપ્ત થાય છે પરંતુ, દેશના વિવિધ ક્ષેત્રોમાં અલગ - અલગ કાયદાકિય સુરક્ષા અમલમાં છે. જો તમે ઓફિસમાં કે કાર્યસ્થળે ક્યારેય ધાર્મિક ભેદભાવનો અનુભવ કર્યો હોય તો તમે કેવી સહાય મેળવી શકો છો એ વિશે ઓસ્ટ્રેલિયા એક્સપ્લેન્ડના રીપોર્ટમાં જાણો.

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - オーストラリアは市民的及び政治的権利に関する国際規約に加盟しており、信教の自由が広範囲に保護されています。しかし法的な保護は地域によって異なるため、職場で宗教差別を受けた場合、苦情を提出するのか、法廷で問題を追及するのか、自身の選択肢を知っておくことは重要です。

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - กฎหมายเกี่ยวกับการเลือกปฏิบัติเรื่องการนับถือศาสนาในที่ทำงานแตกต่างไปในแต่ละรัฐและมณฑลที่ออสเตรเลีย หากคุณถูกเลือกปฏิบัติทางศาสนาในที่ทำงาน มีหลายวิธีที่คุณจะทำได้ในการร้องเรียนองค์กรหรือดำเนินการทางกฎหมาย

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - Australia adalah anggota dalam Kovenan Internasional tentang Hak Sipil dan Politik, yang memberikan perlindungan ekstensif terhadap kebebasan beragama. Namun, perlindungan undang-undang tertentu bervariasi di seluruh yurisdiksi.

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - অস্ট্রেলিয়ায় বিভিন্ন স্টেট ও টেরিটরিতে কর্মক্ষেত্রে ধর্মের ভিত্তিতে করা বৈষম্য সম্পর্কিত আইন আলাদা হয়ে থাকে। অনেক ক্ষেত্রে কাজের জায়গায় কোনো কর্মীর ধর্ম পালনের অধিকার সীমাবদ্ধ করার বৈধ ভিত্তিও থাকতে পারে। কর্মক্ষেত্রে ধর্মীয় বৈষম্যের শিকার হলে এ সম্পর্কিত অভিযোগ কোনো কর্তৃপক্ষের কাছে উত্থাপনের কথা বিবেচনা করা বা এ-বিষয়ে কোনো আইনী পদক্ষেপ নেওয়ার আগে আপনার অধিকার ও স্থানীয় আইন সম্পর্কে পরিষ্কার ধারণা থাকা জরুরী।

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - ஆஸ்திரேலியாவில், மதத்தின் அடிப்படையில் பணியிட பாகுபாடுகள் காட்டப்படுவதற்கு எதிரான சட்டம் ஒவ்வொரு அதிகார வரம்பிலும் வேறுபடுகிறது. நீங்கள் பணியிடத்தில் மதப் பாகுபாடுகளை அனுபவித்தால், அது தொடர்பில் என்ன நடவடிக்கைகளை மேற்கொள்ளலாம் என்பதைத் தெரிந்துகொள்வது முக்கியம்.

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - استرالیا یکی از اعضای میثاق بین‌المللی حقوق مدنی و سیاسی است؛ میثاقی که حمایت‌های گسترده‌ای از آزادی دینی ارائه می‌کند. با این حال، حمایت‌های قانونی خاص در مناطق مختلف کشور متفاوت است. اگر در محل کار با تبعیض دینی روبرو شده‌اید، شناختن راهکارها اهمیت دارد، چه بخواهید موضوع را به شکل قانونی پیگیری کنید و چه تصمیم دیگری داشته باشید.

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - آسترالیا یکی از طرف‌های میثاق بین‌المللی حقوق مدنی و سیاسی است که حفاظت گسترده‌ای از آزادی مذهبی ارائه می‌کند. با این‌حال، حفاظت‌های قانونی در هر حوزه قضایی متفاوت اند. اگر در محل کارتان تبعیض مذهبی را تجربه کرده‌اید، خواه در فکر طرح شکایت یا پیگیری موضوع در محکمه باشید، مهم است بدانید از چه گزینه‌هایی برای حفاظت از خود برخوردار هستید.

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - Ở Úc, luật chống phân biệt đối xử tại nơi làm việc dựa trên tôn giáo được quy định khác nhau giữa các khu vực pháp lý của tiểu bang và vùng lãnh thổ. Trong một số trường hợp, có thể có những lý do chính đáng để hạn chế quyền tự do thực hành tôn giáo của người lao động.

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - تعتبر أستراليا طرفًا في المعاهدة الدولية المعنية بالحقوق المدنية والسياسية، التي توفر حماية واسعة النطاق للحرية الدينية ومظاهرها. ورغم عدم وجود قانون أسترالي موحد يتضمن أحكامًا حول ممارسة الحقوق الدينية بين الولايات والمقاطعات، إلا أنه يتم حاليًا دراسة مشروع قانون بهذا الشأن.

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - Australia ee pɛn töŋ wën ci thɛ̈ɛ̈ny Löŋ Pinynhom alɔŋ Yïth Mɛnh Raan ku Cëëc, ku këne yin yiëk ke ci yin gel tɛnë nhialicdun ye door yïï lääu nhom. Mɛ̈ne ke yen yen jal tɔu ɣa lööŋ ci looi bïk yïn gël ke looi thok bɛ̈ɛi tɛ̈ɛ̈k yiic ebën. Na ye ke ci yïn tiil wɛ̈t nhialicdu ye door tɛnë luɔ̈i, yen apɛ̈th ku ba dhiɛ̈l ŋic yen dhɛ̈ɛ̈l yindda rɛ̈ɛ̈l thin tɛn yin, Na ye kë yee yïïn yen tɛ̈k ku ba gɛ̈t ɣöt wɛ̈t ke ci root looi aye ba ɣäth luuk nhom.

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - Australia yeej yog ib lub teb chaws uas yeej pom zoo siv pej kum haiv tsab cai International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights uas yog ib tsab cai muaj kev pov puag ntau yam rau cov kev ywj pheej rau cov kev ntseeg. Txawm li cas los yeej muaj ib co cai twg uas yeej muaj cov kev pov puag sib txawv rau ntawm ntau lub teb chaws thiab. Yog tias koj raug cais cuam tshuam txog koj cov kev ntseeg ntawm tej chaw ua hauj lwm, ces yog tej yam tseem ceeb uas koj paub tias muaj txoj xub ke twg rau koj ua tau, tsis hais seb puas yuav mus yws tsis txaus siab nrog tej coj ntawm yus lub chaw ua hauj lwm los yog muaj peev xwm coj tej xwm txheej no mus sib hais ntawm ib lub tsev hais plaub.

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court. - آسٹریلیا شہری اور سیاسی حقوق کے بین الاقوامی معاہدے کا ایک فریق ہے، جو مذہبی آزادی کو وسیع تحفظات فراہم کرتا ہے۔ تاہم، مخصوص قانون سازی کے تحفظات دائرہ اختیار میں مختلف ہوتے ہیں۔ اگر آپ کو کام پر مذہبی امتیاز کا سامنا کرنا پڑا ہے، تو آپ کے پاس کیا اختیارات ہیں اس کو جاننا ضروری ہے، چاہے آپ شکایت جمع کرانے یا عدالت میں معاملے کی پیروی کرنے پر غور کر رہے ہوں۔

Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides extensive protections to religious freedom. However, specific legislated protections vary across jurisdictions. If you have experienced religious discrimination at work, it is important to know your options, whether you are considering submitting a complaint or pursuing the matter in court.

In this podcast episode, learn from Mansour Borji, Founder and President of Article18. Article18 is an organization that advocates for persecuted Iranian Christians and endeavors to see Iran's full compliance with its national and international commitment to religious freedom as defined by Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Our conversation highlights both the difficulties and the courage of Christians living under one of the world's most oppressive regimes. Mansour emphasizes the resilience and faith of these individuals who persist in their religious practices despite significant risks. Article18 aims to foster significant societal change in Iran towards greater tolerance and understanding among all religious groups. Join Article18 in the critical role of international advocacy in securing a safer, freer future for all Iranians, highlighting why defending human rights is not just our responsibility but a necessity.   A previous Unconventional Ministry Podcast episode you will enjoy: Episode #138 Unique Firsthand Perspectives of the Iranian Church with Rev. Tat Stewart. In this episode, listen to Rev. Tat Stewart masterfully and humorously tell the story of how God wove the details of his life together and raised him up to become an influential part of the spiritual awakening in Iran in the 1970s. At a time when few foreigners could observe the impact of the Iranian Revolution, Tat, being no stranger to the people of Iran, was given a unique window to see firsthand how the Gospel spread like wildfire there. Learn how his experience living among Iranians prepared him to be an effective shepherd for a new generation of Iranian Christians as an influential leader and teacher in the Iranian Church. Rev. Tat Stewart recently published his new book "No Stranger: to Iran, its People, and its Church," available on Amazon.

Noeline Blackwell, commissioner on the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, on the overall trajectory of economic, social and cultural rights in Ireland.

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental legal principle in many legal systems, including the United States, designed to protect the rights and interests of individuals accused of a crime. Here is a full summary of what the right to a speedy trial means:Legal Right: The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional or statutory right granted to individuals facing criminal charges. In the United States, it is protected by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.Timely Adjudication: It guarantees that a defendant has the right to have their case adjudicated in a timely and expeditious manner. This means that the legal process should move forward promptly from the time of arrest to trial.Reasonable Timeframe: While the exact definition of a "speedy" trial can vary from one jurisdiction to another, it generally implies that the accused should not have to endure unnecessary delays in the criminal justice process.Purpose: The primary purpose of this right is to prevent injustices that may arise from prolonged pretrial detention or the delay in bringing a case to trial. It helps ensure that a person is not held in jail for an extended period without facing formal charges and trial.Balancing Act: Courts must strike a balance between the defendant's right to a speedy trial and the state's interest in conducting a thorough and fair trial. This may involve considering factors like the complexity of the case, the availability of witnesses, and the reasons for any delays.Dismissal as a Remedy: If the right to a speedy trial is violated, it can lead to the dismissal of the charges against the defendant. This serves as a deterrent against prosecutorial and judicial misconduct that might unnecessarily delay a trial.Factors Considered: Courts typically consider several factors in determining whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial has been violated. These factors may include the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of their right, and any prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the delay.Waiver: In some cases, a defendant may choose to waive their right to a speedy trial if they believe it's in their best interest to delay the proceedings for strategic reasons, such as giving their legal team more time to prepare.International Context: The right to a speedy trial is recognized not only in the United States but also in international human rights law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These documents emphasize the importance of a fair and timely trial.Importance: Ensuring a speedy trial is crucial for safeguarding the rights of the accused, preventing unnecessary incarceration, and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.(commercial at 7:57)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Kohberger Idaho murder trial not expected until at least 2024 | Idaho StatesmanThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5080327/advertisement

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental legal principle in many legal systems, including the United States, designed to protect the rights and interests of individuals accused of a crime. Here is a full summary of what the right to a speedy trial means:Legal Right: The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional or statutory right granted to individuals facing criminal charges. In the United States, it is protected by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.Timely Adjudication: It guarantees that a defendant has the right to have their case adjudicated in a timely and expeditious manner. This means that the legal process should move forward promptly from the time of arrest to trial.Reasonable Timeframe: While the exact definition of a "speedy" trial can vary from one jurisdiction to another, it generally implies that the accused should not have to endure unnecessary delays in the criminal justice process.Purpose: The primary purpose of this right is to prevent injustices that may arise from prolonged pretrial detention or the delay in bringing a case to trial. It helps ensure that a person is not held in jail for an extended period without facing formal charges and trial.Balancing Act: Courts must strike a balance between the defendant's right to a speedy trial and the state's interest in conducting a thorough and fair trial. This may involve considering factors like the complexity of the case, the availability of witnesses, and the reasons for any delays.Dismissal as a Remedy: If the right to a speedy trial is violated, it can lead to the dismissal of the charges against the defendant. This serves as a deterrent against prosecutorial and judicial misconduct that might unnecessarily delay a trial.Factors Considered: Courts typically consider several factors in determining whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial has been violated. These factors may include the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of their right, and any prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the delay.Waiver: In some cases, a defendant may choose to waive their right to a speedy trial if they believe it's in their best interest to delay the proceedings for strategic reasons, such as giving their legal team more time to prepare.International Context: The right to a speedy trial is recognized not only in the United States but also in international human rights law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These documents emphasize the importance of a fair and timely trial.Importance: Ensuring a speedy trial is crucial for safeguarding the rights of the accused, preventing unnecessary incarceration, and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.(commercial at 7:57)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Kohberger Idaho murder trial not expected until at least 2024 | Idaho StatesmanThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5003294/advertisement

In this 'BarbieHeimer' special episode, we return to the plastic doll, to talk about materialism, symbolism and the souvenirs in international law.  Emily Crawford and Jacqueline Mowbray walk us through their Souvenirs in International Law exhibit and project; and where Barbie features in their exhibit, as well as introducing us to Doudou Louis, the Louis Vuitton UNICEF Bear. To submit your own international law souvenir:  @atthevanishingpoint on Instagram.Professor Emily Crawford is at the University of Sydney Law School, where she teaches and researches in international law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law. She has published widely in the field of international humanitarian law, including three monographs (The Treatment of Combatants and Insurgents under the Law of Armed Conflict (OUP 2010), Identifying the Enemy: Civilian Participation in Hostilities (OUP 2015) and Non-Binding Norms in International Humanitarian Law: Efficacy, Legitimacy and Legality (OUP 2021)) and a textbook (International Humanitarian Law (with Alison Pert, 2nd edition, CUP 2020)). She is an associate of the Sydney Centre for International Law at the University of Sydney, and a co-editor of the Journal of International Humanitarian Studies.Associate Professor Jacqueline Mowbray also at the  University of Sydney Law School, is the external legal adviser to Australia's Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Her work uses critical theory to explore the operation of international law, and focuses on international law and language policy, and economic, social and cultural rights. Her monograph Linguistic Justice: International Law and Language Policy was published by OUP in 2012. Her second monograph, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Commentary, Cases, and Materials (co-authored with Saul and Kinley) was winner of the 2015 American Society of International Law Certificate of Merit. Additional Resources:Jessie Hohmann and Daniel Joyce (eds), International Law's Objects, OUP, 2018. Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, HUP, 1987. Marcel Mauss, The Gift, Routledge, 1950.For Barbie about town, see @intlawbarbie on Twitter/X! 

The human right to science, outlined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and repeated in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, recognizes everyone's right to "share in scientific advancement and its benefits" and to "enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications." This right also requires state parties to develop and disseminate science, to respect the freedom of scientific research, and to recognize the benefits of international contacts and co-operation in the scientific field. The right to science has never been more important. Even before the COVID-19 health crisis, it was evident that people around the world increasingly rely on science and technology in almost every sphere of their lives from the development of medicines and the treatment of diseases, to transport, agriculture, and the facilitation of global communication. At the same time, however, the value of science has been under attack, with some raising alarm at the emergence of "post-truth" societies. "Dual use" and unintended, because often unforeseen, consequences of emerging technologies are also perceived to be a serious risk. The important role played by science and technology and the potential for dual use makes it imperative to evaluate scientific research and its products not only on their scientific but also on their human rights merits. In Science as a Cultural Human Right (U Pennsylvania Press, 2022), Helle Porsdam argues robustly for the role of the right to science now and in the future. The book analyzes the legal stature of this right, the potential consequences of not establishing it as fundamental, and its connection to global cultural rights. It offers the basis for defending the free and responsible practice of science and ensuring that its benefits are spread globally. Melek Firat Altay is a neuroscientist, biologist and musician. Her research focuses on deciphering the molecular and cellular mechanisms of neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental disorders. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The human right to science, outlined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and repeated in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, recognizes everyone's right to "share in scientific advancement and its benefits" and to "enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications." This right also requires state parties to develop and disseminate science, to respect the freedom of scientific research, and to recognize the benefits of international contacts and co-operation in the scientific field. The right to science has never been more important. Even before the COVID-19 health crisis, it was evident that people around the world increasingly rely on science and technology in almost every sphere of their lives from the development of medicines and the treatment of diseases, to transport, agriculture, and the facilitation of global communication. At the same time, however, the value of science has been under attack, with some raising alarm at the emergence of "post-truth" societies. "Dual use" and unintended, because often unforeseen, consequences of emerging technologies are also perceived to be a serious risk. The important role played by science and technology and the potential for dual use makes it imperative to evaluate scientific research and its products not only on their scientific but also on their human rights merits. In Science as a Cultural Human Right (U Pennsylvania Press, 2022), Helle Porsdam argues robustly for the role of the right to science now and in the future. The book analyzes the legal stature of this right, the potential consequences of not establishing it as fundamental, and its connection to global cultural rights. It offers the basis for defending the free and responsible practice of science and ensuring that its benefits are spread globally. Melek Firat Altay is a neuroscientist, biologist and musician. Her research focuses on deciphering the molecular and cellular mechanisms of neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental disorders. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

The human right to science, outlined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and repeated in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, recognizes everyone's right to "share in scientific advancement and its benefits" and to "enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications." This right also requires state parties to develop and disseminate science, to respect the freedom of scientific research, and to recognize the benefits of international contacts and co-operation in the scientific field. The right to science has never been more important. Even before the COVID-19 health crisis, it was evident that people around the world increasingly rely on science and technology in almost every sphere of their lives from the development of medicines and the treatment of diseases, to transport, agriculture, and the facilitation of global communication. At the same time, however, the value of science has been under attack, with some raising alarm at the emergence of "post-truth" societies. "Dual use" and unintended, because often unforeseen, consequences of emerging technologies are also perceived to be a serious risk. The important role played by science and technology and the potential for dual use makes it imperative to evaluate scientific research and its products not only on their scientific but also on their human rights merits. In Science as a Cultural Human Right (U Pennsylvania Press, 2022), Helle Porsdam argues robustly for the role of the right to science now and in the future. The book analyzes the legal stature of this right, the potential consequences of not establishing it as fundamental, and its connection to global cultural rights. It offers the basis for defending the free and responsible practice of science and ensuring that its benefits are spread globally. Melek Firat Altay is a neuroscientist, biologist and musician. Her research focuses on deciphering the molecular and cellular mechanisms of neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental disorders. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

The human right to science, outlined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and repeated in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, recognizes everyone's right to "share in scientific advancement and its benefits" and to "enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications." This right also requires state parties to develop and disseminate science, to respect the freedom of scientific research, and to recognize the benefits of international contacts and co-operation in the scientific field. The right to science has never been more important. Even before the COVID-19 health crisis, it was evident that people around the world increasingly rely on science and technology in almost every sphere of their lives from the development of medicines and the treatment of diseases, to transport, agriculture, and the facilitation of global communication. At the same time, however, the value of science has been under attack, with some raising alarm at the emergence of "post-truth" societies. "Dual use" and unintended, because often unforeseen, consequences of emerging technologies are also perceived to be a serious risk. The important role played by science and technology and the potential for dual use makes it imperative to evaluate scientific research and its products not only on their scientific but also on their human rights merits. In Science as a Cultural Human Right (U Pennsylvania Press, 2022), Helle Porsdam argues robustly for the role of the right to science now and in the future. The book analyzes the legal stature of this right, the potential consequences of not establishing it as fundamental, and its connection to global cultural rights. It offers the basis for defending the free and responsible practice of science and ensuring that its benefits are spread globally. Melek Firat Altay is a neuroscientist, biologist and musician. Her research focuses on deciphering the molecular and cellular mechanisms of neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental disorders. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

The human right to science, outlined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and repeated in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, recognizes everyone's right to "share in scientific advancement and its benefits" and to "enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications." This right also requires state parties to develop and disseminate science, to respect the freedom of scientific research, and to recognize the benefits of international contacts and co-operation in the scientific field. The right to science has never been more important. Even before the COVID-19 health crisis, it was evident that people around the world increasingly rely on science and technology in almost every sphere of their lives from the development of medicines and the treatment of diseases, to transport, agriculture, and the facilitation of global communication. At the same time, however, the value of science has been under attack, with some raising alarm at the emergence of "post-truth" societies. "Dual use" and unintended, because often unforeseen, consequences of emerging technologies are also perceived to be a serious risk. The important role played by science and technology and the potential for dual use makes it imperative to evaluate scientific research and its products not only on their scientific but also on their human rights merits. In Science as a Cultural Human Right (U Pennsylvania Press, 2022), Helle Porsdam argues robustly for the role of the right to science now and in the future. The book analyzes the legal stature of this right, the potential consequences of not establishing it as fundamental, and its connection to global cultural rights. It offers the basis for defending the free and responsible practice of science and ensuring that its benefits are spread globally. Melek Firat Altay is a neuroscientist, biologist and musician. Her research focuses on deciphering the molecular and cellular mechanisms of neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental disorders. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/technology

The human right to science, outlined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and repeated in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, recognizes everyone's right to "share in scientific advancement and its benefits" and to "enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications." This right also requires state parties to develop and disseminate science, to respect the freedom of scientific research, and to recognize the benefits of international contacts and co-operation in the scientific field. The right to science has never been more important. Even before the COVID-19 health crisis, it was evident that people around the world increasingly rely on science and technology in almost every sphere of their lives from the development of medicines and the treatment of diseases, to transport, agriculture, and the facilitation of global communication. At the same time, however, the value of science has been under attack, with some raising alarm at the emergence of "post-truth" societies. "Dual use" and unintended, because often unforeseen, consequences of emerging technologies are also perceived to be a serious risk. The important role played by science and technology and the potential for dual use makes it imperative to evaluate scientific research and its products not only on their scientific but also on their human rights merits. In Science as a Cultural Human Right (U Pennsylvania Press, 2022), Helle Porsdam argues robustly for the role of the right to science now and in the future. The book analyzes the legal stature of this right, the potential consequences of not establishing it as fundamental, and its connection to global cultural rights. It offers the basis for defending the free and responsible practice of science and ensuring that its benefits are spread globally. Melek Firat Altay is a neuroscientist, biologist and musician. Her research focuses on deciphering the molecular and cellular mechanisms of neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental disorders. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: By failing to take serious AI action, the US could be in violation of its international law obligations, published by Cecil Abungu on May 27, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. “Long-term risks remain, including the existential risk associated with the development of artificial general intelligence through self-modifying AI or other means”. 2023 Update to the US National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan. Introduction The United States is yet to take serious steps to govern the licensing, setting up, operation, security and supervision of AI. In this piece I suggest that this could be in violation of its obligations under Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). By most accounts, the US is the key country in control of how quickly we have artificial general intelligence (AGI), a goal that companies like OpenAI have been very open about pursuing. The fact that AGI could carry risk to human life has been detailed in various fora and I won't belabor that point. I present this legal argument so that those trying to get the US government to take action have additional armor to call on. A. Some important premises The US signed and ratified the ICCPR on June 8 1992.[1] While it has not ratified the Optional Protocol allowing for individual complaints against it, it did submit to the competence of the Human Rights Committee (the body charged with interpreting the ICCPR) where the party suing is another state. This means that although individuals cannot bring action against the US for ICCPR violations, other states can. As is the case for domestic law, provisions of treaties are given real meaning when they're interpreted by courts or other bodies with the specific legal mandate to do so. Most of this usually happens in a pretty siloed manner, but international human rights law is famously non-siloed. The interpretive bodies determining international human rights law cases regularly borrow from each other when trying to make meaning of the different provisions before them. This piece is focused on what the ICCPR demands, but I will also discuss some decisions from other regional human rights courts because of the cross fertilization that I've just described. Before understanding my argument, they're a few crucial premises you have to appreciate. I will discuss them next. (i) All major human rights treaties, including the ICCPR, impose on states a duty to protect life In addition to the ICCPR, the African Charter, European Convention and American Convention have all give states a duty to protect life.[2] As you might imagine, the existence of the actual duty is generally undisputed. It is when we get to the specific content of the duty where things become murky. (ii) A state's duty to protect life under the ICCPR can extend to citizens of other countries The Human Rights Committee (quick reminder: this is the body with the legal mandate to interpret the ICCPR) has made it clear that this duty to protect under the ICCPR extends not only to activities which are conducted within the territory of the state being challenged but also to those conducted in other places – so long as the activities could have a direct and reasonably foreseeable impact on persons outside the state's territory. The fact that the US has vehemently disputed this understanding[3] does not mean it is excused from abiding by it. (iii) States' duties to protect life under the ICCPR require attention to the activities of corporate entities headquartered in their countries Even though the US protested the move,[4] the Human Rights Committee has been clear that the duty to protect extends to protecting individuals from violations by private persons or entities,[5] including activities by corporate entities based in their territory or subjec...

Compensation for wrongful conviction. Article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that when a miscarriage of justice has occurred and the defendant's conviction has been reversed or they have been pardoned, "the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law". The right to compensation is also authorized by Article 3 of Protocol Number 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 10 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Four broad approaches allow for the payment of compensation following a miscarriage of justice: tort liability in common law; claims for a breach of constitutional or human rights; statutory relief where specific legislation exists to compensate individuals who are wrongfully convicted; and non-statutory relief by way of ex-gratia schemes based on the largesse of the government. In a study of different approaches to the payment of compensation in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, only the US and the UK have statutory schemes in place. In the United States, the federal government, the District of Columbia, and 38 states have such legislation on their statutes. Twelve states have no laws requiring compensation to be paid. However, each state differs widely in regard to eligibility requirements, maximum payments, issues concerning factual innocence, the burden of proof, the behavior of the claimant which contributed to the (now overturned) conviction, and the claimant's prior criminal history. In some states, statutes of limitations also apply. The significant benefits of statutory schemes is that they provide money and services in compensation to individuals who have been wrongfully convicted without regard to fault or blame; they do not require claimants to prove how the prosecution or police committed their mistakes. Implications. The concept of miscarriage of justice has important implications for standard of review, in that an appellate court will often only exercise its discretion to correct a plain error when a miscarriage of justice (or "manifest injustice") would otherwise occur. In recent years, DNA evidence has been used to clear many people falsely convicted. The risk of miscarriages of justice is often cited as a cause to eliminate the death penalty. When condemned persons are executed before they are determined to have been wrongly convicted, the effect of that miscarriage of justice is irreversible. Wrongly executed people nevertheless occasionally receive posthumous pardons—which essentially void the conviction—or have their convictions quashed. Even when a wrongly convicted person is not executed, years in prison can have a substantial, irreversible effect on the person and their family. The risk of miscarriage of justice is therefore also an argument against long sentences, like a life sentence, and cruel prison conditions. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

An execution warrant (also called death warrant or black warrant) is a writ that authorizes the execution of a condemned person. An execution warrant is not to be confused with a "license to kill", which operates like an arrest warrant but with deadly force instead of arrest as the end goal. United States. In the United States either a judicial or executive official designated by law issues an execution warrant. This is done when a person, in trial court proceedings, has been sentenced to death, after trial and conviction, and usually after appeals are exhausted. Normally when a death warrant is signed and an execution date is set, the condemned person is moved from his or her death row cell to a death watch cell, which is typically located adjacent to the execution chamber. Usually, the government agency charged with carrying out an execution, normally the state's Department of Corrections or the Federal Bureau of Prisons in federal cases, has a limited time frame, normally about 60 days, from the date the warrant is signed, to complete the execution process, or the warrant expires and the condemned person is returned to the death row cell, awaiting another execution date. Stays of execution can be ordered in state cases by the Governor of the State, a trial court, a state appeals court or state Supreme Court or a court in the federal judiciary (including the United States Supreme Court). In federal death penalty cases the trial court, appeals courts, the United States Supreme Court and President may grant a stay of execution. In all cases, the stay may be issued at any time, even when the condemned is being prepared for execution. … Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase in common law describing punishment that is considered unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it inflicts on the person subjected to the sanction. The precise definition varies by jurisdiction, but typically includes punishments that are arbitrary, unnecessary, overly severe compared to the crime, or not generally accepted in society. History. The words cruel and unusual punishment were first used in the English Bill of Rights 1689. They were later also adopted in the United States by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1791) and in the British Leeward Islands (1798). Very similar words, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", appear in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. The right under a different formulation is also found in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) and in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) also contains this fundamental right in section 12 and it is to be found in Article 4 (quoting the European Convention verbatim) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000). It is also found in Article 16 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), and in Article 40 of the Constitution of Poland (1997). The Constitution of the Marshall Islands, in the sixth section of its Bill of Rights (Article 2), prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment", which it defines as: the death penalty; torture; "inhuman and degrading treatment"; and "excessive fines or deprivations". --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Compensation for wrongful conviction Article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that when a miscarriage of justice has occurred and the defendant's conviction has been reversed or they have been pardoned, "the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law". The right to compensation is also authorized by Article 3 of Protocol Number 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 10 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Four broad approaches allow for the payment of compensation following a miscarriage of justice: tort liability in common law; claims for a breach of constitutional or human rights; statutory relief where specific legislation exists to compensate individuals who are wrongfully convicted; and non-statutory relief by way of ex-gratia schemes based on the largesse of the government. In a study of different approaches to the payment of compensation in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, only the US and the UK have statutory schemes in place. In the United States, the federal government, the District of Columbia, and 38 states have such legislation on their statutes. Twelve states have no laws requiring compensation to be paid. However, each state differs widely in regard to eligibility requirements, maximum payments, issues concerning factual innocence, the burden of proof, the behavior of the claimant which contributed to the (now overturned) conviction, and the claimant's prior criminal history. In some states, statutes of limitations also apply. The significant benefits of statutory schemes is that they provide money and services in compensation to individuals who have been wrongfully convicted without regard to fault or blame; they do not require claimants to prove how the prosecution or police committed their mistakes. Implications. The concept of miscarriage of justice has important implications for standard of review, in that an appellate court will often only exercise its discretion to correct a plain error when a miscarriage of justice (or "manifest injustice") would otherwise occur. In recent years, DNA evidence has been used to clear many people falsely convicted. The risk of miscarriages of justice is often cited as a cause to eliminate the death penalty. When condemned persons are executed before they are determined to have been wrongly convicted, the effect of that miscarriage of justice is irreversible. Wrongly executed people nevertheless occasionally receive posthumous pardons—which essentially void the conviction—or have their convictions quashed. Even when a wrongly convicted person is not executed, years in prison can have a substantial, irreversible effect on the person and their family. The risk of miscarriage of justice is therefore also an argument against long sentences, like a life sentence, and cruel prison conditions. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Juvenile offenders. The death penalty for juvenile offenders (criminals aged under 18 years at the time of their crime although the legal or accepted definition of juvenile offender may vary from one jurisdiction to another) has become increasingly rare. Considering the age of majority is not 18 in some countries or has not been clearly defined in law, since 1990 ten countries have executed offenders who were considered juveniles at the time of their crimes: The People's Republic of China (PRC), Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United States, and Yemen. China, Pakistan, the United States, Yemen and Saudi Arabia have since raised the minimum age to 18. Amnesty International has recorded 61 verified executions since then, in several countries, of both juveniles and adults who had been convicted of committing their offenses as juveniles. The PRC does not allow for the execution of those under 18, but child executions have reportedly taken place. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which forbids capital punishment for juveniles under article 37(a), has been signed by all countries and subsequently ratified by all signatories with the exception of the United States (despite the US Supreme Court decisions abolishing the practice). The UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights maintains that the death penalty for juveniles has become contrary to a jus cogens of customary international law. A majority of countries are also party to the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (whose Article 6.5 also states that "Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age..."). Methods. The following methods of execution have been used by various U.S. states: Lethal injection, Electrocution and gas inhalation (some U.S. states, but only if the prisoner requests it or if lethal injection is unavailable), and Inert gas asphyxiation (Some U.S. states, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama) --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

In this episode of the Courage My Friends podcast, Neil Hetherington, CEO of The Daily Bread Food Bank and Maria Rio, director of development and communication for The Stop Community Food Centre discuss the current state of food insecurity in Canada's largest city, how we got here and what we need to end decades of hunger. Of the growing reliance on Toronto's food bank system, Hetherington says: “What is startling is the fact that there are over 9,000 new registrants to the Foodbank system in the Toronto area, served by Daily Bread and North York Harvest each month.. almost 10,000 people are putting up their hand and saying, "I am in a position where my income does not meet the expenses that I have and I need to rely on food charity this week or this month. …Prior to the pandemic, 15% of the people that came to the food banks were employed fully. That number has doubled to 30%. And just around 50% of food bank users have a post-secondary education. And so people have done what we told them to do growing up. Go get an education, grab a job and you'll be fine. You'll get that house with a white picket fence. And that's not the reality.”  Rio describes the current and increasing challenges facing organizations like the Stop Community Food Centre: “The Stop is also being hit by inflation. So not only are we paying more for food because there's decreased food drives and all those things. There's more people coming to our services ..it's been an exceptionally challenging time. We've had to make really difficult decisions around how do we keep serving our community, but not go into an extremely unsustainable position as an organization? We have to remain open next year. as more and more people run out of other options, such as friends or using credit cards or predatory payday loan services, they're turning to us and we're kind of left scrambling to meet the need with less volunteer help, with less energy than we had two years ago and strain on our resources because our donors are also feeling the pinch.”  Speaking to the importance of food banks, Hethrington says: “What we have set out to do over the last number of decades is remind people that food banks are not the answer to food insecurity; we've never claimed that we are. But we do make food available this week for people. .. where we do claim that we are fighting to end hunger is around our advocacy efforts and taking a leadership position?”  Reflection on Canada's failed commitments to end hunger, Rio says: “Canada first signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights at the UN, where they ratified the right to food, right to adequate food, clothing, and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. And to know that we've been talking about this issue for so long, we've had so many consultations at all levels of government…we've known for a really long time that social assistance rates are abysmally low. That it's a lot of newcomers who are experiencing these barriers. Racialized people, people with disabilities and an intersection of all those identities. We've known that for more than the 40 years that The Stop has been around, or food banks have been around.”   About today's guests Neil Hetherington joined The Daily Bread Food Bank as CEO in January 2018. Beginning his career in project management at Tridel Construction, in September 2000, he made a career change by joining Habitat for Humanity Toronto, at the time as the youngest CEO of a Habitat affiliate in the world. Neil's non-profit experience includes 16 years as CEO of Habitat for Humanity in Toronto, and then New York City, and two years as CEO of Dixon Hall, a multi-service agency serving thousands of people in Toronto. Neil holds credentials from the University of Western Ontario – Huron College, Seneca College, Harvard Business School, and the University of Virginia – Darden Business School and obtained his MBA from the University of Western Ontario's Ivey Business School in 2013. He is an active pilot and sailor. He enjoys furniture making and in his spare time plays tennis terribly, snowboards poorly and bikes slowly. Maria Rio has over a decade of fundraising and non-profit experience. As a woman, a racialized person, an immigrant, and a member of the LGBTQ2+ community and from her early experience as a refugee, Maria's experience shaped a passion for human rights  that fuels her drive to give back and make a difference in the lives of people of various marginalized and often intersectional and underrepresented groups. Her op eds have been featured in publications such as the Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' magazine. She was a finalist for the national 2022 Charity Village Best Individual Fundraiser Award, and has a deep passion for non-profit work. Maria also sits on the Board of Living Wage Canada and is often asked to speak on issues related to poverty, innovative stewardship, building relationships, and Community Centric Fundraising.   Transcript of this episode can be accessed at georgebrown.ca/TommyDouglasInstitute or here.  Image: Neil Hetherington and Maria Rio  / Used with Permission Music: Ang Kahora. Lynne, Bjorn. Rights Purchased Intro Voices: Ashley Booth (Podcast Announcer); Bob Luker (voice of Tommy Douglas); Kenneth Okoro, Liz Campos Rico, Tsz Wing Chau (Street Voices)  Courage My Friends Podcast Organizing Committee: Chandra Budhu, Ashley Booth, Resh Budhu.  Produced by: Resh Budhu, Tommy Douglas Institute and Breanne Doyle, rabble.ca Host: Resh Budhu

Following the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to repeal women's constitutional right to have an abortion, it seems the six conservative judges on the bench now have a number of other social and political issues in their sights. Advocates for LGBTIQA+, free press, firearms restrictions and much more are bracing for attacks on their rights, as those six extremely powerful individuals seem determined to drag America back into the dark ages. The Quicky speaks to a human rights law expert and a journalist who has spent decades researching and reporting on the United States, to find out what other aspects of American rights and freedoms are now seriously at risk. Subscribe to Mamamia GET IN TOUCH Feedback? We're listening! Call the pod phone on 02 8999 9386 or email us at podcast@mamamia.com.au CONTACT US Got a topic you'd like us to cover? Send us an email at thequicky@mamamia.com.au CREDITS  Host: Claire Murphy With thanks to: John Barron - Journalist and broadcaster and has written for publications including The Washington Post, hosted news and current affairs programs Planet America, ABC Fact Check, The Drum, The Future Forum and The Party Reagan on ABC News24, and a research associate at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney Sarah Joseph - Professor of Human Rights Law at Griffith University, whose publications focus on human rights internationally and in Australia, with particular expertise on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, business and human rights, trade and human rights, and issues concerning the media (and social media) and human rights. She has also published in the area of Australian constitutional law Producer: Claire Murphy Executive Producer: Siobhán Moran-McFarlane Audio Producer: Thom Lion Subscribe to The Quicky at...https://mamamia.com.au/the-quicky/ Mamamia acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the Land we have recorded this podcast on, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. We pay our respects to their Elders past and present, and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures. Just by reading our articles or listening to our podcasts, you're helping to fund girls in schools in some of the most disadvantaged countries in the world - through our partnership with Room to Read. We're currently funding 300 girls in school every day and our aim is to get to 1,000. Find out more about Mamamia at mamamia.com.auv Support the show: https://www.mamamia.com.au/mplus/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In episode 6 of Series 7 of The Rights Track, we're joined by Susie Alegre, an international human rights lawyer and associate at Doughty Street Chambers specialising in digital rights. Susie's work focuses in particular on the impact of technology and AI on the rights to freedom of thought and opinion. Her recently published book - Freedom to Think: The Long Struggle to Liberate Our Minds – explores how the powerful have always sought to influence how we think and what we buy. And today we are asking her how do we liberate our minds in a modern digital world?    Transcript Todd Landman  0:01  Welcome to the Rights Track podcast which gets the hard facts about the human rights challenges facing us today. In series seven, we're discussing human rights in a digital world. I'm Todd Landman, in the sixth episode of the series, I'm delighted to be joined by Susie Alegre. Susie is the international human rights lawyer and associate the Doughty Street Chambers specialising in digital rights, in particular the impact of technology and artificial intelligence on the rights to freedom of thought and opinion. Her recently published book - Freedom to Think; The Long Struggle to Liberate our Minds - explores how the powerful have always sought to influence how we think and what we buy. And today we're asking her, how do we liberate our minds in a modern digital world? So Susie it's great to have you on this episode of the Rights Track. Welcome. Susie Alegre  0:47  Thank you so much for having me. I'm very excited to be here. Todd Landman  0:49  So I love the book - Freedom to Think - I've read it cover to cover. In fact, I read it probably in two days, because it's such a compelling read. And I guess my first question for you is, why is the freedom to think broadly understood belief, expression, speech, religion, thought, why is all of that so critical to us as human beings? Susie Alegre  1:10  I think the way that I've looked at it in the book is really dividing those elements up a little bit. So what I focused on in the book is freedom of thought and opinion and what goes on inside our heads, as opposed to the more traditional discussions that we have around freedom of speech. And one of the reasons for that is that while freedom of speech has consequences and responsibilities, and freedom of speech can be limited, that freedom in our inner worlds to think whatever we like to practice our thoughts and opinions and decide whether or not there's something we should share, is what allows us to really develop and be human. And the right to freedom of thought and opinion, along with belief and conscience, insofar as we practice that inside our heads is something that's protected absolutely in international human rights law, which I think reflects its importance. And when you consider other absolute rights and human rights law, like the prohibition on torture, or the prohibition on slavery, the right to freedom of thought inside your head alongside those other rights, really gets to the heart of human dignity, and what it means for us to be humans. Todd Landman  2:24  Yes and so in protecting those rights, we are giving people agency because I was caught really captured by one thing you just said there about, we choose what we want to share. So a lot of us can have a million thoughts a second, but we don't share all of them. Although in the current era, it seems that people are sharing pretty much everything that they're thinking. But we'll get to that in a minute. I'm just curious about this idea of agency that, you know, you choose what to share, you also choose what not to share. And that element of choice is fundamental to being human. Susie Alegre  2:53  Absolutely. And what the right to freedom of thought, well certainly a key element is right to freedom of thought and freedom of opinion, is what's called freedom in the forum internal that's inside, you know, in our inner lives, it's not what we then choose to do, or say in the outer world. And having that inner space, it's really important for us to be able to develop who we are, you know, I'm sure all of us have had thoughts that we wouldn't particularly like to be recorded. And I don't know if you've seen the recent drama Upload, which. Todd Landman  3:28  I have not. Susie Alegre  3:29  Well it's worth a look, because I was watching one of the episodes where it was about people being unable effectively to shut off their thoughts or their thoughts were being live streamed if you like. And I mean, you can only imagine the horror of that, you know, that was a comedy. A similar story played out in a short story by Philip K. Dick, The Hood Maker, which was a situation where you had people who were able to read other people's thoughts, and the only way that you could protect yourself from this mind reading was to wear a hood. And so protecting your thoughts from mind reading was really seen as an act of rebellion and effectively made unlawful and that I think shows just how important this space is. It is if you like the absolute core of privacy. So privacy becomes like a gateway right to that central core of who we are, and how we decide who we're going to be. Todd Landman  4:27  I like this idea of a gateway right - that's really cool. Now, in the book, you have this really the first part is quite a deep dive into history. I mean, you go right back to Socrates, you worked your way through Galileo, you work your way through people that challenge the status quo, through freedom of thought, whether it was scientific practice, or religious belief or any kind of thought, but what are some of the high points of this history and shall we say the analogue attempts to control people's thoughts? Susie Alegre  4:53  Yeah, as you say, I looked right back and and Socrates is if you like, a classic example of a martyr for freedom of thought. One of the interesting things as well about Socrates is that we don't have anything written down by Socrates, because Socrates was himself very suspicious of the written word and what that did for humans ability to debate. But what he did do was absolutely question the status quo. And he delighted in creating arguments that would undermine Greek democracy at the time. But one of the reasons why we all know the name of Socrates and remember, Socrates, is because Socrates was effectively judged by his peers, and forced to take his own life by Hemlock because of his scurrilous ideas, and his attempts to twist the minds of young Athenians and to question the gods. So while Socrates might be sort of seen as an example of a champion of freedom of thought and freedom of speech, it was very clear that at that time in history, you didn't really have freedom of speech, because it ultimately landed up with a death sentence. Some of the other areas I looked at were people like Galileo and questioning whether the sun and the universe travelled around the Earth or the other way around, and that really landed him in house arrest. So really, again, questioning the status quo of the church, and certainly religions through the centuries have been one of the prime movers in curtailing freedom of thought and freedom of religion, if you'd like. Todd Landman  6:32  Yeah, in my world, the Galileo story is a kind of clash between observational data and belief. Susie Alegre  6:38  Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. But again, it sounds like one of those arguments of you know, well, you can have your own opinion and every opinion is sort of questions, but in another century, and in that century, you'll end up under house arrest, when you challenge the beliefs of the status quo and of the powers that be. Todd Landman  6:56  Yes, we see that being played out today, in the scepticism around science, whether one takes an extreme view about for example, being a flat earther. Or if there's doubt about scientific discovery, scientific development, the way in which countries respond to the COVID crisis, the hesitancy around vaccines, masks mandates, that kind of general scepticism around science, is also one where sure, there's freedom of thought, belief and opinion. But then there's also tested peer reviewed scientific evidence for the best thing we think we can possibly do under times of great uncertainty. Susie Alegre  7:31  Absolutely. And that area is a prime area where you see the difference between freedom of thought and opinion and freedom of speech and expression. So where you have sort of COVID conspiracy theories, if you like spreading through social media or spreading really proven false information that can harm people. You know, there is then a legitimate reason to restrict that expression and the spread of that expression, to protect public health. Doesn't mean that people can't still think those things. But there really have to be limitations on how those expressions are spread, when they are absolutely damaging to public health or to other people's rights. Todd Landman  8:18  Yes, exactly. And I don't think you covered this in the book. But I just want to push you a little bit. You mentioned about Socrates written word not being written down. But with the invention of the printing press historically, how had that changed freedom, expression, thought, belief? What's the role of that technological advance in your understanding of the history of this idea? Susie Alegre  8:39  Well, the printing press just really accelerated the way that information could be shared, it effectively accelerated the impact of expression, if you'd like. And interestingly, actually, I was asked recently, to compare regulation of the printing press and of printing around that time and how long it took to get serious regulation as compared to trying to regulate the internet today. And I said, rather flippantly, well, people were arrested, and books were burned. That was how regulation worked initially in response to the massive impact of the printing press. And while I was being flippant when I thought about it afterwards, well actually, that is how they tried to regulate the printing press. And one of the reasons I looked back at the past of freedom of thought in the ways that we didn't really have freedom of thought historically. To me, that was important because it showed what a sea change, having human rights law has been for us as human beings. So you know, people may complain about cancel culture, but certainly in the UK cancel culture very rarely involves actually being put in prison. Certainly it doesn't involve being told to drink hemlock or certainly not being obliged to drink hemlock. Human rights have really put the brakes on the ability of the powers that be to control us. But they've also put an obligation to protect us from each other. Todd Landman  10:13  And there's a certain duality then because if I think about what you just said, the powers that be, let's translate that into the rise of the modern state, as it were. And you draw on reading some, you know, quite regularly through the book you draw on Orwell's 1984. You draw on Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism you draw on Huxley's Brave New World. So why did you draw on those sources? It seems to be you're alluding to the power of the state, the power of control, all those sorts of aspects. And yet, in order for human rights to work, we still need the power of the state. So there's two sides of the coin problem that we face in this quest to regulation. Susie Alegre  10:52  Absolutely. And drawing on those sources, in particular, in particular, Orwell and Huxley. I mean, perhaps because I'm a bit of a masochist, I spent the start of lockdown reading 1984. And just marvelling at how prescient it was, and how accurately it portrayed the developments of technology in our life. The Speak Write machine, the way that Winston Smith is employed to rewrite history, if you like, sort of creating in real time, disinformation in 1984, was somehow a real surprise to me having not read it since 1984, was just how accurately prescient it was. And similarly, reading Brave New World and the consumerism and the use of distraction as a means of social control, rather than the oppressive jackboot that you see in 1984. And seeing the ways that potentially commercial enterprises and a light touch can be used to have an equally corrosive and problematic effects on our societies. So the reflections of the images of Huxley and Orwell in particular was so stark that I felt that I had to use them because it seemed that rather than taking those as a warning from the 20th century, we've taken them as a template for the development of technology and consumerism in our lives. Todd Landman  12:23  So I suppose that really allows me now to segue nicely into your concerns over the digital world and how this digital world relates to human rights. And I guess my entry point is this famous line you have in the book where you say, you know, I told my daughter, she can't have Alexa. And she asked me why. And I said, you can't have an Alexa because it steals your dreams, and sells them to other people. Talk me through that. Talk me through your fears and worries around Alexa and what that means for the broader digital problem that we face. Susie Alegre  12:52  Yeah, Alexa is certainly a case in point. And as I'm sure anyone else with children has had the experience, your child comes home and their friends have got whatever technology it is, in this case, Alexa, and I know several people, several families where the kids do have Alexa in their bedroom. So you will always get these arguments as well sounds so has it so it must be great. For me the idea of Alexa the idea of actively choosing to bring a listening device into your home, that is constantly listening to what is going on in your home and sharing that with you have no idea who using that information in ways that you have no real idea how that's going to land up is something so astonishing. You know, having spent years working on human rights and counterterrorism, and also most recently, working in oversight on interception of communications, and how sort of allergic people or if you like, and quite rightly, to state intrusions to the idea that the state might be bugging your home, to then actually pay money and to let a private actor come in and listen to everything that's going on in your home for profit, just to me seems really astonishing. And yet somehow, it's become so normalised that as I said, I know lots of people who do have Alexa and are delighted to have Alexa. Plenty of people in the lockdowns suddenly sending around videos from their Ring cameras outside their doors, but this idea of constant control constant monitoring of our lives for someone else's profit. To me seems like something that is an really fundamental shift and something that we should all be really concerned about. Todd Landman  14:51  Now you're in addition to the Alexa example you're also very concerned about, shall we say the unregulated or the unleashing of and I will use the generic term algorithms in the digital world? So why are these algorithms problematic? From your perspective? What do they do? How do they affect people? Or is it a way that they're affecting people? And people don't even know? And is it that ignorance of the effect that concerns you? Or is it just the development of algorithms in the first place that concerns you? Susie Alegre  15:20  Now, I mean, algorithms are digital tools, if you like. So it's not the algorithm itself. There are two things really well, there are many. But let's start with two. One is the ability to understand why an algorithm is operating in the way it's operating. So an algorithm is effectively told to take information and translate that information into a conclusion or into an action, but understanding exactly what information is taken, how that information is being weighted, and then how a decision if you like, as being taken and what impact that decision will have, is often not very clear. And so where an algorithm based on huge amounts of data, for example, is being used to decide whether or not you might be fraudulently requesting benefits, for example, in the benefits system, that raises really serious concerns, because the outcome of not getting benefits or the outcome of being flagged as a fraud risk, has a really, really seriously detrimental impact on an individual life. Todd Landman  16:29  Yes. And you also give examples of credit rating. So if typically, somebody wants to get a mortgage in the UK, the mortgage company will say, well, we're gonna run a credit check on you. And they might go to one of the big data providers, that gives you a score. And that score is a function of how many credit cards you have any loans, you might have had any late payments you might have had on a loan or a mortgage in the past. And in the absence of a particular number. The company may reserve the right to say, you can't have a mortgage and I think you give the personal examples of your own struggles setting up a bank account after having lived abroad. Susie Alegre  17:03  Yeah. Todd Landman  17:04  Talk us through some of that. Susie Alegre  17:05  Yeah, absolutely. So as you say, I talk a bit in the book about returning from Uganda, where ironically, I've been working as a diplomat for European Union on anti-corruption. And I came back to the UK to work as an ombudsman in the Financial Ombudsman Service. But when I applied for a bank account, I was suddenly told that I couldn't have the bank account. Because the computer said no, effectively. The computer had clearly decided that because I was coming from Uganda or whatever other information had been weighed up against me, I was too much of a risk to take. The fact that I had been fully vetted as an ombudsman, and that the money that would be going through that bank account was going to be salary from the Financial Ombudsman Service was not enough to outweigh whatever it is the algorithm had decided against me. Eventually, I was able to open an account a few months later. But one of the interesting things then working as an ombudsman was that I did come across cases where people had had their credit score downgraded because the computer said so and where the business was unable to explain why that had happened. I mean, from an ombudsman perspective, I was in a position to decide what's fair and reasonable in all circumstances of a case. In my view, it's very difficult to say that a decision is fair and reasonable if you don't know how that decision has been reached. But those kinds of decisions are being made about all of us all the time, every day in different contexts. And it's deeply concerning that we're not often able to know exactly why a decision has been taken. And in many cases, we may find it quite difficult to even challenge those decisions or know who to complain to.  Todd Landman  17:14  Yeah and this gets back to core legal principles of fairness, of justice, of transparency of process and accountability of decision making. And yet all of that is being compromised by, let's say, an algorithm, or as you say, in the book, the computer says no. Susie Alegre  18:49 Completely and I think one of the key things to bear in mind that even the drafters have the right to freedom of thought and opinion in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, discuss the fact that inferences about what you're thinking or what your opinions are about, can be a violation of the right even if they're incorrect. So when you find the algorithm, making inferences about how risky a person you are, whether or not the algorithm is right, it may still be violating your right to keep your thoughts and opinions to yourself. You know, you should only be judged on what you do and what you say, not on what somebody infers about what's going on in your inner life. Todd Landman  19:50  Not on what you might be thinking. Susie Alegre  19:52  Exactly. Absolutely. Absolutely. Todd Landman  19:54  Right now, we've had a couple of guests on previous episodes that I would put broadly speaking in the camp of the 'data for good' camp. And when I read your book, I feel like I'm gonna broadly put you in the camp of 'data for bad'. And that might be an unfair judgement. But is there data for good here? I mean, because, you know, you cite the sort of surveillance capitalism literature, you have some, you know, endorsements from authors in that tradition. But if I were to push you, is there a data for good story that could be told nevertheless? Susie Alegre  20:23  I think there might be in public data. So for example, in the US, and I don't know if they are included in your guests, but there's data for black lives. And they've done really interesting work from public data, you know, flagging where there are issues of racial and systemic injustice. So that kind of work, I think, is very important. And there is a distinction between public data and private data, although how you draw that distinction is a really complicated question. But in terms of our personal data, one of the things that I think is important in looking at how to address these issues, is about setting the lines for the things that you can never do. And what I hope is that if you set down some barriers, some very, very clear lines of what can never ever be done with data. Then you will find technology, particularly technology related to data, and that includes the use of AI interpreting and working with data will develop in a different direction, because at the moment, the money is in extracting as much personal information as you can out of every single one of us and selling them. Todd Landman  21:40  And the degree of the extraction of that information is both witting and unwitting. So you also make the point in the book, if somebody signs up for a Facebook account, they just hit agree to the terms and conditions. But actually the time it takes to read the terms and conditions could be two or three days to get through to the fine print. And so people are just saying yes, because they want this particular account with not actually knowing the degree to which the sharing their personal information. Is that correct? Susie Alegre  22:06  Absolutely. And the other problem was the terms and conditions is that if you don't like them, what exactly you're going to do about it? Particularly if you're looking at terms and conditions to be able to access banking or access the National Health Service. If you don't like the terms and conditions, how exactly are you going to push back. But that point that you've made as well about the consent button, there's also an issue around what are called dark patterns. So the way that technology is designed, and that our online experience is designed to nudge us in certain directions. So if you're asked to agree the terms and conditions, the easiest thing is to hit the big green button that says I consent. Again, we see it with cookies, you know, often you've got a simple option where you hit I consent, or there's a complicated option, where you can manage your cookie settings and go through a couple of different layers in order to decide how much you want to be tracked online. And so that is clearly pushing you in the direction in time poor life experience, to hit the easiest option and just consent. Todd Landman  23:16  I feel that everybody you know, I read through Flipboard, which is a way of aggregating news sources from around the world by topic. And I sort of follow politics and law and international events, music and various other things. But every news story open up because of GDPR I get a pop up screen that says accept cookies, manage cookies. And I always say accept because I want to read the story. But what I'm actually doing is telling the world I've read this story, is that right? Susie Alegre  23:43  Yeah, absolutely. The cookies question as well as one where, actually, why should we be being tracked in all of our activities? All of our interests? And as you say, you know, telling the world that you've read this article is partly telling the world what you're interested in and what you're thinking about, not just that you've read this article in an abstract sense, you know, it's telling the world about your interests. One of the things that is also disturbing that people often don't realise is that it's not just what you read. It's even things that you may hover over and not click on that are equally being tracked. And it's not just on the page where you're reading the article. It's about being tracked all around your online activity being tracked with your phone being tracked, where you are not just what you're looking at on the phone. It's so granular, the information that's being taken, that I think very few of us realise it and even if you do realise that as individuals, we can't really stop it. Todd Landman  24:52  And I think for that reason I take a little bit of comfort because I wasn't targeted by Cambridge Analytica. I probably played some of the games on Facebook, you know the personality test stuff, but I never got ads as far as I was concerned that were being, you know, foisted upon me by the Cambridge Analytica approach. I use that as, let's say, a metaphor. But I know that there was micro-targeting based on certain profiles, because there was an attempt to leverage voters who had never voted before, or voters who were predisposed to in particular vote to vote for certain things. But again, it's that unwitting sort of profile that you build by the things that you hover over or the things that you'd like or the things that you at least read and accept that button on cookies. And of course, we now know that that microtargeting actually might have had a, you know, a significant impact on the way in which people viewed particular public policy issues. Susie Alegre  25:41  Completely, and I mean, I don't know whether I was or was not targeted by Cambridge Analytica or similar, around that time around 2016/2017. I don't know if you've come across a Who Targets Me, which is a plugin that you can put onto your browser to find out particularly around election times, who is targeting you. And I have to say that when I very briefly joined a political party for a couple of months, I signed off my membership after a couple of months, because I discovered that they were targeting me and people in my household through this, who targets me plugin. So even though theoretically, as a member, I was already going to vote for them. But that information was being used to pollute my online environment, as far as I'm concerned, which was a bit of an own goal, I imagine for them. Todd Landman  26:32  So that really does bring us to the question of what is to be done. So you know, I was waiting in the book for sort of what's the regulatory answer, and you do give some good practical suggestions on a way forward, because there is this challenge, particularly where we need services, you know, we do need mortgages, we need access to health care, we need public information, we need all the benefits that come from the digital world. But at the same time, we need to protect ourselves against the harms that digital world can bring to us. So what are the sort of three or four major things that need to happen to maybe mitigate against the worst forms of what you're worried about in the book? Susie Alegre  27:10  Well, one of the difficulties in the book was coming up with those things, if you like, what are the key things that we need to stop, and particularly in an atmosphere where we are seeing regulation happening, rapidly trying to play catch up, we've just seen the Digital Services Act in the European Union being agreed, we have the Online Safety Bill on the table in the UK, in Chile, we've seen in the last year legislation around neuro rights being introduced. And so it's a very fast paced environment. So trying to come up with suggestions that go to the heart of it while recognising the complexity and also recognising that it's in a huge state of flux. I wanted to really highlight the things that I think are the core of how we've got here and the core, very obvious things that we should not be doing. The first one of those is surveillance advertising. And that is advertising that is based on information, granular information, like we've been talking about about our inner lives, including how we're feeling potentially at any single moment in order to decide what images what messages we should be delivered. And whether those are political messages, whether that is commercial messages, whether it's just trying to drag us into gambling, when we're having a bad moment online. All of those kinds of things are part of this surveillance advertising ecosystem. And while surveillance advertising isn't the whole problem, I think that surveillance advertising is the oil that is driving this machine forward. If you don't have surveillance advertising, there isn't so much money in gathering all of this information about us. Because that information is valuable because it can sell us stuff, whether it's selling us a political candidate, or whether it's selling us a particular pair of socks tomorrow. And so surveillance advertising, I think is the key. And I think banning surveillance advertising would be the single most effective way to start change. Another thing that I think could make a real sea change in the way tech develops is recommender algorithms. And again, the things that are being recommended to us the way that we receive our information, whether that is on Netflix, whether that is on new services, potentially, very personalised recommendations of information are a way of distorting how we think and how we see the world based on information about our emotional states information about our psychological vulnerabilities, a whole raft of things that could lead to that. That I think is a real vehicle for social control. And so you may want occasionally, or even always, to have somebody suggesting what you should watch, when you're feeling tired, you don't want to make a decision yourself and you're happy to just be given whatever it is. But recommender algorithms and that kind of personalization of information feeds should never ever be the default. At the moment for most of us that is the situation. When we open up our laptops. When we open up social media, when we look at our phones, we're being given a curated personalised experience without necessarily realising it. So addressing that, and making sure that personalization is not the automatic choice would make a really big difference. Todd Landman  30:53  It's just an amazing set of insights. You've taken us from Socrates to socks here today. And it's been an incredible journey listening to you and so much to think about and so many unresolved issues. And when I listen to you, and I read your book, you know, I feel like I should get off the grid immediately, and put my hood on because I don't want anyone reading my mind and I don't want anyone selling me socks. But for now, Susie, it was just great to have you on this episode of the Rights Track and thanks ever so much. Susie Alegre  31:20  My pleasure. Thank-you so much for having me. Christine Garrington  31:23  Thanks for listening to this episode of The Rights Track, which was presented by Todd Landman and produced by Chris Garrington of Research Podcasts with funding from 3DI. You can find a detailed show notes on the website at www.RightsTrack.org. And don't forget to subscribe wherever you listen to your podcasts to access future and earlier episodes.    

Article 18 of both the United Nations Human Rights Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects not only the right to believe in and practice a religion and to change religion, but also the right to hold nontheistic beliefs. Despite these protections, many members of nonreligious communities' face government repression, social intolerance, restrictions on freedom of thought, belief and expression, and pervasive discrimination because of their lack of religion or absence of belief in a God.Rachel Deitch, Director of Policy and Social Justice with the American Humanist Association joins us to discuss conditions of non-religious communities around the world.Read USCIRF's Factsheet on Nonbelievers in AfricaWith Contributions from: Dwight Bashir, Director of Outreach and Policy, USCIRFRachel Deitch, Director of Policy and Social Justice, American Humanist AssociationKirsten Lavery, Supervisory Policy Analyst, USCIRFGabrielle Hasenstab, Communications Specialist, USCIRF

Iedere dinsdag nemen mr. Jeroen Pols en mw. mr. Maria-Louise Genet samen de relevante juridische ontwikkelingen van de week door. Huishoudelijke mededelingen (2 stuks): A. Op vrijdag 28 januari 2022 van 13-17 uur zal er nabij Utrecht een cursus "Omgaan met Politie Interventies tijdens demonstraties" worden gegeven (kosten 55 euro). Hiervoor hoeft geen huiswerk te worden gemaakt en wettenbundels zijn niet noodzakelijk (maar wel handig). Aanmelden kan door een mailtje te sturen naar MLGprive@protonmail.com. Zet je telefoonnummer s.v.p. in de mail. B. Er zijn weer kaartjes beschikbaar voor de Algemene Juridische Avond bij Sociëteit Weltschmerz (Schiphol-Rijk) op woensdagavond 16 februari 2022 van 19.00 uur tot 21.30 uur. Aanmelden kan via de volgende link: https://luistervrijbijmij.nl/optreden/algemene-juridische-avond-bij-societeit-weltschmerz-16-02/. Bij succes wordt deze avond ook herhaald op 16 maart 2022. De bedoeling van deze bijeenkomsten is om mensen een juridische weerbaarheidstraining te geven zodat ze zich beter kunnen verweren op het moment dat ze in een lastige positie terechtkomen (zoals een arrestatie, insluiting tijdens een demonstratie, verweer tegen boetes, schending grond- en mensenrechten, buitensporig politiegeweld, injectieschade etc.). Deze bijeenkomst is een herhaling van de twee eerdere kennismakingsbijeenkomsten om anderen ook de kans te geven om de avond te kunnen bijwonen. Er worden geen opnames gemaakt, zodat de anonimiteit van alle deelnemers en juristen gewaarborgd blijft. Tijdens de algemene avond wordt heel kort een algemeen perspectief geschetst op de situatie waarin we ons bevinden en de stand van de rechtsstaat in Nederland. Daarna wordt het aanbod aan juridische cursussen gepresenteerd. Verder is er ruimte voor interactie met de zaal. Er zijn ook juristen aanwezig uit de rechtspraktijk die praktische juridische vragen kunnen beantwoorden. Inschrijflijsten voor de cursussen zullen klaarliggen. Tevens wordt de gelegenheid te baat gegrepen om juridische probleemvelden te verkennen. Dit kan dan weer aanleiding vormen voor ontwikkelen van nieuwe cursussen. Planning Woensdagavond 16 februari 2022 (welkomstprijs € 25,-- inclusief 2 consumpties) * 18.45 uur inloop en 19.00 uur aanvang informatieavond (s.v.p. niet te vroeg komen) * 19.00 uur – 20.00 uur: kort algemeen praatje, introductie van de aanwezige juristen, toelichting van de cursussen en interactie met de zaal * 20.00 – 21.00 uur: pauze met tot het nuttigen van een drankje en het stellen van vragen in kleinere groepjes; de juristen zullen zich over de zaal verspreiden en er zal een soort van juridisch loket / rechtswinkel in elke hoek staan * 21.00 – 21.30 uur: inschrijven voor de verschillende cursussen + informele afsluiting Inhoud: Juridisch Weekjournaal d.d. 25 januari 2021 Iedere dinsdag nemen mr. Jeroen Pols en mw. mr. Maria-Louise Genet samen de relevante juridische ontwikkelingen van de week door. Voor de eerdere 16 afleveringen van het Juridisch Weekjournaal wordt verwezen naar de website van Café Weltschmerz of Videowaarheid. Vandaag (in deel 17) wordt ingegaan op een aantal vrijgekomen documenten naar aanleiding van een WOB-verzoek. Dit betreft beleidsstukken rondom de besluitvorming over de Covid-19 maatregelen vanaf maart 2020 tot medio 2021. Er wordt met name ingegaan op het Eerste en Tweede Deelbesluit Wob-verzoek inzake informatie over de door Nederland gevoerde covid-19 aanpak. De minister van Financiën heeft beslist op een Wob-verzoek inzake informatie over de door Nederland gevoerde covid-19 aanpak. Het verzoek is gedaan op basis van de Wet openbaarheid van bestuur (Wob) (te vinden op: https://wobcovid19.rijksoverheid.nl/publicaties/c3877bdc88a572bcb5b62db2c5deadf0/). Hieruit blijkt dat er meerdere zeer kritische beleidsadviezen aan de Minister van Financiën zijn gestuurd, maar dat hier niets mee gedaan is en dat de minister bewust heeft gekozen voor catastrofaal beleid voor de Nederlandse burger. Bronnen: ~ Website van de Rijkoverheid waarop 12.000 tot 13.000 pagina's aan WOB-stukken zijn gepubliceerd: https://wobcovid19.rijksoverheid.nl ~ Aflevering Blckbx TV d.d. 21 juli 2021 “Overheid offert 520.000 levensjaren!” blijkt uit WOB-verzoek Economische Zaken van oud CBS directeur dhr. Ir. Jan van der Zande: https://www.blckbx.tv/corona/overheid-offert-520000-levensjaren-jan-van-der-zanden ~ De Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists (April 1985): https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1984/07/Siracusa-principles-ICCPR-legal-submission-1985-eng.pdf