tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/rights-36430/articlesrights – The Conversation2023-08-31T12:23:04Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2122422023-08-31T12:23:04Z2023-08-31T12:23:04ZMichael Oher, Mike Tyson and the question of whether you own your life story<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545972/original/file-20230901-21-zovk4b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C26%2C2977%2C1985&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Michael Oher and his family celebrate his selection by the Baltimore Ravens at the 2009 NFL Draft. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/baltimore-ravens-draft-pick-michael-oher-poses-for-a-news-photo/86217296?adppopup=true">Jeff Zelevansky/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>What if you overcame a serious illness to go on to win an Olympic medal? Could a writer or filmmaker decide to tell your inspiring story without consulting you? Or do you “own” that story and control how it gets retold?</p>
<p>Michael Oher, the former NFL player portrayed in the 2009 blockbuster “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0878804/">The Blind Side</a>,” has sued Michael and Anne Leigh Tuohy, the suburban couple who took him into their home as a disadvantaged youth.</p>
<p>In his official complaint, Oher claims that through forgery, trickery or sheer incompetence, the Tuohys enabled 20th Century Fox to acquire the exclusive rights to his life story. </p>
<p>The Tuohys, Oher continues, received millions of dollars for a “story that would not have existed without him,” while he claims that he received nothing.</p>
<p>Just a year earlier, former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson was <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/08/media/mike-tyson-hulu-series/index.html">similarly incensed</a> when he learned that Hulu had created <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14181914/">a miniseries dramatizing his career</a> without seeking his permission. </p>
<p>“They stole my life story and didn’t pay me,” Tyson charged <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Cg7JRAeLY9B/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=8c5ce5bc-6faf-4c49-b355-4b25d72418b8">in an Instagram post</a>.</p>
<p>Oher and Tyson – not to mention countless influencers and wannabe celebs – share the conviction that they own, and can monetize, their life stories. And given regular <a href="https://www.ibtimes.com/kurt-warner-movie-20th-century-fox-acquires-rights-former-qbs-life-story-plans-film-adaptation">news stories about studios buying</a> “life story rights,” it’s not surprising to see why. </p>
<p>As law professors, we’ve studied this issue; <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4480628">our research shows</a> that there is no recognized property right under U.S. law – or the laws of any other country of which we are aware – to the facts and events that occur during someone’s life.</p>
<p>So why are Oher, Tyson and others complaining? And why do publishers and studios routinely pay large sums to acquire rights that don’t exist?</p>
<h2>No monopoly on the truth</h2>
<p>In most states, the commercial use of an individual’s name, image and likeness is protected by the so-called “<a href="https://rightofpublicityroadmap.com/">right of publicity</a>.” But that right generally applies to merchandise, apparel and product endorsements, not facts and actual events. So you can’t sell a T-shirt with Mike Tyson’s face on it without his permission, but writing a book about his rise to fame is fair game.</p>
<p>In the U.S., the freedom to describe historical events is rooted in <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-1/ALDE_00013537/">the free speech clause</a> of the First Amendment, and it’s a fundamental principle that no one – whether it’s a news agency, political party or celebrity – holds a monopoly on the truth.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-verdict.html">The law doesn’t sanction the invasion of privacy</a>, so an investigative journalist who uncovers some unsavory detail of your past can’t publish it unless there is a legitimate public interest in doing so. Nor does it condone the dissemination of false information, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/04/18/business/fox-news-dominion-trial-settlement">which can lead to defamation lawsuits</a>. </p>
<p>The First Amendment, however, does allow authors and film producers to truthfully depict factual events that they have legitimately learned about. They are not required to receive authorization from or pay the people involved.</p>
<h2>The origin of life story ‘rights’</h2>
<p>Film producers, however, are accustomed to paying for the right to repackage or use existing content. </p>
<p>Copyright licenses are required to commission a script based on a book, to depict a comic book character in a film and to include a hit song on a movie soundtrack. Even showing an architecturally distinctive building often requires the consent of a copyright owner, which is why the video game “Spider-Man: Miles Morales” <a href="https://www.ign.com/articles/spider-man-miles-morales-doesnt-have-the-chrysler-building-due-to-copyright-issues">had to remove the Chrysler Building</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Manhattan skyline with art deco skyscraper in the foreground." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545622/original/file-20230830-24-kgtp41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545622/original/file-20230830-24-kgtp41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545622/original/file-20230830-24-kgtp41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545622/original/file-20230830-24-kgtp41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545622/original/file-20230830-24-kgtp41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545622/original/file-20230830-24-kgtp41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545622/original/file-20230830-24-kgtp41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Studios hoping to include a shot of the Chrysler Building in their films might have to pony up.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-chrysler-building-stands-in-midtown-manhattan-january-9-news-photo/1079651514?adppopup=true">Drew Angerer/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Along with these other rights and permissions, Hollywood studios have paid individuals for their life stories for at least a century. </p>
<p>Yet, unlike copyright clearances, life story deals do not involve the acquisition of known intellectual property rights. Life story “rights” are not rights at all. Instead, they bundle together a set of contractual commitments: the subject’s agreement to cooperate with the studio, not to work on a similar project, and to release the studio from claims of defamation and invasion of privacy. </p>
<p>By packaging these commitments under the umbrella of “life story rights,” studios can signal to the market that they have acquired a particularly juicy story. </p>
<p>For example, Netflix’s quick deal with convicted fraudster <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-scammers-like-anna-delvey-and-the-tinder-swindler-exploit-a-core-feature-of-human-nature-177289">Anna Sorokin</a>, the subject of the popular streaming series “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8740976/">Inventing Anna</a>,” seems to have <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56113478">deterred competing adaptations</a> of Sorokin’s story.</p>
<p>What’s more, the acquisition of life story rights has become so common that it is viewed, in many cases, as a de facto requirement for film financing and insurance coverage and thus part of the standard clearance procedure for many projects.</p>
<h2>Exceptions don’t make the rule</h2>
<p>As always with the law, though, there are exceptions. </p>
<p>Notably, the producers of the 2010 film “The Social Network” <a href="https://perma.cc/SN4H-UXAP">did not obtain the permission</a> of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg before dramatizing the origin story of his company. In moving forward with the project, they risked a defamation or publicity suit by Zuckerberg and others depicted in the film. But their gamble paid off: Zuckerberg, while <a href="https://perma.cc/SN4H-UXAP">critical of his depiction</a>, didn’t sue.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, other subjects who have been depicted in dramatic features without their authorization have sued to recover a share of the profits. </p>
<p>Silver screen legend Olivia de Havilland, for example, <a href="https://casetext.com/case/de-havilland-v-fx-networks-llc-1">sued FX Studios</a> for briefly depicting her in a miniseries about Hollywood rivals Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. She won at trial, though an appeals court reversed her victory, citing the producers’ First Amendment rights. </p>
<p>Lawsuits can even be brought when the characters’ names and story details have been changed. U.S. Army Sgt. Jeffrey Sarver, the bomb-defusing expert who inspired the Oscar-winning film “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887912/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_q_the%2520hurt%2520locker">The Hurt Locker</a>,” <a href="https://casetext.com/case/sarver-v-chartier">sued the film’s producers</a> for violating his right of publicity. He lost.</p>
<p>Lawsuits like these are not the norm. But many producers hope to get ahead of a flimsy lawsuit and bad publicity by acquiring nonexistent rights.</p>
<h2>History is in the public domain</h2>
<p>Ultimately, there is nothing wrong – and much that is right – with paying individuals to cooperate with the production of features about themselves. Doing so can convey respect toward the subject and make the production go more smoothly. </p>
<p>But the fact that life story acquisitions have entered the popular consciousness has spurred the widespread belief that any portrayal of a factual series of events entitles those depicted to a lucrative payday. This expectation increases production costs and the risk of litigation, thereby deterring otherwise worthwhile projects and depriving the public of meaningful content that is based on true stories.</p>
<p>What could be done about this situation?</p>
<p>One idea <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4480628">that we’ve written about</a> would prevent right of publicity laws – the basis for many life story lawsuits – from being used against works that convey ideas and tell a story, such as books, films and TV shows.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most important thing that can be done, though, is educating people that they don’t have a right to cash in on every description of the events of their lives. </p>
<p>Collective history, in our view, belongs in the public domain.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212242/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Publishers and studios routinely pay large sums to acquire ‘life story rights.’ Two law scholars explain why the phrase is misleading.Jorge L. Contreras, James T. Jensen Endowed Professor for Transactional Law and Director, Program on Intellectual Property and Technology Law, University of UtahDave Fagundes, Baker Botts LLP Professor of Law and Research Dean, University of Houston Law CenterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2067212023-06-27T12:23:22Z2023-06-27T12:23:22ZRight-to-charge laws bring the promise of EVs to apartments, condos and rentals<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533032/original/file-20230620-29-fy3zbe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C50%2C5590%2C3682&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Charging at home is more convenient for apartment dwellers, too.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/charging-of-an-electric-car-royalty-free-image/1042703278">Westend61 via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>More than <a href="https://www.veloz.org/ev-market-report/">3.6 million electric cars</a> are driving around the U.S., but if you live in an apartment, finding an available charger isn’t always easy. Grocery stores and shopping centers might have a few, but charging takes time and the spaces may be taken or inconvenient.</p>
<p>Several states and cities, aiming to expand EV use, are now trying to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.03.011">lift that barrier to ownership</a> with “right to charge” laws.</p>
<p>Illinois’ governor signed the latest <a href="https://wtax.com/news/101101-pritzker-signs-electric-vehicle-charging-expansion-plan-into-law/">right-to-charge law</a> in June 2023, requiring that all parking spots at new homes and multiunit dwellings be wired so they’re ready for EV chargers to be installed. Colorado, Florida, New York and other states have passed similar laws in recent years.</p>
<p>But having wiring in place for charging is only the first step to expanding EV use. Apartment building managers, condo associations and residents are now trying to figure out how to make charging efficient, affordable and available to everyone who needs it when they need it.</p>
<h2>Electric cars can benefit urban dwellers</h2>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=MDz1iZAAAAAJ&hl=en">civil engineer</a> who focuses on transportation, I study ways to make the shift to electric vehicles equitable, and I believe that planning for multiunit dwelling charging and accessibility is smart policy for cities.</p>
<p>Transitioning away from fossil-fueled vehicles to electric vehicles has <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change/">benefits for the environment and the health</a> of urban residents. It reduces tailpipe emissions, which can cause respiratory problems and warm the climate; it mitigates noise; and it improves urban air quality and quality of life.</p>
<p>Surveys show most EV drivers charge at home, where electricity rates are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.042">lower than at public chargers</a> and there is less competition for charging spots. In <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2023/02/16/new-high-16-ev-adoption-in-california-in-2022/">California, the leading state for EVs</a>, 88% of early adopters of battery electric cars said they were able to charge at home, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.011">workplace and public charging represented</a> just 24% and 17% of their charging sessions, respectively. Nationwide, about <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.04.002">50% to 80% of all battery electric car charging sessions</a> take place at home.</p>
<p><iframe id="7zkTl" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/7zkTl/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Yet almost a quarter of all U.S. housing structures have more than one dwelling unit, according to the 2019 <a href="https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs.html">American Housing Survey</a>. In California, 32.5% of urban dwellings have multiple units, and only a third of those units include access to a personal garage where a charger could be installed.</p>
<p>Even if installing a personal charger is an option, it can be expensive in a multiunit dwelling if wiring isn’t already in place. And it often <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2023.103776">comes with other obstacles</a>, including the potential need for electrical upgrades or challenges from homeowner association rules and restrictions. Installing chargers can involve numerous stakeholders who can impede the process – lot owners, tenants, homeowners associations, property managers, electric utilities and local governments.</p>
<p>However, if a 240-volt outlet is already available, basic charger installation <a href="https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-much-does-it-cost-to-install-an-ev-charger">drops to a few hundred dollars</a>.</p>
<h2>Right-to-charge laws aims for ubiquitous home charging</h2>
<p>Right-to-charge laws aim to streamline home charging access as new buildings go up.</p>
<p>Illinois’ new <a href="https://www.lplegal.com/content/electric-vehicle-charging-act-approved-illinois-legislature-what-illinois-community-associations-need-know/">Electric Vehicle Charging Act</a> requires that 100% of parking spaces at new homes and multiunit dwellings be ready for electric car charging, with a conduit and reserved capacity to easily install charging infrastructure. The new law also gives renters and condominium owners in new buildings a right to install chargers without unreasonable restriction from landlords and homeowner associations.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman unloads a shopping cart in a parking lot and puts items into her EV, which is charging from a public charger." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533031/original/file-20230620-17-shtr8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533031/original/file-20230620-17-shtr8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533031/original/file-20230620-17-shtr8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533031/original/file-20230620-17-shtr8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533031/original/file-20230620-17-shtr8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533031/original/file-20230620-17-shtr8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533031/original/file-20230620-17-shtr8z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Public chargers typically aren’t as convenient as charging at home, and chargers aren’t always available.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/electric-vehicle-lifestyle-royalty-free-image/1465286722">martin-dm/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Virginia also have <a href="https://pluginsites.org/legislation-reference-recharging-equipment-at-multi-unit-housing/">right-to-charge laws</a> designed to make residential community charging deployment easier, as do <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_charging_home.html">several U.S. cities</a> including Seattle and Washington, D.C. Most apply only to owner-occupied buildings, but a few, including California’s and Colorado’s, also apply to rental buildings.</p>
<p>Chicago officials have considered an <a href="https://www.lplegal.com/content/proposed-electric-vehicle-charging-ordinance-chicago/">ordinance that would</a> include existing buildings, too.</p>
<h2>Sharing chargers can reduce the cost</h2>
<p>There are several steps communities can take to increase access to chargers and reduce the cost to residents.</p>
<p>In a new study, colleagues and I looked at how to design shared charging for an apartment building with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2023.103776">scheduling that works for everyone</a>. By sharing chargers, residential communities can reduce the costs associated with charger installation and use. </p>
<p>The biggest challenge to shared charging is often scheduling. We found that a centralized charging management system that suggests charging times for each electric car owner that aligns with the owner’s travel schedule and the amount of charge needed can work – with enough chargers.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="The view from high in an apartment building shows balconies below and the solar-panel covered roof over the parking area." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533034/original/file-20230620-21-rdga2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533034/original/file-20230620-21-rdga2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533034/original/file-20230620-21-rdga2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533034/original/file-20230620-21-rdga2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533034/original/file-20230620-21-rdga2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533034/original/file-20230620-21-rdga2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533034/original/file-20230620-21-rdga2x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Apartments in a tower in China look down on an EV charging station covered in solar panels.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/looking-down-on-a-community-parking-lot-with-solar-royalty-free-image/1343714223">Zhihao/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a typical multiunit dwelling in Chicago – with an average of 14 cars in the parking lot – a small community charging hub with two <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure.html">level 2 chargers</a>, the type common in homes and office buildings, can cover daily residential recharging demand at a cost of about 15 cents per kilowatt-hour. But having only two chargers means residents are waiting on average 2.2 hours to charge.</p>
<p>A larger charging hub with eight level 2 chargers in the same city avoids the delay but increases the cost of charging to 21 cents per kWh because of upfront cost of purchasing and installing the chargers. To put that into context, the average electricity cost for Chicago residents is <a href="https://www.energysage.com/local-data/electricity-cost/il/cook-county/chicago/">16 cents per kWh</a>. </p>
<p>The future of charging management at multiunit dwellings <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.10.048">will be automated</a> for efficiency, with a computer or artificial intelligence determining the most efficient schedule for charging. Optimized scheduling can be responsive to the times renewable electricity generation sources are producing the most power – midday for solar energy, for example – and to dynamic electricity pricing. Automation can also eliminate delays for drivers while saving money and reducing the burden on the electric grid.</p>
<p>The current limited access to home charging in many cities <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.03.011">constrains electric vehicle adoption</a>, slows down the decarbonization of U.S. transportation and <a href="https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1825510">exacerbates inequities</a> in electric vehicle ownership. I believe efforts to expand charging in multidwelling buildings can help lift some of the biggest barriers and help reduce noise and pollution in urban cores at the same time.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/206721/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eleftheria Kontou receives funding from the Department of Energy Vehicle Technologies Office, the National Science Foundation, the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant, and the Office of Naval Research. </span></em></p>Illinois passed the latest law requiring new apartment buildings to be wired for EV chargers. Now apartment communities are figuring out the best ways to make shared charging work for everyone.Eleftheria Kontou, Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1975752023-01-17T13:34:02Z2023-01-17T13:34:02Z50 years after Roe, many ethics questions shape the abortion debate: 4 essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504340/original/file-20230112-14-sf3ro2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=13%2C9%2C1008%2C669&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Anti-abortion protesters demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court in 1985, the 12th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/washington-d-c-anti-abortionists-demonstrate-in-front-of-news-photo/515955026?phrase=1973%20abortion&adppopup=true">Bettmann/Bettmann via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Jan. 22, 2023, marks the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that recognized a constitutional right to abortion. That stood for nearly half a century, until a majority of justices <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade-decision-overturn">reversed it</a> in June 2022’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision. </p>
<p>People <a href="https://theconversation.com/there-is-no-one-religious-view-on-abortion-a-scholar-of-religion-gender-and-sexuality-explains-184532">with a broad range of views on abortion</a> often say their faith tradition helps inform their opinions. But beyond religion, many other ethical and moral questions shape Americans’ perspectives on the topic. </p>
<p>Here are some of The Conversation’s most thought-provoking articles on the underlying philosophical and bioethical issues involved in abortion debates.</p>
<h2>1. Rethinking ‘personhood’</h2>
<p>Activism for and against abortion rights often gets summed up into two simple-sounding terms: “pro-life” and “pro-choice.”</p>
<p>But “‘life’ and ‘choice’ are not, in and of themselves, really the issue,” <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-person-different-cultures-have-different-answers-186015">wrote Robert Launay</a> of Northwestern University. “The central question is what – or who – constitutes a person.”</p>
<p>As <a href="https://anthropology.northwestern.edu/people/faculty/launay.html">an anthropologist</a>, Launay studies that question in terms of culture. Different religions and societies think about personhood in different ways, he explained. Ideas about personhood in the U.S., for example, often stem from Christian ideas about the soul and are black and white – something is or isn’t considered a person. </p>
<p>In some of the Indigenous African traditions where he has done research, meanwhile, “many view personhood as a process rather than a once-and-for-all phenomenon” – something humans gradually acquire over time, through relationships, or through rituals.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A baby sucking its thumb lies on its back on a patterned blanket." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504387/original/file-20230113-26-h05j76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504387/original/file-20230113-26-h05j76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504387/original/file-20230113-26-h05j76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504387/original/file-20230113-26-h05j76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504387/original/file-20230113-26-h05j76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504387/original/file-20230113-26-h05j76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504387/original/file-20230113-26-h05j76.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A 4-month-old baby girl is tended by her grandmother inside a church in Duekoue, Ivory Coast, in 2011.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/IvoryCoast/db6beed455e1419cb9bf3e92533c8370/photo?Query=baby%20cote%20d%27ivoire&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=5&currentItemNo=0">AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-person-different-cultures-have-different-answers-186015">What does it mean to be a 'person'? Different cultures have different answers</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>2. Moral status</h2>
<p>Even within a single society, defining “personhood” can be complex and controversial. </p>
<p>Personhood is a key concern in bioethics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-personhood-the-ethics-question-that-needs-a-closer-look-in-abortion-debates-182745">wrote</a> University of Washington philosopher <a href="https://phil.washington.edu/people/nancy-s-jecker">Nancy Jecker</a>. In that context, being a “person” isn’t necessarily the same as being “human” – and it’s not an easy concept to nail down.</p>
<p>“When philosophers talk about ‘personhood,’ they are referring to something or someone having exceptionally high moral status, often described as having a right to life, an inherent dignity, or mattering for one’s own sake,” she explained. Personhood implies that someone or something can make strong moral claims, such as a claim against being interfered with. In abortion debates, Jecker added, “no one disputes the fetus’s species, but many disagree about the fetus’s personhood.” </p>
<p>Americans hold three main views of when personhood begins – at conception, at birth, or sometime in between – which is a central part of the country’s inability to agree about abortion rules. But the implications of how societies define personhood go much further, Jecker said, influencing areas like care for the environment and end-of-life treatment.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-personhood-the-ethics-question-that-needs-a-closer-look-in-abortion-debates-182745">What is 'personhood'? The ethics question that needs a closer look in abortion debates</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>3. Breaking down bioethics</h2>
<p>Given Americans’ diverse views about religion and personhood, are there other concepts that can help forge consensus?</p>
<p>In another article, Jecker <a href="https://theconversation.com/abortion-and-bioethics-principles-to-guide-u-s-abortion-debates-184916">broke down four key bioethics terms</a>, four bedrock principles in the field: autonomy; nonmaleficence, or “do no harm”; beneficence, or providing beneficial care; and justice. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman in a white shirt sits in bed beside a doctor wearing a stethoscope who holds her hand." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504390/original/file-20230113-18-q1l7ub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504390/original/file-20230113-18-q1l7ub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504390/original/file-20230113-18-q1l7ub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504390/original/file-20230113-18-q1l7ub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504390/original/file-20230113-18-q1l7ub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504390/original/file-20230113-18-q1l7ub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504390/original/file-20230113-18-q1l7ub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Four basic principles guide the field of medical ethics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/close-up-of-a-female-nurse-holding-hands-for-royalty-free-image/1315654897?adppopup=true">goc/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>People disagree about how to interpret those principles: Someone in favor of abortion rights, for example, might be most concerned about harm to pregnant women, while someone who opposes them could be more concerned about harm to a fetus.</p>
<p>Understanding how people see those principles in play, though, is at least a constructive step. Jecker suggested that, short of reaching a moral consensus, “articulating our own moral views and understanding others’ can bring all sides closer to a principled compromise.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/abortion-and-bioethics-principles-to-guide-u-s-abortion-debates-184916">Abortion and bioethics: Principles to guide U.S. abortion debates</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>4. Beyond ‘my body, my choice’</h2>
<p>For decades, one other phrase has dominated the U.S. abortion debate: the slogan “my body, my choice.”</p>
<p>At this point, the catchphrase is practically synonymous with the movement for reproductive rights. It’s profoundly shaped how people think about abortion rights: as an issue of privacy, decisions that women should make for themselves with their doctors.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An activist seen holding a placard that says, 'My body My Choice.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414171/original/file-20210802-18-7zo3kh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4992%2C3330&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414171/original/file-20210802-18-7zo3kh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414171/original/file-20210802-18-7zo3kh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414171/original/file-20210802-18-7zo3kh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414171/original/file-20210802-18-7zo3kh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414171/original/file-20210802-18-7zo3kh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/414171/original/file-20210802-18-7zo3kh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A protester holds aloft a ‘my body, my choice’ placard in a 2021 demonstration in Alabama.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/an-activist-seen-holding-a-placard-that-says-my-body-my-news-photo/1145542984?adppopup=true">Ronen Tivony/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But “my body, my choice” <a href="https://theconversation.com/with-abortion-heading-back-to-the-supreme-court-is-it-time-to-retire-the-my-body-my-choice-slogan-163770">doesn’t fully capture the key ideas</a>, argued <a href="https://med.uc.edu/landing-pages/faculty-profile/Index/Pubs/lanphieh">Elizabeth Lanphier</a>, a moral philosopher and bioethicist at the University of Cincinnati. Reproductive rights aren’t just about a lack of interference, what philosophers call “negative liberty.” Abortion is also about the right to access health care. </p>
<p>“‘My body, my choice’ suggests that because people own their bodies, they get to control them,” she wrote. But self-ownership isn’t so valuable without also having “positive liberty,” the freedom to do something.</p>
<p>“My research suggests ‘my body, my choice’ was a crucial idea at the time of Roe to emphasize ownership over bodily and health care decisions,” Lanphier concluded. “But I believe the debate has since moved on – reproductive justice is about more than owning your body and your choice; it is about a right to health care.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/with-abortion-heading-back-to-the-supreme-court-is-it-time-to-retire-the-my-body-my-choice-slogan-163770">With abortion heading back to the Supreme Court, is it time to retire the 'my body, my choice' slogan?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197575/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Looking at the underlying philosophical and moral questions involved in abortion debates can help explain why it’s such an intensely divisive issue.Molly Jackson, Religion and Ethics EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1925492022-11-02T16:05:33Z2022-11-02T16:05:33ZLab-grown brain cells can play Pong – so should they have legal rights?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492823/original/file-20221101-12-t5hdnh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=131%2C83%2C3820%2C2197&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/neurons-brain-on-dark-background-3d-700768720">Andrii Vodolazhskyi/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The story could have been straight out of science fiction – scientists have grown human brain cells in a lab, and taught them to play the video game <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pong">Pong</a>, similar to squash or tennis. But this didn’t happen on the big screen. It happened <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63195653">in a lab in Melbourne</a>, Australia, and it raises the fundamental question of the legal status of these so-called neural networks. </p>
<p>Are they the property of the team that created them, or do they deserve some kind of special status – or even rights? </p>
<p>The reason this question needs to be asked is because the ability to play pong may be a sign that these lab-grown brain cells have achieved <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/">sentience</a> – often defined as the capacity to sense and respond to a world that is external to yourself. And there is widespread consensus that sentience is an important threshold for <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/">moral status</a>. Ethicists believe that sentient beings are capable of having the moral right not to be treated badly, and an awareness of the implications of sentience is <a href="http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/115111/">increasingly embedded</a> in research practices involving animals.</p>
<p>If the Melbourne neurons are sentient, this may mean they are capable of suffering - perhaps through feeling pain or other avoidable discomfort. As there is broad moral consensus that we should not cause unnecessary suffering, this may mean that there are moral limits on what we can do with these neural networks. </p>
<p>It’s worth saying that the team that created the cells <a href="https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(22)00806-6?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0896627322008066%3Fshowall%3Dtrue">don’t think they are there yet</a> as the closed system in which the experiment took place means that, even if we accept the neurons are responding to an external stimulus, we don’t know whether they are doing so knowingly and with understanding of how their actions can cause certain outcomes. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Image of the game Pong." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492824/original/file-20221101-26750-2r06ux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492824/original/file-20221101-26750-2r06ux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492824/original/file-20221101-26750-2r06ux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492824/original/file-20221101-26750-2r06ux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492824/original/file-20221101-26750-2r06ux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492824/original/file-20221101-26750-2r06ux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492824/original/file-20221101-26750-2r06ux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pong.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/vhs-tape-screen-capture-simplified-reproduction-1281379615">Grenar/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But given where we are, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that sentience could be the next milestone. And if this is true, it’s not just ethicists who should be paying attention - legislators should also keep a close eye on this technology. </p>
<h2>The legal problem</h2>
<p>This is because, since Roman times, the law has classified everything as either a person or a property. Legal persons are capable of bearing rights. By contrast, property is something that is incapable of bearing rights. So if we think our neural networks might soon have moral status, and that this ought to be reflected in legal protections, we would need to recognise they were no longer property – but legal persons. And the case of Happy, an elephant at Bronx Zoo who campaigners wanted to transfer to an elephant sanctuary, shows us why this is something we should be proactive about. </p>
<p>The New York courts were recently asked whether Happy had a right to freedom, and they said no – because she was not a legal person. A full overview of the case is <a href="https://theconversation.com/from-ais-to-an-unhappy-elephant-the-legal-question-of-who-is-a-person-is-approaching-a-reckoning-185268">here</a>, but for our purposes, the key thing to take from the judgement is this: the courts accepted Happy was a moral being who was deserving of rights protection, but were powerless to act. That was because changing her legal status from property to person was too big a change for them to make. Instead, it was a job for the legislature – who are choosing to do nothing.</p>
<p>By recognising a moral claim they cannot enforce, the courts – and the law more generally – is perpetuating what it accepts is an injustice. This is especially shocking when you consider that the term “legal person” has never meant the same as “human being”. Throughout history and in legal systems around the world we have seen <a href="https://swarb.co.uk/bumper-development-corporation-ltd-v-commissioner-of-police-of-the-metropolis-ca-1991/">temples</a>, <a href="https://indiankanoon.org/doc/290902/">idols</a>, <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/183/424/">ships</a>, <a href="https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep017/usrep017518/usrep017518.pdf">corporations</a> and even <a href="https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/features/innovative-bill-protects-whanganui-river-with-legal-personhood/">rivers</a> classified as legal persons. Instead, it is just a signifier that the bearer is capable of having legal rights.</p>
<p>The lesson we can take from this is that we need to future-proof the law. It’s better to be proactive to avoid a foreseeable problem than try and play catch-up when it’s already happened.</p>
<p>And as we’ve said above – this problem is foreseeable with regards to the Melbourne neurons. Even if they’re not sentient yet, the potential is there – and so it is something we should take seriously. Because if we accept that these networks are sentient, and do have moral status because of this, then it is desirable that the law reflect this and grant protections commensurate to their interests.</p>
<p>This is not a revolutionary claim, and we have been in a similar place before. When IVF technology first arose in the 1980s, the law had to confront the question of the legal status of in-vitro embryos for the first time. The approach taken was to convene an inquiry to examine the moral questions raised by this new technology, which culminated in recommendations contained in the <a href="https://www.hfea.gov.uk/media/2608/warnock-report-of-the-committee-of-inquiry-into-human-fertilisation-and-embryology-1984.pdf">Warnock report</a>. These recommendations formed the basis of the UK’s legislative framework around IVF, which creates a kind of “third status” for these embryos - not full legal persons, but with significant restrictions on what can be done to them because of their moral status.</p>
<p>The influences of the Warnock report are still visible today - so there is no reason why a similar approach could not be taken with regards to the issues raised in Melbourne. Yes, there are lots of unanswered questions about the capacities of these neural networks and we may very well conclude that they are not deserving of legal protection just yet. </p>
<p>But there are certainly enough questions around this technology to warrant an attempt at finding an answer.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192549/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joshua Jowitt recently attended a research retreat at the University of Tuebingen on the moral and legal status of human cerebral organoids, which raised similar issues to those contained in this piece. This attendance was fully funded by the German government.</span></em></p>A lump of cells could be given the legal status of a person, or remain a property.Joshua Jowitt, Lecturer in Law, Newcastle UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1854372022-06-24T12:02:21Z2022-06-24T12:02:21ZWorkers’ rights: how a landmark UN decision on safety and health will actually affect employees<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470736/original/file-20220624-14-rilbj3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=25%2C25%2C5642%2C4087&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The ILO decided a safe and healthy work environment should be a fundamental right at its June 2022 conference.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/national-flag-ilo-on-flagpole-2164465563">Millenius/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In what has been called the “<a href="https://iosh.com/news/osh-human-rights/">biggest moment for workers’ rights</a> in a quarter of a century”, the International Labour Organization (ILO) <a href="https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_848132/lang--en/index.htm">adopted</a> a safe and healthy work environment as one of its five fundamental principles and rights at work for all at its June 2022 international conference. This is the first extension of workers’ human rights in almost 25 years and it means governments must now commit to respect and promote the right to a safe and healthy working environment.</p>
<p>Almost <a href="https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_686645.pdf">3 million</a> people die due to accidents and illnesses every year while trying to make a living. An additional <a href="https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_686645.pdf">374 million</a> workers are injured or made ill by their work. Overwork on its own kills more than <a href="https://www.who.int/news/item/16-09-2021-who-ilo-almost-2-million-people-die-from-work-related-causes-each-year#:%7E:text=%C3%82%C2%A9-,WHO%2FILO%3A%20Almost%202%20million%20people%20die%20from,work%2Drelated%20causes%20each%20year&text=Work%2Drelated%20diseases%20and%20injuries,International%20Labour%20Organization%20(ILO).">745,000 people</a> a year through increased risk of stroke and heart attack. If occupational safety and health (OSH) had been given more attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, thousands of lives <a href="https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_837406/lang--en/index.htm">could have been saved</a>. </p>
<p>The ILO decision could make a huge difference in preventing <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-61693783">mine collapses</a>, <a href="https://cleanclothes.org/news/2018/11/24/tazreen-fashions-6-years">factory fires</a> in the textile industry or by ensuring that hundreds of workers’ lives are not lost <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar-fifa-world-cup-2022">building the stadiums</a> to host the next men’s World Cup football tournament. Making OSH a human right also recognises the workplace psychosocial risks many workers experience – stress, burnout and isolation – which have been <a href="https://theconversation.com/were-all-exhausted-but-are-you-experiencing-burnout-heres-what-to-look-out-for-164393">made worse by the pandemic</a>. </p>
<p>The ILO, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-international-labour-organization-was-founded-after-the-spanish-flu-its-past-lights-the-path-to-a-better-future-of-work-140461">established in 1919</a> as part of the Treaty of Versailles, became a <a href="https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/history/lang--en/index.htm">specialised agency</a> of the United Nations in 1946, tasked with the adoption and supervision of international labour standards and the promotion of decent work. Its 187-strong membership includes 186 of the UN’s 193 members, plus the Cook Islands. </p>
<p>In the 1990s, as many sought a social dimension to the new economic world order following the fall of the Berlin Wall, a clarion call was raised for a global charter of workers’ rights. The <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/8/1/118/651419?login=true">demise of the social clause</a> – an effort to link labour standards and trade liberalisation - at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the 1990s placed the ball firmly in the ILO’s court. Its unique tripartite structure of governments, trade unions and employers took up the challenge of devising a response to globalisation and its victims.</p>
<p>Fuelled by its <a href="https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:62:0::NO:62:P62_LIST_ENTRIE_ID:2453907:NO">founding mandate</a> that: “Poverty anywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere”, the ILO adopted the <a href="https://www.ilo.org/declaration/thedeclaration/textdeclaration/lang--en/index.htm">1998 Declaration</a> on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. This commits the ILO’s 187 member states, regardless of their level of economic development, to respect and promote principles and rights in four categories: child labour, forced labour, discrimination and freedom of association and collective bargaining.</p>
<p>Such protections remain vital. While illegal in most countries, <a href="http://www.antislaverycommissioner.co.uk/media/1683/sedex-recognising-forced-labour-risks-in-global-supply-chains-october-2021.pdf">forced labour</a> is still widespread in many parts of the world. Similarly, <a href="https://www.un.org/en/observances/world-day-against-child-labour">child labour</a> is not yet illegal in all countries and remains a concern for governments, regulators and watchdogs in many countries.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Medical professional with clipboard, stethoscope, mask, outside hopsital." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470737/original/file-20220624-12-olrhhk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/470737/original/file-20220624-12-olrhhk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470737/original/file-20220624-12-olrhhk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470737/original/file-20220624-12-olrhhk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470737/original/file-20220624-12-olrhhk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470737/original/file-20220624-12-olrhhk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/470737/original/file-20220624-12-olrhhk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Many lives could have been saved if occupational safety and health had been given more attention during the COVID-19 pandemic.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-female-ems-key-worker-doctor-1714681855">Cryptographer/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The fifth pillar of human rights</h2>
<p>The recognition of OSH as the fifth pillar of human rights will have major implications for businesses, international trade agreements and governments. The 1998 Declaration is the point of reference for many private and multi-stakeholder forms of labour regulation. This includes the UN’s <a href="https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles">Global Compact</a> (a non-binding instrument with more than 16,000 company signatories), the <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf">Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights</a> (which outlines the corporate responsibility to respect human rights), <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=978&langId=en&company=&hdCountryId=0&companySize=0&sectorId=0&year=0&esp=0&geoScope=0&refStandard=&keyword=&mode=advancedSearchSubmit">transnational company agreements</a> and many codes of conduct by multinationals along global supply chains. </p>
<p>Most trade agreements also take the ILO 1998 Declaration as the foundation of their <a href="https://mulpress.mcmaster.ca/globallabour/article/view/2401">labour rights provisions</a>. The ILO <a href="https://www.ilo.org/ilc/ILCSessions/110/reports/texts-adopted/WCMS_848632/lang--en/index.htm">has said</a> the declaration should not unintentionally affect the rights and obligations of one of its members in relation to existing trade and investment agreements between states. But many new trade agreements may include a legally binding labour provision on a safe and healthy working environment. </p>
<p>For governments, therefore, the pressure is on. While the 1998 declaration only asked member states to “<a href="https://www.ilo.org/declaration/thedeclaration/textdeclaration/lang--en/index.htm">respect, promote and realise</a>” the fundamental principles, a huge wave of ratifications followed. For example, the Minimum Age Convention had only been ratified by 58 countries by 1997. Today that number has <a href="https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11300:0::NO::P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312283">risen to 175</a>. Other labour standards identified as fundamental such as the Forced Labour Convention have now been ratified by <a href="https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312174">179 member states</a> and the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention has universal ratification by the <a href="https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312327">187 member nations</a> of the ILO. We are likely to see the same response now OSH is a fundamental principle, especially since even in the EU many countries <a href="https://www.etuc.org/en/pressrelease/landmark-un-workers-safety-vote-leaves-eu-playing-catch">have not ratified</a> key OSH labour standards. </p>
<h2>A vital first step</h2>
<p>The recognition of a safe and healthy work environment as a human right is a first step, but not an end in itself. In an era of governments promoting the use of cheap labour to compete for investment, states could implement these labour standards as a form of “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/research-for-development-outputs/aligning-rights-and-interests-why-when-and-how-to-uphold-labor-standards">social camouflage</a>” to reduce criticism from the international community, while failing to actually enforce their provisions. Similarly, while OSH might become a pillar of the private regulation of labour standards, using this model alone to ensure a minimum level for labour standards has proved to be <a href="https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501754524/private-regulation-of-labor-standards-in-global-supply-chains/">woefully inadequate</a> in the past. </p>
<p>Concerted action by the international community is therefore needed. The decision taken by the ILO speaks volumes for its continued relevance. This move stands as a strong commitment by workers, employers and governments to recognise that they can do much more to ensure safety and health at work and help prevent the deaths and injuries of millions across the globe.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185437/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Huw Thomas has previously worked with the International Labour Organization (ILO). He has received funding from the Economic & Social Research Council.</span></em></p>Making a safe and healthy work environment a human right is only the first step in ensuring governments protect workersHuw Thomas, Lecturer in Work, Employment, Organization & Public Policy, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1656822021-08-10T07:08:57Z2021-08-10T07:08:57ZWhy COVID-19 vaccines should be mandatory in South Africa<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/414775/original/file-20210805-17-1dk9ob9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Vaccine mandates are being debated all over the world.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Brenton Geach/Gallo Images via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In recent months, the question of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination or limitations on those who choose not to be vaccinated has become a hot topic. In many countries, healthcare professionals and care home workers in facilities for the aged or disabled <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/countries-make-covid-19-vaccines-mandatory-2021-07-13/">must be vaccinated</a> as an occupational requirement. They are duty bound to accept a vaccine because of their non-negotiable pledge to avoid harm to patients, colleagues and their own families. </p>
<p>Other occupational groups who work in proximity to the public or in large indoor venues also have a responsibility to adhere to a mandatory vaccine policy. Likewise, barring medical contra-indications, civil society has a reciprocal duty to accept vaccinations to protect healthcare and other essential workers.</p>
<p>Where specific policies enforcing vaccination do not exist, other measures are being used to encourage vaccination or to nudge the unvaccinated. Incentives are being provided in some contexts for those who opt for vaccines. These include <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/07/29/joe-biden-offers-americans-100-get-covid-vaccine/">monetary incentives</a> or food vouchers, retail discounts and <a href="https://www.news24.com/fin24/companies/discovery-life-will-charge-unvaccinated-people-more-for-new-policies-heres-why-20210729">lower life or medical insurance premiums</a>. Less attractive measures are being implemented in other settings, such as weekly COVID-19 testing for the unvaccinated. Some countries are <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/countries-make-covid-19-vaccines-mandatory-2021-07-13/">restricting access</a> to venues like cinemas, nightclubs, concert halls and indoor restaurants. </p>
<p>Travel regulations are tightening up globally. Vaccine passports are <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56522408">increasingly being required</a> for international flights. And in a minority of places, among them Indonesia’s capital Jakarta, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-indonesia-vaccines-idUSL4N2KO1ZD">fines</a> of up to $357 are levelled against those who refuse vaccinations.</p>
<p>Paradoxically, throughout the pandemic, the voices of those clamouring for individual rights and civil liberties have rung loudly and abrasively, constantly attempting to crowd out calls for the common good and public interest, constantly attempting to overpower calls for herd immunity via COVID-19 vaccines.</p>
<p>South Africa, too, is grappling with the question of vaccine mandates. As a bioethicist, I have no doubt: ethically, vaccine mandates are justifiable on multiple levels, based on the common good and a public health ethics framework. This framework, which has been outlined by researchers, is based on <a href="https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6939-15-73">the principles</a> of solidarity, effectiveness, efficiency, proportionality and transparency. It intends to achieve three things in a public health emergency. First, to save lives. Second, to use limited resources efficiently. And, finally, to create social cohesion in the public interest and to build public trust.</p>
<p>It is no longer a matter of whether vaccine mandates should be introduced in South Africa, but when. The country’s Constitution and several pieces of legislation provide for this, in certain circumstances and with several factors taken into account.</p>
<h2>Policy and principle</h2>
<p>In 1985 the United Nations’ Economic and Social Council adopted the <a href="http://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/1984/07/Siracusa-principles-ICCPR-legal-submission-1985-eng.pdf">Siracusa principles</a> on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These principles are now firmly enshrined in international human rights law and standards. They require that any restriction on human rights must be based on law.</p>
<p>These principles are reflected in Section 36 of the <a href="https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/saconstitution-web-eng.pdf">South African Constitution</a>, which deals with the limitation of rights. The <a href="https://www.gov.za/documents/national-health-act">National Health Act No. 61</a> of 2003 also applies – it contains regulations relating to notifiable medical conditions. So too does the <a href="https://www.gov.za/documents/disaster-management-act-declaration-national-state-disaster-covid-19-coronavirus-16-mar">Disaster Management Act</a>.</p>
<p>Restrictions on individual rights imposed via vaccination are not arbitrary. South African law requires that they be based on a legitimate objective and must be strictly necessary for the achievement of the policy objective. In the case of COVID-19, the objective of preventing transmission of infection is unambiguously in the public interest. The least restrictive and intrusive means must be used and the burden of justifying a limitation of human rights lies with the South African government. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/frances-covid-health-pass-raises-serious-ethical-questions-165116">France’s Covid health pass raises serious ethical questions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The <a href="https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/SAConstitution-web-eng-02.pdf">South African Bill of Rights</a> (section 36) specifies that any limitation must be “reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom”. It also requires that the restriction be proportional to the purpose of the limitation. So the bigger the risk to public health, the larger the restriction may be on individual rights.</p>
<p>Most importantly, such restrictions must be based on scientific evidence. They should not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. Billions of COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered globally and have <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33301246/">demonstrated good safety data</a>, with protection from severe disease and death in most cases. Serious side-effects have been experienced <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8087878/">only by a minority with underlying risk factors</a>. The majority of deaths in the United States currently are occurring <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2021/unvaccinated-case-rate-delta-surge/">among the unvaccinated</a>. A <a href="https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/i-have-not-seen-a-single-vaccinated-person-in-covid-19-high-care-ward-groote-schuur-doctor-20210805">similar trend</a> has been noted in South Africa. Given this data, mandatory vaccination satisfies the requirement for being reasonable. </p>
<p>It is clear that, based on its existing legal framework, South Africa can legitimately introduce a mandatory vaccination policy for specific occupational environments and leisure activities. </p>
<p>Section 23 of the Constitution, for instance, states that “everyone has the right to fair labour practices”. A mandatory vaccine policy could be regarded as a fair labour practice – it prevents harm to all. Everyone has a right to a safe working environment. Employees who are vaccinated may legitimately object to having unvaccinated employees in their working environment. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.gov.za/documents/disaster-management-act-regulations-alert-level-1-during-coronavirus-covid-19-lockdown-18">Disaster Management Act COVID-19 regulations</a> are important to highlight. Specifically, regulation 14(3) states that any person “who intentionally exposes another person to COVID-19 may be prosecuted for an offence, including assault, attempted murder or murder.”</p>
<h2>No luxury of time</h2>
<p>Going forward, improving health literacy is a critical prerequisite to enhance vaccine acceptance. It must be accelerated and expanded rapidly to reach all communities.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/could-employers-and-states-mandate-covid-19-vaccinations-heres-what-the-courts-have-ruled-142330">Could employers and states mandate COVID-19 vaccinations? Here's what the courts have ruled</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>However, there is no luxury of time during a public health emergency to engage in prolonged community education efforts. In parallel with counselling, and vaccine literacy efforts, mandatory vaccine policies in high-risk environments are indispensable.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165682/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Keymanthri Moodley receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA for bioethics research and speaker fees from various pharmaceutical and other medical organisations for talks on bioethics, not vaccines or medical products. All comments are made in her personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect institutional views</span></em></p>Ethically, vaccine mandates are justifiable on multiple levels, based on the common good and a public health ethics framework.Keymanthri Moodley, Distinguished Professor in the Department of Medicine and Director, The Centre for Medical Ethics & Law, Stellenbosch UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1593052021-04-26T16:55:47Z2021-04-26T16:55:47ZCanada must change the law that bans sexual assault survivors from revealing their own identities<p>Earlier this month, news broke that a Waterloo, Ont., <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-april-16-2021-1.5990216/case-of-sex-assault-victim-fined-for-breaking-publication-ban-leaves-legal-community-divided-1.5990570">sexual assault survivor</a> was fined $2,600 after she pleaded guilty to violating a ban on her own identity. The story was met with surprise and outrage from lawyers, academics and advocates familiar with the laws of sexual assault. </p>
<p>While I’m as appalled as anyone at this miscarriage of justice, I’m not remotely surprised. It doesn’t take a deep read of the Criminal Code to see the defect. Our law makes clear that “<a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-107.html#docCont">any person</a>” who violates the ban on the identity of a sexual assault complainant can be charged. Obviously, “any person” includes the complainant themself. So with these two words, the code effectively denies agency and voice to sexual assault survivors.</p>
<p>My research has explored the ways in which the ban effectively silences survivors who would like to speak publicly; it also offers guidance to journalists on how to <a href="http://www.femifesto.ca/media-guide/">ethically report</a> on sexual assault, including how to best ensure that a <a href="https://caj.ca/images/downloads/Ethics/caj_ethics_report_sex_assault_revised_march_5.pdf">survivor who wants to be identified</a> does <em>not</em> face a criminal charge for going public with their story. </p>
<h2>Sexual assault complainants revictimized</h2>
<p>I’ve been told that the risk of a criminal charge following a complainant’s decision to break the ban on their own identity is merely theoretical — after all, surely prosecutorial discretion would <em>never</em> allow a sexual assault survivor to be sanctioned for telling their own story, right?</p>
<p>While it may have seemed unlikely until recently, it is <em>not</em> without precedent. In 2000, Member of Parliament Jack Ramsay was <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/full-text-of-jack-ramsay-sentence-1.204386">convicted of the attempted rape</a> of a 14-year-old Indigenous girl in 1969 while he was an RCMP corporal in northern Saskatchewan.</p>
<p>Given Ramsay’s reputation as a “tough-on-crime” politician, and the violation of trust he committed, his sentencing was high-profile. The woman Ramsay attempted to rape told a CBC reporter that she would do an interview <em>only if</em> her identity was revealed, an act she said was part of her “spiritual healing journey.” </p>
<p>After the interview was broadcast in a report that used the complainant’s name and showed her face, a charge of breaching the ban was laid … not against the courageous survivor but against the CBC; <a href="https://j-source.ca/article/know-the-rules-about-publication-ban-before-covering-the-courts/">the broadcaster was found guilty</a> and fined $2,000.</p>
<p>In the case out of Waterloo, there was no media scapegoat for the Crown, because it was the woman herself who <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-april-16-2021-1.5990216/case-of-sex-assault-victim-fined-for-breaking-publication-ban-leaves-legal-community-divided-1.5990570">shared the unredacted transcript</a> with family and friends. And it was the perpetrator who complained after he learned the transcript was shared. </p>
<p>To be clear, the complaint that gave rise to the woman’s guilty plea was one of unvarnished self-interest on the part of a convicted sex offender taking action against his victim.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-AZT03pGZU8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">George Doodnaught was convicted in 2014 of sexually assaulting patients during surgery, this City News interview tells the story of a survivor who fought to remove a ban to tell her story.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Who is the ban protecting?</h2>
<p>This isn’t the first time we’ve seen courts exhibit a concern for the reputational interests of sexual assault perpetrators. </p>
<p>A 1998 Ontario case, for example, saw three survivors who were sexually abused as children by their grandfather lose their bid to have the ban on their identities lifted. While the judge acknowledged that speaking publicly was part of the survivors’ “attempt to bring some closure and some healing to this sad and tragic event in their lives,” he <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xnYu0sv9mNNRNqZufJPBiXahi5VpiAuu/view?usp=sharing">upheld the ban</a> because rescinding it might expose “their grandfather and other members of their family … to closer inspection, and possibly ridicule, by the greater community.” </p>
<p>This ban has never <em>really</em> been about protecting the identity of the sexual assault survivor; if it was, it would be in effect from the time of the assault. Instead, the ban on a survivor’s identity isn’t imposed until <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-106.html#docCont">after someone is charged with sexual assault</a>, and makes their first appearance in court. </p>
<p>Given that a court arraignment is the necessary precondition for a ban to be imposed, if no one is charged, then there is no ban on the survivor’s identity. Why are victims of unsolved crimes less worthy of protection than those whose assault leads to a criminal charge?</p>
<h2>Can a sexual assault survivor speak freely to anyone?</h2>
<p>Recently we’ve seen examples of sexual assault complainants who have either refused the ban in the first place or later asked a court to rescind it, including in the high-profile cases of former <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-woman-waves-publication-ban-1.3540206">CBC broadcaster Jian Ghomeshi</a> (who was later <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-sexual-assault-trial-ruling-1.3505446">found not guilty</a>) and former <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/03/04/victims_of_dr_george_doodnaught_go_public_with_stories.html">anesthesiologist George Doodnaught</a>.</p>
<p>The woman at the centre of the Waterloo case didn’t reveal her identity to a journalist — she shared with family and friends, people who almost certainly had pre-existing knowledge of the matter. So what does this tell other sexual assault complainants? Can they talk to their friends? Can they share in a group counselling session? </p>
<p>So the alternative is that any sexual assault survivor whose identity is banned should have the ban lifted if they wish to speak publicly, right? </p>
<p>Well, it’s not that easy. Jane Doe is the sexual assault survivor who <a href="https://www.leaf.ca/case_summary/jane-doe-v-metropolitan-toronto-commissioners-of-police-1998/">sued the Toronto police</a> after they failed to warn women that there was a serial rapist in their midst. <a href="https://books.openedition.org/uop/577?lang=en">Doe’s research</a> led her to conclude there’s little consensus on the ban’s purpose and scope, nor is there agreement on how to rescind it … and there’s certainly nothing written into the Criminal Code that sheds light on the problem.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/metoo-in-2021-global-activists-continue-to-build-on-the-movement-against-sexual-violence-152205">#MeToo in 2021: Global activists continue to build on the movement against sexual violence</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Some well-resourced complainants have hired lawyers to fight the ban, while others have reached out directly to Crown prosecutors to seek a resolution; such efforts, however, are not within the means of all survivors. </p>
<h2>A progressive alternative</h2>
<p>The clearest path out of this problem already exists in Canadian law — the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) offers <a href="https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/y-1.5/page-21.html">a straightforward remedy</a> to an unwanted publication ban. Under the YCJA, anyone who was previously accused of a crime can unilaterally lift the ban on their own identity as long as they are not in custody on a YCJA matter and they are at least 18 years old. </p>
<p>There’s no need to hire a lawyer, petition a prosecutor or make their case to a judge. </p>
<p>Sexual assault complainants deserve a similar, statutorily defined process to shed this ban. Instead, they face a choice between flouting the law or engaging in a battle where they will almost certainly face a lack of clarity about the process and paternalism from the other parties involved; they may also be forced to make significant financial and emotional investments just to be able to speak openly about their experience.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159305/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa Marie Taylor is a senior fellow with Ryerson University's Centre for Free Expression, chair of the Ethics Advisory Board of the Canadian Association of Journalists, and an associate member of the Canadian Media Lawyers' Association. </span></em></p>The solution to a defective, sexist Criminal Code ban can be found in the Youth Criminal Justice Act.Lisa Taylor, Associate Professor, School of Journalism, Toronto Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1491602020-11-03T03:39:02Z2020-11-03T03:39:02ZTalk of scrapping NZ’s Human Rights Commission is a danger to democracy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367139/original/file-20201103-21-dmewmj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1377%2C624%2C8065%2C4615&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/photoviriya</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A <a href="https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/2019/06/nazis-and-racists-offensive-but-shouldn-t-be-arrested-david-seymour.html">call to abolish</a> New Zealand’s Human Rights Commission and dismiss it as a “hard left” body forgets the role both sides of politics played in establishing the organisation. And the call comes at a time when, overseas, democracy and the right to speak out on issues are under threat.</p>
<p>ACT leader <a href="https://www.act.org.nz/david_seymour">David Seymour</a> also <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/acts-david-seymour-calling-for-hard-left-human-rights-commission-to-be-abolished/OBX73GLPWXPTYNEUGRWCSJJMH4/">accused the commission</a> of being “irrelevant” and “dangerous” in his call for the government organisation to be scrapped.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1321530846898081792"}"></div></p>
<p>His attack came after the Human Rights Commission called for the <a href="https://theconversation.com/with-a-mandate-to-govern-new-zealand-alone-labour-must-now-decide-what-it-really-stands-for-144490">newly-elected Labour government</a> to <a href="https://www.hrc.co.nz/news/new-government-urged-keep-its-human-rights-and-te-tiriti-promises/">honour human rights</a> and it set out <a href="https://www.hrc.co.nz/files/8316/0385/7777/Ko_O_Tika_ko_To_Reo_FINAL.pdf">39 issues</a> it wants politicians to adopt.</p>
<p>These include a right to a decent and affordable home, a living wage and an end to pay discrimination, more employment opportunities for disabled people and a national action plan against racism. </p>
<p>Politicians are asked to take account of the human rights promises made by successive governments. The commission also wants the growing partnership between the Crown and <a href="https://teara.govt.nz/en/tribal-organisation/page-1">hapū and iwi</a> to be advanced.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1321583074610614272"}"></div></p>
<h2>Democracy under threat</h2>
<p>Overseas, during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a worsening of democracy and human rights in 80 countries, according to <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/democracy-under-lockdown">research</a> from the US-based <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/about-us/our-history">Freedom House</a>, an organisation devoted to the support and defence of democracy around the world.</p>
<p>The researchers say:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Governments have responded by engaging in abuses of power, silencing their critics, and weakening or shuttering important institutions, often undermining the very systems of accountability needed to protect public health.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1312015233104441344"}"></div></p>
<p>The recent rapid decline is an acceleration of a longer trend of declining democracy and the freedoms that it protects. Sri Lanka and Cambodia have been <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/democracy-under-lockdown">identified</a> as states where democracy was already struggling and where there were weak safeguards against abuses of power.</p>
<p>The governments of Egypt, Guatemala and Zimbabwe, among others, were <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/democracy-under-lockdown">reported</a> as using the pandemic to engage in further abuses of power, to silence critics and to weaken or shut down institutions. </p>
<p>On a positive note, Aotearoa New Zealand featured <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/democracy-under-lockdown">favourably</a> in the Freedom House report, saying the government had announced a range of measures to make sure the election could go ahead during the pandemic. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/can-new-zealands-most-diverse-ever-cabinet-improve-representation-of-women-and-minorities-in-general-149273">Can New Zealand's most diverse ever cabinet improve representation of women and minorities in general?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But Aotearoa New Zealand is not immune from efforts to undermine human rights and democracy. David Seymour has made calls before to <a href="https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/2019/06/nazis-and-racists-offensive-but-shouldn-t-be-arrested-david-seymour.html">abolish</a> the Human Rights Commission.</p>
<p>Following Seymour’s latest call, National’s <a href="https://simonbridges.national.org.nz/">Simon Bridges</a> said the commission needed reform. He described some of the issues it raised, such as “fair pay and raising benefits and all of these other things”, as legitimate — but they “<a href="https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/10/ain-t-human-rights-simon-bridges-lashes-out-at-human-rights-commission-s-call-for-fair-pay-benefits-that-cover-the-necessities-of-life.html">ain’t human rights</a>”.</p>
<p>This type of thinking is reflected in the fact such rights are not protected by the <a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html">New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990</a>. The failure to include these rights makes it more difficult, but not impossible, for the commission (and the courts) to defend such rights.</p>
<p>But the right to adequate housing was enshrined in the United Nations’ <a href="https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/">Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948</a>. So too has the right to remuneration that ensures an existence worthy of human dignity, as has the right to social security.</p>
<p>The inclusion of such rights is largely due to the work of the first Labour government (1935–49), particularly then Prime Minister Peter Fraser. Aotearoa New Zealand accepted the UN declaration in December 1948.</p>
<h2>A human rights framework</h2>
<p>The origins of Aotearoa New Zealand’s own human rights framework begins in 1963 when the second National government (1960–72) tried, unsuccessfully, to pass a Bill of Rights Act. But it did pass the <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/rra19711971n150175/" title="Race Relations Act 1971">Race Relations Act</a> in 1971.</p>
<p>This act prohibited racial discrimination and established the office of Race Relations Conciliator. It was the first time New Zealand legislation made reference to the specific mandate of human rights protection.</p>
<p>The third National government (1975–84) established the Human Rights Commission. The <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/hrca19771977n49294/">Human Rights Commission Act 1977</a> prohibited a wide range of discrimination and the Human Rights Commission was tasked with investigating breaches of the Act.</p>
<p>The same government also accepted the rights to adequate housing, work that ensured a decent living and social security as <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx">legally binding</a> obligations in <a href="https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/constitutional-issues-and-human-rights/human-rights/international-human-rights/international-covenant-on-economic-social-and-cultural-rights/">1978</a>. </p>
<p>The prohibition on discrimination was widened in <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/hra19931993n82175/" title="Human Rights Act 1993">1993</a> under the fourth National government (1990–99).</p>
<p>In 2001, the fifth Labour government (1999–2008) <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/hraa2001228/" title="Human Rights Amendment Act 2001">extended</a> the powers of the Human Rights Commission. The commission’s focus changed from anti-discrimination to broader human rights issues.</p>
<p>Employment rights for people with disabilities were also part of a suite of <a href="http://www.un-documents.net/a61r106.htm">disability rights</a> accepted by that government in <a href="https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/constitutional-issues-and-human-rights/human-rights/international-human-rights/crpd/">2008</a>.</p>
<p>As for the call to advance the growing partnership between the Crown and hapū and iwi, the third Labour government (1972–75) oversaw the establishment of the <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/towa19751975n114226.pdf">Waitangi Tribunal</a> in 1975, and the National Party did not object.</p>
<p>The fifth National government (2008–2017) achieved the highest number of Treaty of Waitangi settlements of any administration to date.</p>
<h2>Cross party support</h2>
<p>Clearly then, New Zealand’s commitment to human rights, and providing redress for breaches of Te Tiriti for that matter, is not – and has never been – grounded in a “<a href="https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/politics/acts-david-seymour-wants-hard-left-human-rights-commission-to-be-abolished/">left wing manifesto</a>”, as David Seymour claims.</p>
<p>The strength of our democracy and commitment to human rights, including the right to free speech, means New Zealanders are free to agree or disagree with the Human Rights Commission’s call to action. We may also differ on what we understand actual human rights to be. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/her-cabinet-appointed-jacinda-ardern-now-leads-one-of-the-most-powerful-governments-nz-has-seen-148984">Her cabinet appointed, Jacinda Ardern now leads one of the most powerful governments NZ has seen</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It’s one thing to engage in the merits of the debate about whether decent and affordable housing, a living wage, fair pay and adequate benefits should be regarded as human rights.</p>
<p>But it’s another thing to call for the abolition of an institution set up to promote <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/hrca19771977n49294/" title="Human Rights Commission Act 1977">respect</a> for human rights and to ensure those rights are observed, as well as to make <a href="http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/hrca19771977n49294/" title="Human Rights Commission Act 1977">public statements</a> on any human rights matter.</p>
<p>New Zealanders should be wary of any calls to abolish the Human Rights Commission. To do so, would be one step to towards diminished accountability on the part of our leaders and the silencing of government critics. As Freedom House reports, these are some of the tactics favoured by repressive regimes seeking to undermine democracy and human rights.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/149160/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Claire Breen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Governments of different political leanings helped forge the Human Rights Commission. To abolish it would diminish accountability and silence an important government critic.Claire Breen, Professor of Law, University of WaikatoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1463042020-09-23T19:58:14Z2020-09-23T19:58:14ZThe missing question from New Zealand’s cannabis debate: what about personal freedom and individual rights?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/358783/original/file-20200918-20-1eglei2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=69%2C399%2C5198%2C4040&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/alexreynolds</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Much of the debate on New Zealand’s <a href="https://www.referendums.govt.nz/cannabis/summary.html">referendum</a> on recreational cannabis legalisation has focused on <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cannabis-referendum/122772132/cannabis-the-science-is-still-far-from-settled">health</a>, the <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/424365/cnmi-looks-to-cannabis-industry-to-boost-economy">economy</a>, <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/122743271/criminals-may-target-children-if-cannabis-is-legalised--national-candidate">criminal justice</a> and the uncertainties about the impact on <a href="https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2009/S00203/cannabis-youth-use-would-increase-if-legalised-australian-study.htm">youth</a> and <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12352685">adult</a> use.</p>
<p>But one argument is oddly missing from the debate — personal freedom, autonomy and individual rights. </p>
<p>This is striking, because the issue of personal liberties has traditionally been at the forefront of cannabis reform activism. At the heart of all <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2004.tb00624.x" title="Law and ethics in population health">public health laws</a> is the conflict between the powers of the state and the individual’s liberty, privacy and autonomy. </p>
<p>In the past two years, constitutional courts <a href="https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/news/2019/cannabis-control-and-the-right-to-privacy_en">in several countries</a> have ruled the prohibition of use, possession and private cultivation of cannabis interferes with an individual’s right to privacy. They’ve said protecting public health and security does not justify state punishment.</p>
<p>It may come as a surprise, but <a href="https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/topic-overviews/content/drug-law-penalties-at-a-glance_en">about half of the countries in Europe</a> do not prohibit the use of drugs (as New Zealand does). Instead, they choose only to ban their possession. </p>
<p>The difference is more than academic. Prohibition of consumption may give police extraordinary powers, such as taking biological samples from people as evidence. Drug testing is <a href="https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-actions-and-decisions/research/explore-privacy-research/archived/02_05_12/">intrusive</a> and should only be done if there is a significant public interest to protect.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/if-reducing-harm-to-society-is-the-goal-a-cost-benefit-analysis-shows-cannabis-prohibition-has-failed-145688">If reducing harm to society is the goal, a cost-benefit analysis shows cannabis prohibition has failed</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Some countries go even further. They ban possession and use of drugs, but only in public spaces, on the understanding that drug laws exist to prevent public nuisance. </p>
<p>In Spain, the distinction between use in public and private led to the so-called “<a href="https://www.tni.org/en/publications/legislative-reform-series/item/1095-cannabis-social-clubs-in-spain">cannabis social clubs</a>”. Users grow and share cannabis among club members in private settings.</p>
<h2>The rights and the risks</h2>
<p>The fundamental personal right to ingest a substance that has little impact on others has long been argued by cannabis activists such as <a href="https://norml.org.nz/">NORML</a> (National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws).</p>
<p>With this argument largely absent from current debate in New Zealand (as well as many other jurisdictions contemplating reform), debate focuses instead on the potential to create jobs and tax revenue (<a href="https://cclponline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/amendment_64_analysis_final.pdf">Colorado</a>), reduce arrests and discrimination (<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wps.20741?af=R">Illinois</a>), address public security and drug-related violence (<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.14523" title="Why Uruguay legalized marijuana? The open window of public insecurity">Uruguay</a>) and restrict youth access to cannabis and enhance public health (<a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-medication/cannabis/laws-regulations/task-force-cannabis-legalization-regulation/framework-legalization-regulation-cannabis-in-canada.html#a2.1">Canada</a>).</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/it-could-take-10-years-to-measure-the-impact-of-legalising-weed-should-new-zealands-proposed-law-be-even-stronger-144271">It could take 10 years to measure the impact of legalising weed – should New Zealand's proposed law be even stronger?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The aim of New Zealand’s proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill is to apply market controls to reduce harms associated with cannabis and restrict access by young people. But, as we have <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/add.15144" title="Assessing New Zealand’s Cannabis Legalization and Control Bill: prospects and challenges">argued before</a>, the goal of reducing overall use over time will be hard to achieve via a commercial market.</p>
<p>The personal rights argument can struggle to win over people concerned about the health and social implications of legalisation, especially given their experience of other public health debates. </p>
<p>The alcohol industry, for example, <a href="https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-13-630" title="The illusion of righteousness: corporate social responsibility practices of the alcohol industry">pushed</a> individual rights and consumer responsibility to undermine effective public health measures such as higher taxes and bans on advertising. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZB8vqwN-sG4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Former prime minister Helen Clark supports the legalisation and regulation of recreational cannabis use.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Personal choice vs public health</h2>
<p>The assumption all adults can make responsible choices about using psychoactive drugs is also challenged. There are risks of <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871610003753" title="Probability and predictors of transition from first use to dependence on nicotine, alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine: Results of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions">dependency</a> that could interfere with personal autonomy, and the <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/2/148" title="The Effects of Digital Marketing of Unhealthy Commodities on Young People: A Systematic Review">psychological influence</a> of marketing that targets vulnerable groups such as the young and poor.</p>
<p>There is a fine line between respecting people’s right to choose and facilitating the normalisation and commercialisation of something that could lead to poor public health. </p>
<p>The use of any psychoactive substance <a href="https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/projectAvailableFormats/NZLC%20R122.pdf">carries the potential</a> to harm personal and family relationships, and cause unsafe driving or workplace accidents. This reinforces the argument that some degree of regulation and state intervention will always be necessary.</p>
<p>The age-old question is how best to balance the powers of the state with individual rights to privacy and autonomy, while protecting public health and vulnerable groups.</p>
<h2>The absence of recreational users’ voices</h2>
<p>Society <a href="https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal-articles/attitudes-towards-cannabis-and-cannabis-law-change-in-a-new-zealand-birth-cohort">appears more receptive</a> to the personal right to use <a href="https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/regulation-health-and-disability-system/medicinal-cannabis-agency/about-medicinal-cannabis-scheme">medicinal cannabis</a>. </p>
<p>Despite the (as yet) limited scientific evidence for the effectiveness of <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2338251" title="Cannabinoids for Medical Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis">cannabis in medical treatment</a>, greater legal availability of medicinal cannabis <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12093960">attracts good public support</a>. This is largely based on respecting a person’s decisions about how to treat their illness. </p>
<p>The right to use cannabis recreationally requires decision makers to consider the benefits people get from its use, such as <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17728122/" title="Erasing pleasure from public discourse on illicit drugs: on the creation and reproduction of an absence">pleasure or relaxation</a>. But this is often forgotten or avoided in drug reform debates.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/reforming-cannabis-laws-is-a-complex-challenge-but-new-zealands-history-of-drug-reform-holds-important-lessons-141113">Reforming cannabis laws is a complex challenge, but New Zealand's history of drug reform holds important lessons</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Medicinal cannabis users have been actively <a href="https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2020/06/opinion-why-medicinal-cannabis-patients-are-desperate-for-a-yes-vote-in-the-referendum.html">involved</a> in the cannabis law reform debate, with a representative on the <a href="https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/regulation-health-and-disability-system/medicinal-cannabis-agency/medicinal-cannabis-agency-background-information#advgroup">Medicinal Cannabis Advisory Group</a>. But recreational cannabis users seem to be <a href="https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2020/07/09/the-trouble-with-the-cannabis-referendum-too-many-pointy-heads-not-enough-cones/">largely absent</a> from the public debate. </p>
<p>Including more voices from recreational cannabis users could provide new ways of thinking about balancing the powers of the state with individual rights.</p>
<p>Given the current uncertainties about the long-term health and social impacts of legalisation, the individual rights issue may actually be among the more convincing arguments for reform.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Q: What do you think? Do people have a right to use cannabis for recreational purposes, in public or private? Post your comment below and be part of The Conversation.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/146304/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marta Rychert receives funding from Marsden Royal Society of New Zealand and Health Research Council of New Zealand.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Wilkins receives external contestable research funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund and Health Research Council (HRC) of New Zealand. </span></em></p>The voices of recreational cannabis users are curiously missing from the official debate about legalisation.Marta Rychert, Senior Researcher in Drug Policy, Massey UniversityChris Wilkins, Associate Professor of illegal drug research, Massey UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1272442019-11-19T14:33:55Z2019-11-19T14:33:55ZThe African football TV blackout could last for a while<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302395/original/file-20191119-111676-1aridki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Aliou Mbaye/EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The governing body for soccer in Africa, the <a href="http://www.cafonline.com/en-us/caf/background.aspx">Confederation of African Football</a> (CAF) has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/11/08/sports/soccer/08reuters-soccer-africa.html">cancelled</a> its media and marketing rights agreement with French company, <a href="https://lagardere-se.com/">Lagardère Sports and Entertainment</a>. The impact has been felt across the world but nowhere more so than in Africa. </p>
<p>As the first round of the <a href="https://images.cafonline.com/image/upload/caf-prd/imh0bgnhdjvis8tk8fi4.pdf">qualifying games</a> for CAF’s 2021 Africa Cup of Nations got underway, millions of fans were dismayed to learn that the games were blacked out on TV screens and radio stations. The same applied to CAF’s Africa U-23 tournament in Egypt. </p>
<p>The Africa Cup of Nations is widely watched on the continent and around the world. The 2012 version co-hosted by Equatorial Guinea and Gabon was reportedly watched by <a href="https://ewn.co.za/2013/01/15/Record-TV-audience-underpins-Afcon-growth">6.6 billion viewers</a>. The cup is so popular that the BBC covered the 2019 final in <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2019/afcon">13 languages</a>. </p>
<p>The 12-year media and marketing <a href="https://www.eurosport.com/football/sportfive-signs-long-term-rights-deal-with-caf_sto4780800/story.shtml">contract</a> between Lagardère and CAF was hailed by many as significant when it was signed in 2015. It upped the commercial value of the African game, the rights reportedly going for about <a href="https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/lagardere-to-contest-caf-cancellation-of-agency-deal/">$1 billion</a> for a period until 2028. But it almost immediately ran into problems. </p>
<p>In 2017, <a href="https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=63944fcb-3930-4d6d-a452-6ab61580b3b0">The Egyptian Competition Authority</a> ruled that the contract was anti-competitive because it wasn’t based on an open bidding process. And then <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2489545">the Economic Court in Cairo</a> took on the matter. Egypt’s Economic Courts, often staffed by three-judge panels who are considered specialists in the case, are designed to rule quickly on commercial cases. The court confirmed, in November 2018, that CAF did not open the rights acquisition to competitive bidding. The deal with Lagardère was deemed unlawful and CAF officials were fined. </p>
<p>By the time the tournament came round again in November 2019, it would have been unlawful to continue the relationship with Lagardère, said the confederation. It said it had no choice but to <a href="https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/8/77592/CAF-terminates-billion-dollar-contract-with-Lagardere-Sports">cancel the deal</a>. </p>
<p>And with that, primary African broadcasters of CAF matches, like <a href="https://supersport.com">SuperSport</a>, the South Africa-based Pan-Africa television group, lost their rights to broadcast the matches as they had bought these from Lagardère. Only <a href="https://www.beinsports.com/en/">beIN Sports</a>, a global network of sports channels with sub-rights to transmit the games in the Americas and the Middle East, has been able to continue to broadcast games.</p>
<p>To understand the issues that led to this latest blow to the development of African football audiences, it’s best to consider the issues from the viewpoints of the key parties.</p>
<h2>The key players</h2>
<p><strong>CAF</strong>: The organisation was founded in 1957. It organises continent-wide football from its headquarters in Cairo. The confederation is no stranger to controversy. It recently made headlines for <a href="https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/caf-fires-general-secretary-amid-fresh-allegations-against-president/">firing</a> a high ranking official and its operations management being <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-soccer-nations-caf/fifa-expected-to-take-over-the-running-of-african-football-idUSKCN1TL0UP">taken over</a> by the International Federation of Football Associations. </p>
<p>Back in 2017 when CAF was under the presidency of <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2017-03-15-african-soccer-supremo-issa-hayatou-faces-challenger-in-bid-for-eighth-term">Issa Hayatou</a>, it argued strongly that the Lagardère contract was <a href="http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/6/254533/Sports/CAF-denies-Hayatou-referred-to-prosecution-in-Egyp.aspx">not in violation</a> of Egypt’s laws. </p>
<p>So why is CAF now singing a different tune? </p>
<p>First, the federation has a controversial new leader, <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2019-06-04-00-african-footballs-new-dawn-turns-to-dusk-in-ahmads-hands">Ahmad Ahmad</a>. Ahmad became CAF president in 2017 after defeating Hayatou in an election. Ahmad immediately made it clear that he was against the deal. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302390/original/file-20191119-111630-1lbl0hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302390/original/file-20191119-111630-1lbl0hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302390/original/file-20191119-111630-1lbl0hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302390/original/file-20191119-111630-1lbl0hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302390/original/file-20191119-111630-1lbl0hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302390/original/file-20191119-111630-1lbl0hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302390/original/file-20191119-111630-1lbl0hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302390/original/file-20191119-111630-1lbl0hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Controversial CAF president Ahmad Ahmad at a press conference in Tunisia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mohamed Messara/EPA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Criticism of the deal focused on the fact that it was a long-term commitment – 12 years is long for contracts like this, which usually run for three years. Long-term contracts can limit revenue growth. Invariably opportunities emerge in the light of new technologies to grow several revenue earning platforms. African football, particularly, is growing and increasingly there is global media interest.</p>
<p>It’s possible, said critics, that CAF could get more money out of Lagardère and that several other companies may have bid for the contract.</p>
<p><strong>Lagardère</strong>: The French company can ill afford to lose this deal. Earlier this year it <a href="http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/ddmc-fortis-pay-us4-billion-afc-rights">lost a lucrative contract</a> with the Asian Football Confederation. The <a href="https://www.sportbusiness.com/news/lagardere-lays-out-financial-impact-of-caf-move-to-terminate-contract/">CAF announcement</a> has already affected its share price on the Paris stock exchange.</p>
<p><strong>Egyptian Competition Authority:</strong> Its role is contested. Lagardère may argue that the authority has no jurisdiction over the matter. Under its former leader CAF held the same view. That has changed. </p>
<p>The contract specifies Swiss law as the legal governing instrument. But the Egyptian authority is insisting that its ruling takes precedence because the federation falls under its jurisdiction in Egypt. </p>
<p>If CAF wants to continue to operate in Egypt, it must find a way to satisfy the competition authority’s concerns.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302443/original/file-20191119-111635-1d5h20r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302443/original/file-20191119-111635-1d5h20r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/302443/original/file-20191119-111635-1d5h20r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302443/original/file-20191119-111635-1d5h20r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302443/original/file-20191119-111635-1d5h20r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302443/original/file-20191119-111635-1d5h20r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302443/original/file-20191119-111635-1d5h20r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/302443/original/file-20191119-111635-1d5h20r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Senegalese soccer fans watch the 2019 Africa Cup of Nations final on TV in a street in Dakar.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Aliou Mbaye/EPA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What happens next?</h2>
<p>CAF and Lagardère are positioning themselves to minimise the damage from the contract termination. Lagardère has argued it was a unilateral decision, setting it up to seek huge compensation from CAF for breaking the contract. </p>
<p>CAF has denied the decision was unilateral, citing the Egyptian court rulings and hoping this line of argument will allow it to settle with Lagardère for a lower cost.</p>
<p>Ultimately, this issue is likely to be decided in one of two ways. </p>
<p>It could be decided in Switzerland’s courts. Egypt will, however, most certainly continue to assert its jurisdiction, regardless of what the Swiss courts rule. This would mean that Lagardère’s only course of action would be to seek compensation. Egypt’s competition authority would welcome such an outcome as it would force CAF to re-open bidding for the rights. </p>
<p>Alternately, Lagardère and CAF could negotiate a reasonable compensation that allows CAF to re-open bidding for rights.</p>
<p>Clearly, the tumult points to a need for long-term changes. CAF may review its relationship with its Egyptian host as well as its approaches to licensing its rights. The crisis may hasten Lagardère’s <a href="https://www.sportcal.com/News/FeaturedNews/116406">exit</a> from sports media and marketing. </p>
<p>None of these will be quick processes and it will take time before new rights holders are able to broadcast the beautiful game. In the meanwhile the rights situation will deny fans access to watch matches and will deny CAF much-needed revenue.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127244/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chuka Onwumechili does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The African Cup of Nations is the continent’s premier soccer tournament - but it’s not being broadcast on TV as usual. Behind the blackout is a tale of court rulings and sour deals.Chuka Onwumechili, Professor of Communications, Howard UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1035442018-10-04T19:31:33Z2018-10-04T19:31:33ZSouth Africa’s white right, the Alt-Right and the alternative<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237914/original/file-20180925-149970-1xkqt59.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">South Africa's far right never had a big support base, even under apartheid.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kim Ludbrook/EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There has been a <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/05/right-wing-populism-rising-progressive-politics-fails-it-too-late-save-democracy">global rise</a> in populism, especially of the right wing variety. In South Africa this has manifested in the <a href="https://www.news24.com/Columnists/MelanieVerwoerd/afriforum-is-taking-us-to-the-edge-of-the-abyss-20180912">increasingly strident</a> <a href="https://www.afriforum.co.za/about/about-afriforum/">Afriforum</a>. This pressure group purports to advance the rights of Afrikaners, the ethnic group most closely identified with the former apartheid regime. </p>
<p>The prime ministers and presidents who ran the country from 1948 until 1994 were all Afrikaners. </p>
<p>Afriforum is usually ignored outside of Afrikaner ranks. But it attracted the ire of South Africans more broadly when two of its leaders, CEO Kallie Kriel and his deputy Ernst Roets, undertook a <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/pieter-du-toit/afriforums-u-s-adventure-playing-with-fire-after-setting-australia-alight_a_23426470/?ncid=other_huffpostre_pqylmel2bk8&utm_campaign=related_articles">mission</a> to the US in May this year. Their aim was to convince alt-right figures that white farmers were being targeted for murder. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Afriforum’s Ernst Roets on Fox News.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Roets even secured an <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/2018/05/16/afriforums-roets-tells-fox-news-parliament-has-already-decided-about-expropriation-but-it-hasnt_a_23435931/">interview</a> with Fox News’s Tucker Carlson. The interview on the right wing broadcaster apparently inspired US President Donald Trump to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/24/south-africa-condemns-false-claims-as-trump-white-farmers-row-continues">tweet</a> that his administration will investigate the “large scale killing of (white) farmers” in South Africa.</p>
<p>Afriforum calls itself a “civil rights organisation”. Until recently its primary approach was to use the country’s human rights based constitution to launch court cases in defence of white Afrikaans speakers and, at times, of black people amenable to its agenda. </p>
<p>But it has since become the face of white denial about the past, and of defiance of the need for redress in the most unequal country in the world. Afriforum has successfully translated a growing resentment about the loss of Afrikaner control of the state into a political project. </p>
<h2>State capture</h2>
<p>During the last decade of the country’s 24-year-old democracy a form of Schadenfreude has emerged among white rightwingers. <a href="https://theconversation.com/africa/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=State+capture">State capture</a>, in the shape of massive corruption, and factional infighting in the governing African National Congress (ANC) have harmed state capacity. Multiple political, economic and constitutional crises have in the minds of white rightwingers confirmed their racist narrative that “black people can’t govern”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-law-can-help-change-racist-minds-in-south-africa-94646">How the law can help change racist minds in South Africa</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>An increase in public expressions and incidents of racism suggests a return to an intransigence that’s unapologetic about continuing white privilege and colonial and apartheid abuses. A more antagonistic Afriforum stepped into this moment rife with political opportunity. </p>
<p>Its politics is a cunning combination of Afrikaner nationalist mobilisation from the past with contemporary <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-world">neoliberal</a> elements and alt-right rhetoric from the US, Australia and Europe. Afriforum is part of the Groter Solidariteit-beweging (Greater Solidarity movement) that includes a trade union, a media house and companies selling education and other services. </p>
<p>According to Solidariteit, its movement has <a href="https://solidariteit.co.za/en/greater-solidarity-movement/">350,000 members</a> – sizeable in relation to a white population of <a href="https://businesstech.co.za/news/government/260219/south-africas-white-population-is-still-shrinking/">4.52 million</a>. Solidariteit and Afriforum are the 21st century versions of the cultural entrepreneurs of the <em>volksbeweging</em> (people’s movement) that constructed and advanced the Afrikaner’s identity a century ago. </p>
<p>This movement, which included Soldariteit’s earlier manifestation as the whites-only Mineworkers’ Union (MWU), rose to state power in 1948 on the back of the promise of an expanded form of colonialism named apartheid.</p>
<h2>Class alliance crumbled</h2>
<p>Upward mobility due to apartheid benefits caused the Afrikaner nationalist class alliance to split between the middle class <em>verligtes</em> ( “the progressives”) and the working class <em>verkramptes</em> (“the reactionaries”). <em>Verligte</em> reform of apartheid to suit the changing operation of capitalism was detrimental for remaining Afrikaner workers. </p>
<p>It resulted in the <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/conservative-party-formed">formation</a> of the Conservative Party (CP) in 1982. At the <a href="https://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/1992-whites-only-referendum-or-against-negotiated-constitution">referendum</a> 10 years later the <em>verkramptes</em> voted against the continuation of talks for the establishment of a non-racist, non-sexist democracy.</p>
<p>Afriforum hails from this political tradition. Not only is its parent organisation the former Mineworkers’ Union, but the same names appear. For example, Kriel was a youth leader of the Freedom Front Plus, a party that continues the CP legacy with four seats in parliament.</p>
<p>Afriforum is a political expression of what I call <a href="https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/3351">neo-Afrikaner enclave nationalism</a>. This is a post-apartheid phenomenon that combines an “inward migration” to white spaces (suburbs, institutions, media) with connectedness to global whiteness. In their discourses racism is recast as “culture”, and heteropatriarchy as “family values”. </p>
<p>It’s channelled through the consumption of products. Individuals become Afrikaners by being consumers of Afrikaner culture, media products and related services, and spaces.</p>
<p>In a historic irony, democracy has brought together what apartheid rent apart. <em>Verligtes</em> and <em>verkramptes</em> meet each other under the sign of the market. Afrikaner identity becomes enacted through consumption.</p>
<h2>Enclave nationalists</h2>
<p>The tradition that the enclave nationalists draw on has historically only represented about 30% of white people, judging by the CP’s support and the “no” vote of the 1992 referendum. Solidariteit, Afriforum and their <em>verligte</em> media allies are eager to expand their constituencies.</p>
<p>Alt-right rhetorical devices are employed. Prejudice, half-truths and distortions are combined with insults and threats of violence. For example, in a 31-minute late night monologue on YouTube Roets <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/2018/05/06/afriforum-heavyweight-launches-attack-on-academic-over-criticism-about-us-tour_a_23428355/">attacked</a> law professor Elmien du Plessis for criticising Afriforum’s US visit.</p>
<p>He concluded by quoting Jewish writer Victor Klemperer, who <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/29/opinion/editorial-observer-the-noble-ideal-of-rationalism-in-nazi-dresden.html">wrote</a> that if the tables were turned after the Holocaust he,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>would have all the intellectuals strung up, and the professors three feet higher than the rest.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s relevant to mention that Du Plessis is a white Afrikaans-speaking woman. As other examples also show, the ranks of patriarchal whiteness are again closing in defiance of racial and gender justice. The policing of the boundaries of the Afrikaner identity has been stepped up.</p>
<p>As happened during apartheid, alternative voices are delegitimised. Afriforum and its allies actively seek to suppress positions that contradict theirs. Gauging the extent of dissidence among Afrikaans-speaking whites is difficult. Many no longer identify as Afrikaners. Many are getting on with their contributions to make South Africa’s democracy work. </p>
<p>Most would be loathe to organise as Afrikaners. But, given responses that show that many among their compatriots and in the outside world see the white right as representative of all white Afrikaans-speakers, the time may have come for those in support of justice and equality to be more vocal in keeping the record straight.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103544/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christi van der Westhuizen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The South African pressure group Afriforum and its allies want to be the only voices speaking on behalf of Afrikaners.Christi van der Westhuizen, Associate Professor, Sociology, University of PretoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/962872018-06-21T09:28:45Z2018-06-21T09:28:45Z‘Please Alexa’: are we beginning to recognise the rights of intelligent machines?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224188/original/file-20180621-137728-dh7mh7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Robot rights!</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/white-male-cyborg-opening-his-two-1115832683?src=qPfnEl_G3CsJ_aZv1Hb4GQ-1-27">shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Amazon has recently developed an option whereby Alexa <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43897516">will only activate</a> if people address it with a “please”. This suggests that we are starting to recognise some intelligent machines in a way that was previously reserved only for humans. In fact, this could very well be the first step towards recognising the rights of machines.</p>
<p>Machines are becoming a part of the fabric of everyday life. Whether it be the complex technology that we are <a href="https://theconversation.com/meet-the-biohackers-letting-technology-get-under-their-skin-60756">embedding inside of us</a>, or the machines on the outside, the line between what it means to be human and machine is softening. As machines get more and more intelligent, it is imperative that we begin discussing whether it will soon be time to recognise the rights of robots, as much for our sake as for theirs.</p>
<p>When someone says that they have a “right” to something, they are usually saying that they have a claim or an expectation that something should be a certain way. But what is just as important as rights are the foundations on which they are based. Rights rely on various intricate frameworks, such as law and morality. Sometimes, the frameworks may not be clear cut. For instance, in <a href="https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20999/volume-999-i-14668-english.pdf">human rights law</a>, strong moral values such as dignity and equality inform legal rights.</p>
<p>So rights are often founded upon human principles. This helps partially explain why we have recognised the <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/#Pers">rights of animals</a>. We recognise that it is ethically wrong to torture or starve animals, so we create laws against it. As intelligent machines weave further into our lives, there is a good chance that our human principles will also force us to recognise that they too deserve rights.</p>
<p>But you might argue that animals differ from machines in that they have some sort of conscious experience. And it is true that consciousness and subjective experience are important, particularly to human rights. <a href="http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/">Article 1</a> of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, for example, says all human beings “are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”. </p>
<p>However, consciousness and human rights are not the only basis of rights. In New Zealand and Ecuador, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rivers-get-human-rights-they-can-sue-to-protect-themselves/">rivers have been granted rights</a> because humans deemed their very existence to be important. So rights don’t emerge only from consciousness, they can extend from other criteria also. There is no one correct <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/B:LAPH.0000015417.05737.0e.pdf">type or form of rights</a>. Human rights are not the only rights. </p>
<p>As machines become even more complex and intelligent, just discarding or destroying them without asking any questions at all about their moral and physical integrity seems ethically wrong. Just like rivers, they too should <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-007-9137-3">receive rights</a> because of their meaning to us.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223878/original/file-20180619-126550-11tir8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/223878/original/file-20180619-126550-11tir8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223878/original/file-20180619-126550-11tir8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223878/original/file-20180619-126550-11tir8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223878/original/file-20180619-126550-11tir8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223878/original/file-20180619-126550-11tir8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/223878/original/file-20180619-126550-11tir8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Whanganui river in New Zealand has been granted the same rights as humans.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cool_Bend_on_Whanganui_River_-_panoramio.jpg">Duane Wilkins</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What if there was a complex and independent machine providing health care to a human over a long period of time. The machine resembled a person and applied intelligence through natural speech. Over time, the machine and the patient <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10400435.2017.1396565">built up a close relationship.</a> Then, after a long period of service, the company that creates the machine decides that it is time to turn off and discard this perfectly working machine. It seems ethically wrong to simply discard this intelligent machine, which has kept alive and built a relationship with that patient, without even entertaining its right to integrity and other rights. </p>
<p>This might seem absurd, but imagine for a second that it is you who has built a deep and meaningful relationship with this intelligent machine. Wouldn’t you be desperately finding a way to stop it being turned off and your relationship being lost? It is as much for our own human sake, than for the sake of intelligent machines, that we ought to recognise the rights of intelligent machines.</p>
<p>Sexbots are a good example. The UK’s sexual offences law exists to protect the sexual autonomy of the human victim. But it also exists to ensure that people respect sexual autonomy, the right of a person to control their own body and their own sexual activity, as a value. </p>
<p>But the definition of consent in section 74 of the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/74">Sexual Offences Act 2003</a> in the UK specifically refers to “persons” and not machines. So right now a person can do whatever they wish <a href="https://theconversation.com/samanthas-suffering-why-sex-machines-should-have-rights-too-93964">to a sexbot</a>, including torture. There is something troubling about this. And it is not because we believe sexbots to have consciousness. Instead, it is probably because by allowing people to torture robots, the law stops ensuring that people respect the <a href="http://srh.bmj.com/content/early/2018/04/24/bmjsrh-2017-200012">values of personal and sexual autonomy</a>, that we consider important.</p>
<p>These examples very much show that there is a discussion to be had over the rights of intelligent machines. And as we rapidly enter an age where these examples will no longer be hypothetical, the law must keep up.</p>
<h2>Matter of respect</h2>
<p>We are already recognising complex machines in a manner that was previously reserved only for humans and animals. We feel that our children must be polite to Alexa as, if they are not, it will damage our own notions of respect and dignity. Unconsciously we are already recognising that how we communicate with and respect intelligent machines will affect how we communicate with and respect humans. If we don’t extend recognition to intelligent machines, then it will affect how we treat and <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/5/2/17301702/westworld-isabella-season-2-virtu-e-fortuna-artificial-intelligence">consider humans</a>.</p>
<p>Machines are integrating their way in to our world. Google’s recent experiment <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/08/google-duplex-assistant-phone-calls-robot-human">with natural language</a> assistants, where AI sounded eerily like a human, gave us an insight into this future. One day, it may become impossible to tell whether we are interacting with machines or with humans. When that day comes, rights may have to change to include them as well. As we change, rights may naturally have to adapt too.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96287/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paresh Kathrani does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It is just as much for our own sake, as for the sake of robots, that we should begin recognising the rights of intelligent machines.Paresh Kathrani, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/889012017-12-14T15:56:45Z2017-12-14T15:56:45ZWhat the Brexit deal means for EU citizens and their families<p>There has been <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-deal-breaks-deadlock-experts-react-88879">mixed reaction</a> to the deal agreed between the EU and the UK on December 8 that broke the deadlock in Brexit talks. A key part of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/joint-report-on-progress-during-phase-1-of-negotiations-under-article-50-teu-on-the-uks-orderly-withdrawal-from-the-eu">agreement</a> was on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK after Brexit. But while the deal gave clarity on some issues, it left some big questions unanswered for those who have taken advantage of EU free movement rules to live in the UK. </p>
<p>Under the agreement, which applies to both EU citizens in the UK and British citizens in the other 27 member states (EU27), citizens who move before the day of Brexit – March 29, 2019 – will continue to have <a href="http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/the-beginning-of-end-citizens-rights-in.html">some, but by no means all, of the rights</a> that they currently enjoy.</p>
<p>The agreement is aimed at cushioning migrant citizens from the effects of Brexit by creating a special post-Brexit status. This will allow protected citizens and their families to continue to live in their current host country, as well as a right to work and a right to equal treatment. Crucially for British pensioners currently living in the EU, this will allow them to maintain a <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/Healthcareabroad/EHIC/Pages/about-the-ehic.aspx">European health insurance card</a> and the right to export their British pensions.</p>
<p>Administrative formalities and costs for obtaining post-Brexit status will be kept to a minimum, and citizens will be allowed to maintain their status even if absent from their country of residence for up to five years. This is more generous than the normal EU regime, <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:EN:PDF">which allows for absences</a> of up to two years. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-the-eus-rules-on-free-movement-allow-all-its-citizens-to-do-62186">What the EU's rules on free movement allow all its citizens to do</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Spouses and partners</h2>
<p>The post-Brexit status also extends to “protected” family members who are legally resident in the host state at the time of Brexit. These include spouses, registered partners if the country of residence recognises registered partnerships, children (even if only of the partner), and dependent parents or grandparents. </p>
<p>In a small victory for EU citizens, the post-Brexit right to family reunification will in some instances also apply after Brexit. If the family link already existed before Brexit, even if the family member was not yet living in the host country, the family member will have a right to join the citizen enjoying the post-Brexit status. This means, for example, that a Polish citizen living in the UK and married to someone living in Poland at the point of Brexit will continue to have a right to bring their spouse to the UK without having to satisfy the onerous <a href="https://theconversation.com/broken-families-what-happens-to-couples-torn-apart-by-immigration-rules-73546">economic thresholds imposed by UK law</a>. </p>
<p>But it excludes citizens who fall in love or get married after the day of Brexit. This means that in the UK, economic resources will be a gateway to family happiness, as is the case now for non-EU migrants. </p>
<h2>The grey areas</h2>
<p>Beside the limited right to family reunification there are grey areas in the agreement: the first concerns the issue of non-economically active citizens. Under current <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:EN:PDF">EU law</a>, they have to possess sufficient resources and comprehensive health insurance in order to have the legal right to reside in another member state. But in practice, those conditions are not always met and there are many “informal” residents whose residence status is neither wholly legal or wholly illegal. Migrants – usually women – who give up work in order to take up caring responsibilities for children or family members, are not automatically protected in EU law, and will not be protected by the Brexit agreement.</p>
<p>Children born or adopted after Brexit with at least one parent with post-Brexit status, will be protected by the deal as will children of single parents. However, the rights of children seem to have been overlooked: currently a child of a migrant EU worker who is in education maintains the right to stay in the host country until the end of their studies. Their primary carer also has the right to stay, since otherwise the child would not have a realistic possibility of finishing their schooling. The agreement does not mention these rights, and unless they are specifically included in a future section of the withdrawal agreement some children will be at risk of losing their right to reside in the country where they currently live.</p>
<p>Another problem relates to the extent to which those citizens who are affected by Brexit will be protected if they decide to go back to their home country – so for example a Spanish woman with settled status in Britain who decides to return to live in Spain. Under current EU law, when she returns to Spain she has the right to to bring her family back with her, regardless of the nationality of the family member. </p>
<p>This does not seem to be the case under this agreement which, in a bizarre turn of events, might make it difficult for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU27, to return to their member state of nationality. Naturally, they might be unwilling to move back if they cannot be accompanied by their spouse or partner. </p>
<h2>British citizens in the EU</h2>
<p>British citizens living elsewhere in the EU have been largely neglected by the UK negotiators, with their rights primarily championed by the European Parliament. As they will be former EU citizens, I have previously <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/583154/IPOL_STU(2017)583154_EN.pdf">argued</a> that their rights should be safeguarded beyond just reciprocating those rights guaranteed to EU citizens in the UK at the time of Brexit. </p>
<p>Particularly disappointing in this respect is the “locked in” situation for British citizens who will <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/11/sacrificed-on-the-altar-of-trade-brits-in-europe-feel-betrayed-by-brexit-deal">lose their right to free movement</a> elsewhere in Europe and therefore have no choice but to remain where they are at the time of Brexit.</p>
<p>All in all, this agreement constitutes progress from the situation <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-new-barriers-can-eu-citizens-expect-in-their-daily-lives-after-brexit-83586">earlier in the negotiations</a>, and yet it is not satisfactory for everyone. More rights will need to be granted to ensure protection of more marginalised citizens, and to ensure that UK citizens in the EU are fully protected as former EU citizens.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88901/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eleanor Spaventa has authored independent reports for the European Commission and the European Parliament, including one on European Citizens and Brexit. She is part of a European Commission funded network on free movement and has benefited in the past from European Commision funding.</span></em></p>The deal was not as bad as it could have been, but not as good as it should have been.Eleanor Spaventa, Professor of European Union Law, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/883302017-12-12T14:58:00Z2017-12-12T14:58:00ZWhy changes to South Africa’s labour laws are an assault on workers’ rights<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/197776/original/file-20171205-22986-1275eyo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">South African public sector workers march for higher pay. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Mike Hutchings</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The biggest changes to South Africa’s labour laws since 1995, shortly after the country’s first democratic elections, are currently being considered by parliament. If passed into law, they will significantly limit the hard won rights of workers to strike. In addition, details about the country’s much-heralded national minimum wage set out in the enabling legislation show that, in practice, it may be unenforceable.</p>
<p>The three bills include amendments to the <a href="http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/LabourBill.pdf?utm_campaign=request-for-comment-from-department&utm_source=transactional&utm_medium=email">Labour Relations Act</a> and the Basic Conditions of Employment <a href="http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/BCEBill.pdf?utm_campaign=request-for-comment-from-department&utm_source=transactional&utm_medium=email">Act</a>, as well as the new <a href="http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/NMWBill.pdf?utm_campaign=request-for-comment-from-department&utm_source=transactional&utm_medium=email">National Minimum Wage Bill</a>. </p>
<p>If these proposed amendments become law it will be a significant defeat for workers. Taken together the legislation would roll back the hard won gains of the labour movement in South Africa and curtail the most powerful tool available to workers to improve their earnings. </p>
<p>The end result is likely to deepen South Africa’s <a href="http://ewn.co.za/2017/04/27/research-sa-one-of-most-unequal-countries-in-the-world">vast inequalities</a>.</p>
<h2>The right to strike</h2>
<p>Two of the proposed changes will affect workers’ right to strike, which is protected under South Africa’s <a href="https://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rights#23">Constitution</a>. </p>
<p>First, the proposed <a href="http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/LabourBill.pdf?utm_campaign=request-for-comment-from-department&utm_source=transactional&utm_medium=email">amendments to the Labour Relations Act</a> would introduce measures which, although designed to minimise violent strikes, would, in fact, discourage strikes in general. For example, the amendments would require trade unions to hold secret ballots to decide on strikes. By individualising the decision to strike, the secret ballot fundamentally undermines the collective nature of a strike. </p>
<p>Second, the proposed <a href="http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/LabourBill.pdf?utm_campaign=request-for-comment-from-department&utm_source=transactional&utm_medium=email">Labour Relations Act amendments</a> will introduce a mechanism where strikes could be resolved through an advisory arbitration panel, which would be led by a senior commissioner of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration <a href="http://www.cwao.org.za/">(CCMA)</a>.</p>
<p>The problems with this are that the circumstances under which an advisory arbitration panel can be convened are very broad and, crucially, employers will have the right to request it. Meaning employers will have an easy way to resolve strikes without necessarily having to engage their workers directly or agree to any of their demands. The decision of the advisory arbitration, unless appealed, will be binding on all parties.</p>
<p>On top of this, trade unions can be interdicted at any time during what would be a more onerous procedure. </p>
<p>If passed, the amendments would make protracted strikes, such as <a href="http://www.sahistory.org.za/article/2014-south-african-platinum-strike-longest-wage-strike-south-africa">the 2014 platinum strike</a>, highly unlikely. </p>
<h2>Show us the money</h2>
<p>Details of the bill reveal a different picture of the country’s much heralded <a href="https://businesstech.co.za/news/finance/156159/its-official-national-minimum-wage-set-at-r3500-per-month/">national minimum wage of R3,500 (USD$256)</a>. There will be no monthly minimum wage, only an hourly minimum wage of R20 p/h. Those that work flexible hours or part time will be unlikely to earn the R3,500, if they work under 40 hours a week. For domestic and farm workers the news is worse: farm workers will earn R18 p/h, while domestic workers will receive only R15 p/h. Only in 2020 will these workers receive the full minimum wage. </p>
<p>Two problems loom large in the implementation of the national minimum wage. One is compliance, the other redress. </p>
<p>Some sectors, including domestic work and farm work, already have minimum wages prescribed in the <a href="http://www.labour.gov.za/DOL/legislation/sectoral-determinations">sectoral determination</a>. But, non-compliance can be as high as 50%, as is the case in the <a href="http://www.redi3x3.org/paper/estimating-wage-and-employment-effects-large-increase-south-africa%E2%80%99s-agricultural-minimum-wage">agricultural sector</a>. Based on current experience, there is no reason to think that compliance with the national minimum wage will be any different. </p>
<p>But, the ability of workers to get justice will become significantly more difficult.</p>
<p>Under the proposed amendments, the enforcement of the national minimum wage will move from the Department of Labour to the CCMA. This will make the process of seeking redress more arduous. </p>
<p>If a worker is being underpaid, she will have to refer her case to the CCMA. The average time for a case to reach arbitration is <a href="http://www.ccma.org.za/About-Us/Reports-Plans/Annual-Reports/token/download/ItemId/32">60 days</a>, but in the experience of the <a href="http://www.cwao.org.za">Casual Workers Advice Office</a> it can take many more months.</p>
<p>Even if a worker eventually receives an arbitration award, many employers can simply ignore it. The next step is for the worker to have the award certified by the CCMA. If the employer still refuses to abide by the award the worker has to get a writ of execution, which is then served by a sheriff but often only after the demand for a deposit has been met. In 2016/2017, the CCMA had to assist <a href="http://www.ccma.org.za/About-Us/Reports-Plans/Annual-Reports/token/download/ItemId/32">4,000 low-paid workers</a> in getting a writ of execution. Many more workers often give up hope and never see through the enforcement of their arbitration award. Many more are not even aware of the CCMA remedy.</p>
<p>By making the CCMA the primary enforcer of the national minimum wage, the process is likely to become fraught with legal and practical difficulties, making the whole process unworkable. </p>
<p>What’s worse is that, to accommodate the national minimum wage, the amended <a href="http://pmg-assets.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/BCEBill.pdf?utm_campaign=request-for-comment-from-department&utm_source=transactional&utm_medium=email">Basic Conditions of Employment Act</a> will actually roll back important rights for some workers. </p>
<p>Sectoral determinations do not only prescribe minimum wages but provide important protections for workers, such as provident funds. Amendments to the act will mean that the sectoral determinations will be phased out and replaced with the national minimum wage law. This could mean that workers could lose out on both the wage front as well as some important rights. This is particularly the case for farm workers who stand to lose important rights to housing. </p>
<h2>How did it come to this?</h2>
<p>You would have expected trade unions to have objected loudly to these fundamental changes to worker rights. Not so. The country’s leading trade union federations, including <a href="http://www.cosatu.org.za/">Cosatu</a>, <a href="http://www.fedusa.org.za/">Fedusa</a> and <a href="http://www.nactu.org.za/">Nactu</a> have all been involved in negotiations on the changes.</p>
<p>What this reflects is the balance of class forces in South Africa today. Trade union membership has been declining and now only about a quarter of the workforce is <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2014-11-13-the-downward-spiral-of-sa-unions">unionised</a>. Of those that are unionised, the overwhelming majority are likely to be in full time, permanent, professional or <a href="https://theconversation.com/has-south-africas-labour-movement-become-a-middle-class-movement-82629">skilled employment</a>. </p>
<p>The simple truth is that unions largely do not organise workers who will benefit from the national minimum wage and are therefore indifferent to its practicalities. </p>
<p>What is less clear is why the major trade union federations have been involved in a process that has negotiated away important protections around the right to strike.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88330/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carin Runciman is a member of the Casual Workers Advice Office's management committee. </span></em></p>Proposed changes to South Africa’s labour laws would make it almost impossible to strike and render the planned national minimum wage unenforceable.Carin Runciman, Senior Reseacher, Centre for Social Change, University of JohannesburgLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/828102017-08-21T23:25:40Z2017-08-21T23:25:40ZWhy it’s a mistake to celebrate the crackdown on hate websites<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182865/original/file-20170821-4943-zleiec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=249%2C922%2C3516%2C2074&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Private companies are policing online hate without independent oversight or regulation, which has serious implications and poses risks for basic human rights and freedoms.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/hate-text-on-illuminated-buttons-keyboard-393925249">(Shutterstock)</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The torch-lit march by armed white supremacists recently in Charlottesville, Va., continues to generate debate about how hate groups should be regulated. Amid growing public pressure following the march, internet companies rushed to remove from their platforms websites espousing violent hate speech. </p>
<p>GoDaddy <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/14/godaddy-bans-neo-nazi-site-daily-stormer-for-disparaging-woman-killed-at-charlottesville-rally/?utm_term=.f4ff1716cacf">terminated its domain services</a> to neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer, as did <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/google-cancels-domain-registration-for-daily-stormer-2017-8">Google</a>. Cloudflare, a company that protects websites from online attacks, also <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/17/cloudflare-ceo-calls-for-a-system-to-regulate-hateful-internet-content/">banned</a> the hate website from its platform. <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/kevincollier/russia-orders-internet-providers-not-to-host-the-daily">Russia ordered the site barred</a> from being hosted in the country.</p>
<p><a href="http://yorku.academia.edu/NatashaTusikov/Papers">My research</a> and my book <a href="http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520291225"><em>Chokepoints: Global Private Regulation on the Internet</em></a> demonstrate that many internet companies already remove content and ban users “voluntarily” — that is, in the absence of legislation or any judicial processes. Major intermediaries including Google, PayPal, GoDaddy, Twitter and Facebook voluntarily police their platforms for child sexual abuse content, extremism and the illicit trade in counterfeit goods.</p>
<p>Many people understandably applaud these efforts to stamp out hate speech and other objectionable content. However, internet companies’ efforts as de facto regulators of speech raises serious questions: How should online content be regulated? By whom? </p>
<p>I do not support white supremacists and I am not arguing against some policing of such speech. Rather, I am saying that we need to consider seriously how to regulate online content as the next case may not be as clear cut.</p>
<p>There are significant problems with relying upon powerful companies to police the internet because their enforcement practices are troublingly opaque and prone to arbitrary interpretation.</p>
<h2>Disturbing precedent</h2>
<p>In a sobering contrast to the cheering of internet companies for their public opposition to the Daily Stormer, Cloudflare’s CEO Matthew Prince offered a nuanced, cautionary perspective, warning that withdrawing services from hate groups in response to public pressure sets a troubling precedent in policing online speech.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/">blog post</a> explaining Cloudflare’s actions against the Daily Stormer, Prince argued that the company considers due process a “more important principle” than freedom of speech. Due process, he said, means that “you should be able to know the rules a system will follow if you participate in that system.” This statement aptly captures the inherent problems with intermediaries working as de facto regulators of content and online behaviour.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182859/original/file-20170821-8916-vfvt57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182859/original/file-20170821-8916-vfvt57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182859/original/file-20170821-8916-vfvt57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182859/original/file-20170821-8916-vfvt57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182859/original/file-20170821-8916-vfvt57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182859/original/file-20170821-8916-vfvt57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182859/original/file-20170821-8916-vfvt57.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Shopify CEO Tobias Lutke, seen here in a 2015 file photo, has defended the Ottawa e-commerce company’s decision to keep hosting an online store for the far-right U.S. organization Breitbart Media.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.cpimages.com/fotoweb/cpimages_details.pop.fwx?position=2&archiveType=ImageFolder&sorting=ModifiedTimeAsc&search=shopify&fileId=7ED4E565C8CEED276553137C3F07278F0211563F5E7047DF3AAB663AE59BB0CF1642B0B80D34257E6710EC2568FB7698B59B4D70A14C35A58152C97161CDE0D6B04E7CE9AA485A90E4AEC54C277A369E66C455879B17008242F841C1FF39A6F82A1B1FF576DC98DF26628245CD2638ED3EB3DDF943815094B22114FE97E171BA684A0CED4335A6EA6C90C8EFD4936170">(THE CANADIAN PRESS/Paul Chiasson)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Earlier this year, <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/shopify-breitbart-store">Shopify employees</a> and hundreds of <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/shopify-ceo-tobi-lutke-defends-decision-to-host-breitbart-1.3973798">thousands of people</a> urged and <a href="https://actions.sumofus.org/a/shopify-stop-endorsing-hate-2">petitioned</a> the online commerce platform to stop hosting far-right Breitbart Media’s internet store. Reinstated executive chairman <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/18/bannon-returns-to-breitbart-news-as-executive-chairman-241806">Stephen Bannon</a> calls <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-alt-right-breitbart-news/">Breitbart “the platform for the alt-right.”</a> The so-called “alt-right” – a term popularized by <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/richard-bertrand-spencer-0">Richard Bertrand Spencer</a> – covers a mix of white supremacist, separatist, neo-Nazi, fascist, racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and populist conservative ideologies. </p>
<p><a href="https://medium.com/@tobi/in-support-of-free-speech-275d62670203">Shopify CEO Tobias Lütke said he was defending free speech</a> as the Ottawa company continued to host Breitbart’s online store under threat of <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/4030797/employees-who-quit-shopify-over-its-breitbart-ties-can-find-new-jobs-through-this-service">employees resigning</a>. After public <a href="https://www.wired.com/2017/02/shopifys-breitbart-fight-proves-days-tech-take-side/">pressure</a> and a grassroots campaign dubbed <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23DeleteShopify">#DeleteShopify</a> led to scrutiny that revealed more <a href="http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/guns-weed-escorts-shopify-sites-offering-much-more-than-breitbart">questionable business</a>, Shopify was <a href="https://www.wired.com/2017/02/shopifys-breitbart-fight-proves-days-tech-take-side/">forced</a> to adopt an <a href="http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/shopify-introduces-acceptable-use-policy-for-vendors-after-public-outcry">“Acceptable use policy.”</a> </p>
<p>The contrasting examples of The Daily Stormer and its deletion by internet companies, and Shopify’s steadfast support for Breitbart, demonstrate extremes of a dilemma that only promises to intensify. </p>
<h2>Arbitrary policies, regulation</h2>
<p>Internet intermediaries have the potential to be powerful regulators on a wide variety of issues because they can act swiftly and without court orders. Importantly, they have latitude to censor any content or ban users under their terms-of-service agreements. </p>
<p>PayPal reserves the right to terminate its services to users “<a href="https://www.paypal.com/ca/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full">for any reason and at any time</a>,” language that is echoed in most intermediaries’ service agreements. The capacity for arbitrary regulation is thus baked into intermediaries’ internal rules.</p>
<p>Prince cautioned that Cloudflare’s action against the Daily Stormer sets a precedent for intermediaries to police speech without court orders requiring them to do so. </p>
<p>These intermediaries often act at the behest of governments that prefer companies to be the public (but largely unaccountable) face of internet regulation. But those firms are generally ill-equipped to distinguish legality from illegality, causing wrongful takedowns and mistakenly targeting lawful behaviour. </p>
<p>Equally problematic: Intermediaries’ enforcement processes are often opaque as their content moderators arbitrarily interpret their complex, fast-changing internal rules. These problems are compounded by intermediaries’ growing use of automated tools to identify and remove problematic content on their platforms.</p>
<p>There is also the concern of so-called mission-creep when rules first enacted against child abuse or terrorism – noteworthy catalysts for enforcement action – are later applied to other distinctly less-harmful issues, such as the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted content. </p>
<h2>Dystopian future is here</h2>
<p>Regulatory efforts commonly expand from censoring violent hate speech to other speech that may be considered controversial by some, such as that of Black Lives Matter. As well, governments worldwide regularly pressure intermediaries to <a href="https://citizenlab.ca/2017/07/analyzing-censorship-of-the-death-of-liu-xiaobo-on-wechat-and-weibo/">censor and track</a> critics and political opponents.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182864/original/file-20170821-8916-946ju2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182864/original/file-20170821-8916-946ju2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182864/original/file-20170821-8916-946ju2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182864/original/file-20170821-8916-946ju2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182864/original/file-20170821-8916-946ju2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182864/original/file-20170821-8916-946ju2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182864/original/file-20170821-8916-946ju2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182864/original/file-20170821-8916-946ju2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Watched by police, protesters at an internet freedom rally wear face masks depicting the Big Brother character from George Orwell’s novel, <em>Nineteen Eighty-Four</em>, in St. Petersburg, Russia, on July 16.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.cpimages.com/fotoweb/cpimages_details.pop.fwx?position=7&archiveType=ImageFolder&sorting=ModifiedTimeAsc&search=internet%20and%20censorship&fileId=7ED4E565C8CEED276553137C3F07278F0211563F5E7047DF3AAB663AE59BB0CF1642B0B80D34257E6710EC2568FB7698B59B4D70A14C35A5085499F7776FCE74F2B7765E8750034730859FC82D50AED97735022D8A93877CAEE024A68379F6E1447D44B77EF9959BCEC3DBF06283ADB7969E8801BFB596F74002E6DC2B9339C0DDC87CEC791C3441B3243EB4DCD17BA004744DEF1EFF533D">(AP Photo/Dmitri Lovetsky)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When major intermediaries become go-to regulators responsible for policing content on behalf of governments or in response to high-profile protests, their already considerable power increases. U.S.-based internet companies already dominate many industry sectors, including search, advertising, domain registration, payment and social media. Cloudflare’s Prince rightly <a href="https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/amp/">warned</a> that by depending on a “few giant networks,” a “small number of companies will largely determine what can and cannot be online.”</p>
<p>This dystopian future is already here.</p>
<p>The takedown of the Daily Stormer undoubtedly makes the world a better place. But do we really want companies like Facebook and Twitter to decide – independently, arbitrarily and secretly – what content we can access and share? </p>
<p>Given these seemingly intractable problems, what can we do? First, we should avoid governing on the basis of protests or media pressure. Instead, <a href="https://rankingdigitalrights.org/">we need a clear set of rules</a> to enable intermediaries to respond consistently, transparently and with respect for due process, as Prince recommended.</p>
<p>Governments should clarify the nature of and, importantly, the limitations of intermediaries’ regulatory responsibilities. Finally, we must stop governing in response to specific crises – so-called “fake news,” terrorism and hate groups – and instead think critically about how we can and should govern the internet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82810/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natasha Tusikov receives funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Development Grant and has received funding from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada Contributions Program. </span></em></p>After violence in Charlottesville, internet firms are erasing bigoted content. But should private companies serve as unaccountable regulators and be responsible for policing complex social issues?Natasha Tusikov, Assistant Professor, Criminology, Department of Social Science, York University, CanadaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/792782017-06-19T06:00:36Z2017-06-19T06:00:36ZWhen a river is a person: from Ecuador to New Zealand, nature gets its day in court<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174218/original/file-20170616-512-u5d888.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Whanganui River, seen here, is now a person under New Zealand law.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexindigo/3983156162">AlexIndigo/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the early 2000s, the idea of giving legal rights to nature was on the fringes of environmental <a href="https://www.academia.edu/25399912/The_Rights_of_Nature_Theory_and_Practice">legal theory</a> and public consciousness. </p>
<p>Today, New Zealand’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/16/new-zealand-river-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being">Whanganui River</a> is a person under domestic law, and India’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/apr/21/rivers-legal-human-rights-ganges-whanganui">Ganges River</a> was recently granted human rights. In Ecuador, the Constitution enshrines nature’s “right to integral respect”.</p>
<p>What on earth does this all mean?</p>
<h2>Fighting for nature</h2>
<p>The theory of giving rights to nature was proposed in the 1970s by the American legal scholar <a href="https://books.google.be/books/about/Should_Trees_Have_Standing.html?id=0aZoAgAAQBAJ&source=kp_cover&redir_esc=y">Christopher D. Stone</a> as a strategic environmental defence strategy. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174227/original/file-20170616-554-1tlery.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174227/original/file-20170616-554-1tlery.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174227/original/file-20170616-554-1tlery.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174227/original/file-20170616-554-1tlery.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174227/original/file-20170616-554-1tlery.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174227/original/file-20170616-554-1tlery.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174227/original/file-20170616-554-1tlery.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1134&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The 1972 book that started it all.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://boulderrightsofnature.org/resources/bookshelf/">Boulder Rights of Nature</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In environmental litigation, many cases are unsuccessful because the people who bring the suit lack the legal standing to do so. It is hard for a plaintiff such as the US environmental protection organisation the Sierra Club to demonstrate why it – and not, for example, a property owner – has the power to sue over environmental damage. </p>
<p>In other words, it’s difficult for nature’s de facto representatives to defend its interests in court.</p>
<p>As a workaround, Stone suggested giving rights to the environment itself, because, as a rights holder, the environment would have the standing to bring a suit on its own behalf. Rights of nature, then, are not rights to anything in particular but simply a way to enable nature to have a legal hearing.</p>
<p>It took decades for lawyers to turn <a href="https://celdf.org/rights/rights-of-nature/">theory into reality</a>. But in 2006, Tamaqua Borough in Pennsylvania <a href="https://celebratewcffg.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/rights-of-nature-for-wcffg.pdf">became the first US community</a> to recognise the rights of nature within municipal territory. Since then dozens of communities have adopted similar local ordinances.</p>
<h2>Entitled to “integral respect”</h2>
<p>Nature is gaining rights internationally, too.</p>
<p>In Ecuador, <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html">article 71</a> of the <a href="https://www.academia.edu/4994860/The_Rights_of_Nature_in_Ecuador_The_Making_of_an_Idea">2008 Constitution</a> states that nature “has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes”.</p>
<p>In practice, that means that all persons, communities, peoples and nations can demand that Ecuadorian authorities enforce the rights of nature. One of those rights, according to article 72, is the right to be restored.</p>
<p>Ecuador’s approach to nature’s rights, which was soon emulated <a href="http://www.worldfuturefund.org/Projects/Indicators/motherearthbolivia.html">in Bolivia</a>, were notable in two ways. First, it grants nature positive rights – that is, rights <em>to</em> something specific (restoration, regeneration, respect).</p>
<p>It also resolves the issue of legal standing in the most comprehensive way possible: by granting it to everyone. In Ecuador, anyone – regardless of their relationship to a particular slice of land – can go to court to protect it. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174217/original/file-20170616-10505-q1ldg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174217/original/file-20170616-10505-q1ldg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174217/original/file-20170616-10505-q1ldg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174217/original/file-20170616-10505-q1ldg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174217/original/file-20170616-10505-q1ldg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174217/original/file-20170616-10505-q1ldg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/174217/original/file-20170616-10505-q1ldg9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Ganges, which flows through the sacred city of Varanasi, was granted human rights in March 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges#/media/File:Varanasiganga.jpg">Babasteve/Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The first successful case was brought in 2011 by the <a href="http://therightsofnature.org/first-ron-case-ecuador/">Vilcabamba River</a>. Its representatives in court were an American couple with riverfront property, who <a href="https://www.earthlaws.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/RON_Vilcabamba-Ecuador-Case-complete.pdf">sued the provincial government of Loja</a>, arguing that a planned road project would deposit large quantities of rock and excavation material into the river.</p>
<p>Overall, however, Ecuador and Bolivia have seen mixed results. In both countries, extractive industries <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10714839.2013.11721895">continue to expand</a> into indigenous territory, pursuing oil (in Ecuador) and mining (in Bolivia). </p>
<p>In Ecuador, <a href="https://www.pachamama.org/advocacy/fundacion-pachamama">civil society groups</a> have struggled to exercise nature’s rights effectively, in part because the domestic economy depends on the very environmentally-damaging activities they would like to target. </p>
<h2>Personhood for the Whanganui</h2>
<p>Things are going better in New Zealand, which passed its <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-rivers-are-now-legally-people-but-thats-just-the-start-of-looking-after-them-74983?sr=3">first rights for nature law</a> in March 2017. </p>
<p>There, the Whanganui River, which flows across the North Island, has been granted <a href="http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/new-zealand-bill-establishing-river-as-having-own-legal-personality-passed/">rights of personhood</a>. That means the river – but not nature writ large – can act as a person in a court of law; it has legal standing. </p>
<p>New Zealand’s law also designates the river’s representatives: a committee composed of representatives of the indigenous community that fought for these rights, as well as representatives of the Crown (New Zealand is <a href="http://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/new-zealand">part of the British Commonwealth</a>).</p>
<p>This formulation, which more closely resembles the American theoretical origins of the rights of nature, diverges markedly from Ecuador and Bolivia’s model by naming specific guardians and not granting positive rights. </p>
<p>If the Whanganui had the right to flow in a certain way, for example, then any change to its course would be a violation of its rights. Absent this kind of right, the river is simply empowered to stand for itself in court; its legal guardians determine the positive content of its rights. </p>
<p>It is thus theoretically conceivable that the river might one day argue for its course be changed because that change is necessary for its long-term survival (say, as an adaptation to climate change). </p>
<h2>Prioritising indigenous defenders</h2>
<p>Because indigenous communities play <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9781137538956">an important role</a> in fighting for nature’s rights in all three countries, it is often assumed that they are and will continue to be the obvious guardians of nature. </p>
<p>After all, from <a href="https://theconversation.com/meet-the-villagers-who-protect-biodiversity-on-the-top-of-the-world-78374">China</a> to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/world/americas/el-salvador-prizing-water-over-gold-bans-all-metal-mining.html?_r=3">El Salvador</a>, indigenous peoples are on the front lines of environmental defence.</p>
<p>But there are problems with this assumption. The indigenous of the world are not a <a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/whp/ev/2015/00000024/00000001/art00007">homogenous group</a> that inherently cares for nature. </p>
<p>Additionally, unless the law designates a specific community the legal representative of nature, as in New Zealand, there is no guarantee that the intended community will be the one that ends up speaking for nature. </p>
<p>In Ecuador and Bolivia, the relevant legal texts use morally loaded language and rich references to indigenous communities that make clear the intended guardians of the nations’ natural treasures. </p>
<p>But standing is in fact granted broadly, and neither of the two legal cases settled in favour of nature to date in Ecuador was brought by an indigenous group. </p>
<p>One suit was won by Americans (in the name of the Vilcabamba River) and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2012.00744.x/abstract">the other</a>, lodged on behalf of nature in San Lorenzo and Eloy Alfaro districts in 2011, was brought by the state, which sued to stop illegal small-scale mining operations in the area. The spirit of the law might have been violated in these cases, but the letter surely was not. </p>
<p>Ambiguous language could also permit abuse. In theory, given a sufficiently wide definition of standing and of nature, oil companies themselves could use the rights of nature to protect Ecuador’s hydrocarbon reserves. </p>
<p>New Zealand’s narrower approach may prove more effective in the long run. By granting natural entities personhood one by one and assigning them specific guardians, over time New Zealand could drastically change an ossified legal system that still sees oceans, mountains and forests primarily as property, guaranteeing nature its day in court.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/79278/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mihnea Tanasescu receives funding from the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO). </span></em></p>New Zealand just conferred personhood upon the Whanganui River, giving it standing to legally defend its rights. Can this novel strategy save the environment?Mihnea Tanasescu, Research Fellow, Environmental Political Theory, Vrije Universiteit BrusselLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/731502017-03-23T08:05:46Z2017-03-23T08:05:46ZHow the courts gave us EU citizenship, and how Britons can keep it after Brexit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/161998/original/image-20170322-31217-6h11qo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=29%2C23%2C3851%2C2565&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/uk-business-man-brexit-eu-445271290?src=U0lkaEe2krfHBvajXFGOKQ-1-4">pixs4u/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/house-of-lords-vote-eu-nationals-brexit_uk_58b6fe4fe4b0284854b31f05">most keenly fought battles</a> in the run-up to <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/eu-referendum-2016">Britain’s exit</a> from the European Union has been over the existence and nature of citizenship. EU nationals in the UK have become bargaining chips before negotiations start, and UK nationals living in the EU are the collateral damage. As Prime Minister Theresa May <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39325561">prepares to trigger Article 50</a> and start the Brexit process, it is timely to ask just what citizenship represents. </p>
<p>At its heart, citizenship is the right to live and belong in a country and enjoy the protection of its laws. In the EU, it gives people a right to move to, and remain in, other EU states. And so, without a deal to protect citizenship rights, Brexit would be a dramatic moment for the more than <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/27/fewer-britons-in-rest-of-europe-than-previously-thought-ons-research">3m people from other EU members</a> currently in the UK, and for the near 1m UK citizens who have made the opposite trip. Work and family lives have been constructed around these rights, and now they are in flux.</p>
<h2>Rights and wrongs</h2>
<p>As UK lawmakers tussle over the rights of EU citizens, the European Parliament’s lead Brexit negotiator <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39223106">Guy Verhofstadt</a> has mooted the concept of “Associate EU Citizenship” for UK nationals. This would give them the option of paying a fee to retain EU citizenship and some rights.</p>
<p>This is only at the idea stage of course, and it also sits rather uneasily with one of the drivers of Brexit: the desire to reclaim sovereignty. It also fundamentally challenges what we mean by citizenship. Can such a thing be so easily acquired?</p>
<p>In truth, Verhofstadt’s idea is by no means the only route for UK nationals to acquire EU citizenship post-Brexit. This can be done through family ties: it <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37246769">has been estimated</a> that as many as 6.7m people in the UK have an Irish-born parent or grandparent which may help them secure Irish citizenship.</p>
<p>Estonia provides an unusual route into free movement rights for non-nationals. It has established the <a href="https://e-estonia.com/e-residents/about/">first ever “e-residency” programme</a> under which non-nationals can apply for a government ID which effectively gives them a transnational digital identity. They then set up an Estonian company, allowing them to trade in every EU country as a location-independent online business, without becoming an official Estonian national. </p>
<p>For the wealthiest UK nationals, Cypriot citizenship may be purchased through <a href="http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/moi.nsf/All/36DB428D50A58C00C2257C1B00218CAB">a €2m investment</a> in government bonds, companies or land, or by making a significant contribution to major infrastructure projects. No residency is required. Malta has a similar programme costing €650,000, but <a href="http://iip.gov.mt/">requires one year of residency</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162000/original/image-20170322-31194-16qvbyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162000/original/image-20170322-31194-16qvbyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162000/original/image-20170322-31194-16qvbyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162000/original/image-20170322-31194-16qvbyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162000/original/image-20170322-31194-16qvbyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162000/original/image-20170322-31194-16qvbyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162000/original/image-20170322-31194-16qvbyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162000/original/image-20170322-31194-16qvbyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Money talks in Cyprus.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/nicosia-cyprus-505578361?src=wnnk0VQ2JkaGc9o7fWsjeQ-1-3">Andrei Tudoran/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are other routes, too. You could marry an EU national or study in another EU state, which can sometimes lower the usual five-year period needed to obtain citizenship through residency to two years. Failing that, the standard route of living in a host state for five years will usually suffice to obtain national, and therefore, EU citizenship. In some cases, individuals may hold dual citizenship and not feel they are losing their original nationality or identity. </p>
<h2>Acquiring rights</h2>
<p>It is no surprise that ideas around citizenship have emerged at the heart of the post-referendum debate. After all, the same themes of who belongs where helped to underpin support for Brexit. And so it is useful to remind ourselves how the assumptions about citizenship rights evolved in the EU. </p>
<p>The 1957 Treaty of Rome and additions made during the 1990s gave EU citizens the right to move and reside freely in other member states, and to vote and stand in European elections. As an EU citizen, you also get the diplomatic protection of any member state in a third country, and you can petition the European Parliament, apply to the European Ombudsman or communicate with EU institutions in any of the official EU languages. There are also economic free movement rights to work, set up a business and provide or receive services.</p>
<p>Of the citizenship rights, the most influential in the context of Brexit has been the right to move and reside freely. This is subject to limitations and conditions which were originally intended to ensure the free mover was economically active and contributing to the single market. However, the Court of Justice of the EU has, over time, interpreted the legislation implementing citizenship rights as a requirement not to be an unreasonable financial burden on the host state, and an obligation to have health insurance.</p>
<h2>Interpreting rights</h2>
<p>In fact, the ECJ has elaborated greatly upon the citizenship rights set out in the 1957 Treaty, and this is precisely what national governments have found problematic, especially as EU enlargement has been thought to <a href="http://europeanlawblog.eu/tag/c-33313-elisabeta-dano-v-jobcenter-leipzig/">encourage “welfare tourism”</a> among EU migrants.</p>
<p>The court attaches huge importance to the “fundamental status” of citizenship rights. This requires the kind of solidarity between EU citizens and member states which has been a step too far for the electorate of countries like the UK. As the ECJ interpreted away the “economically active” nature of EU citizenship, so it played a crucial role in hardening opinion against free movement and brought us to the point <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/eu-referendum-2016">where Brexit</a> (and <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/d37b6d90-fdd1-11e6-8d8e-a5e3738f9ae4">possibly Frexit</a>) became politically possible.</p>
<p>And the ECJ may have another card to play which will infuriate supporters of Brexit. The court has said that it has jurisdiction to assess whether people can be deprived of EU citizenship. It is therefore possible the court could mount a legal challenge to any Brexit deal that constitutes a deprivation of rights and legitimate expectations of citizens – both UK and non UK. </p>
<p>In the middle of all this political ping pong, back door citizenship and legal positioning, of course, are real people and families, living real lives which now look fragile and unpredictable. Citizenship may be reinterpreted, or even bought and sold, but certainty and security would offer a more valuable commodity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73150/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Millns has received funding from the EU's Representation in the UK </span></em></p>If you have an Irish granny, a spare €650,000 to spend in Malta, or a hankering for a new villa in Cyprus, then EU citizenship is within reach.Susan Millns, Professor of Law, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/732922017-03-06T18:04:44Z2017-03-06T18:04:44ZAfrican governments versus social media: Why the uneasy relationship?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159528/original/image-20170306-938-1t2lpfl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The list of African countries blocking access to social media during elections is growing.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Many Kenyan social media users are worried that the government will shut down the internet during August’s general election. Kenya’s Communications Authority has attempted to reassure voters that this is <a href="http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/Kenya-to-monitor-social-media-during-elections/2558-3515588-cwdl3i/index.html">unlikely</a>. However, fears that internet freedoms could be at risk are not unfounded. </p>
<p>The list of African countries that have blocked access to social media during elections and other politically sensitive periods is growing.</p>
<p>Over the past year this included; <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/cameroon-anglophone-areas-suffer-internet-blackout-170125174215077.html">Cameroon</a>, <a href="https://rsf.org/en/news/media-obstructed-during-chads-presidential-election">Chad</a>, <a href="http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/DR-Congo-orders-social-networks-shut-as-Kabila-term-expires/2558-3488600-58yc5gz/index.html">the Democratic Republic of Congo</a>, <a href="https://qz.com/771996/gabon-is-the-latest-african-country-to-shut-down-its-internet-as-election-protests-grow/">Gabon</a>, <a href="https://qz.com/850002/gambias-government-has-shut-down-the-internet-on-the-eve-of-elections/">Gambia</a>, <a href="http://www.dw.com/en/congo-orders-telecom-providers-to-shut-down-services-for-election-day/a-19129396">the Republic of Congo</a> and <a href="http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFKCN0Y30YC">Uganda</a>. </p>
<p>Countries like <a href="https://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/38450/Ethiopia-Computer-Crime-Proclamation-Legal-Analysis-July-(1).pdf">Ethiopia</a>, <a href="https://rsf.org/en/news/jail-terms-defaming-officials-online-under-new-law">Madagascar</a> and <a href="https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/38058/en/tanzania:-cybercrime-act-2015">Tanzania</a>, have introduced cybercrime legislation that threatens freedom of expression. </p>
<p>Elsewhere, social media users, including journalists, have been prosecuted under existing legislation for content they have <a href="http://cipesa.org/?wpfb_dl=225">shared online</a>.</p>
<p>Such actions are often justified in terms of preserving peace and security because social media does offer a potential platform for the dissemination of hate speech and incitement to violence. </p>
<p>This is particularly problematic in contexts where political candidates draw on ethnic or religious differences to mobilise support. The role played by <a href="http://www.irinnews.org/report/76346/kenya-spreading-word-hate">incendiary text messages</a> in the violence around Kenya’s 2007 elections, for example, is often evoked as a reminder of the potential dangers of unregulated mass communication. </p>
<p>In South Sudan, the ongoing conflict has been fuelled by <a href="https://www.ssrresourcecentre.org/2016/07/12/facebook-and-social-media-fanning-the-flames-of-war-in-south-sudan/">online rumours and hate speech</a>. Some even blamed a ‘false’ <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/13/africa/south-sudan-violence-questions/">Facebook post</a> for causing 150 deaths. </p>
<p>In parts of Africa, social media provides a tool for terrorist groups to <a href="http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/How-cyber-crime-complicates-war-on-terror/2558-2422854-item-0-485eum/index.html">recruit and communicate</a> with their followers.</p>
<p>However, government claims that social media is dangerous and shouldn’t always be taken at face value. New forms of communication are shaking up political competition across Africa as elsewhere. This has worrying implications for regimes that hope to cling to power. </p>
<h2>Alternative source of news</h2>
<p>Social media provides new ways of rapidly sharing information with large numbers of people. In the past a joke poking fun at a political leader might have been shared with a few friends. Today it could reach thousands. </p>
<p>Blogs and platforms, such as WhatsApp, have become major sources of news for many internet users. They sometimes <a href="http://www.ifree.co.ke/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/State-of-Internet-Report-Kenya-2016.pdf">inform</a> what’s reported in the ‘traditional’ media. </p>
<p>Jokes aside, government violations of electoral procedures or other human rights violations can be exposed online. </p>
<p>Social media has played a role in empowering civil society and helps opposition movements to organise in some of Africa’s most <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/06/in-central-africa-citizens-are-using-social-media-to-build-democracy-heres-how/?utm_term=.5ff4a14d042b">authoritarian countries</a>. </p>
<p>The internet also gives localised political issues a global audience. This was the case during recent protests in Ethiopia, when opponents of the regime in the diaspora were able to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-38076389">engage</a> through social media. </p>
<p>However, increased online communication also offers new opportunities for government surveillance and censorship. Internet shutdowns and ‘cybercrime’ prosecutions that target critics of leaders are tools with which to close down political space. </p>
<p>In countries such as Tanzania, restrictions on online debate have been accompanied by complementary offline measures. These include a ban on political rallies and <a href="http://www.dw.com/en/magufulis-bulldozing-leadership-questioned/a-19371737">prosecutions</a> of opposition members of parliament for sedition. </p>
<h2>Standing up to the state</h2>
<p>In the face of government censorship, citizens have attempted to resist restrictions on their internet freedom. For example, in 2016, many Ugandans undermined attempts to block social media by using virtual private networks (VPNs) to <a href="http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/Uganda-social-media-shutdown-proves-futile/2558-3086688-qki8pr/index.html">connect</a>. </p>
<p>Mobile network <a href="https://qz.com/903311/mtn-orange-telecom-should-do-more-to-stop-africa-internet-shutdowns/">operators</a> may face questions about whether they can do more to stand up to governments in future. </p>
<p>Challenging restrictive legislation in court may also prove successful. In Kenya, for example, a legal provision relating to ‘improper’ use of a telecommunications device was declared <a href="https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/38343/en/kenya:-win-for-freedom-of-expression-as-repressive-law-declared-unconstitutional">unconstitutional</a>. </p>
<p>However, in neighbouring Tanzania an attempt to challenge the Cybercrime Act was <a href="http://dailynews.co.tz/index.php/home-news/47613-anti-cyber-crime-act-petition-quashed">dismissed</a>. </p>
<p>These are certainly not issues that only affect African countries.</p>
<p>Between June 2015 and July 2016 there were 81 short-term disruptions to internet access in 19 countries. They included <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/intenet-shutdowns-v-3.pdf">India, Turkey and Vietnam</a>. </p>
<p>Globally, the growth of social media has stimulated debate about where to draw the line between protecting freedom of speech and giving a voice to hatred and extremism. </p>
<p>Last year’s presidential campaign in the United States generated concerns about the role of social media in spreading <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/10/facebook-fake-news-election-conspiracy-theories">‘fake news’</a> with important political consequences. </p>
<p>These debates are urgent in parts of Africa. </p>
<p>In 2017, elections are due in a <a href="https://qz.com/876761/five-african-2017-elections-to-watch-rwanda-kenya-angola-liberia-and-drc/">number of countries</a> that have recent histories of electoral violence. Here, ethnic and regional divisions have in the past been manipulated by political candidates. </p>
<p>There’s therefore a need to consider how to ensure social media isn’t used to incite violence or spread dangerous rumours. The question remains as to how governments can be prevented from seizing the opportunity to restrict citizens’ rights.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73292/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charlotte Cross does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>This is election year for several African countries and there’s a need to ensure social media isn’t used to incite violence. But can governments be prevented from restricting citizens’ rights?Charlotte Cross, Lecturer in International Development, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.