No result found
2004-01-01
Loren Siegel Consulting;
Presents arguments and tools for integrating public opinion research into communications work. Includes case studies, research methods, consultant information, and a guide to help grantmakers evaluate grant proposals to conduct public opinion research.
2020-05-18
NYCLU;
The New York Civil Liberties Union submitted written testimony to the New York State Senate and New York State Assembly regarding the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on minority communities in New York, and solutions to mitigate that impact.Racial disparities apparent in the tragic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic are not novel or isolated or uniquely occurring phenomena. They are concrete evidence of the racism in our systems and institutions – and they stand for the hard truth that rampant systemic racism is a killer. While there are remedial actions government officials can take immediately, many of the longer-term systemic changes that must be undertaken to protect New Yorkers of color are already pending legislative action, some just waiting for a vote. Civil rights are human rights; civil rights preserve human lives and livelihoods. And in the glaring light of this pandemic, we see more clearly that many New Yorkers are unable to access or exercise the rights and liberties that translate into the ability to live a full life – a divergence that all too often erupts along racial lines.
2021-03-11
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois;
Illinois' Parental Notice of Abortion Act (PNA), in effect since 2013, requires a healthcare provider to notify an "adult family member" of any patient under 18 at least 48 hours in advance of providing an abortion. Under the law, only a parent, grandparent, step-parent living in the home, or other legal guardian over the age of 21 qualifies as an adult family member who may be notified. Young people who wish to obtain an abortion without notifying one of these qualifying adult family members can go through an alternative "judicial bypass" process to demonstrate to a judge that they are 1) sufficiently mature and well enough informed to make an abortion decision without parental involvement, and/or that 2) parental involvement is not in their best interests.This report, a collaboration between Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois, examines the harmful consequences of Illinois' parental notification law. Based on in-depth interviews conducted with 37 people, as well as analysis of data and other information collected by the ACLU of Illinois between 2017 and 2020 about young people pursuing the judicial bypass process, the report shows that PNA undermines the safety, health, and dignity of young people under 18, whether they elect to notify a qualifying adult family member or to go through judicial bypass. Human rights experts have consistently called for the removal of barriers that deny access to safe and legal abortion and have commented specifically on parental involvement requirements posing a barrier to abortion care. This report includes a detailed analysis of international human rights law and concludes that PNA violates a range of human rights, including young people's rights to health, to be heard, to privacy and confidentiality of health services and information, to nondiscrimination and equality, to decide the number and spacing of children, and to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
2022-01-18
Bennett Institute for Public Policy at the University of Cambridge;
In this report, we provide the first global overview of how the pandemic has changed political attitudes and beliefs. We use data collected by YouGov from 27 countries and 81,857 individuals during the 2020-21 pandemic, together with data compiled by the HUMAN Surveys project from 79 sources and over 8 million individuals since 1958. We find strong evidence that the pandemic has reversed the rise of populism, whether measured using support for populist parties, approval of populist leaders, or agreement with populist attitudes. However, we also find a disturbing erosion of support for core democratic beliefs and principles, including less liberal attitudes with respect to basic civil rights and liberties and weaker preference for democratic government.
2022-02-17
Freedom House;
Freedom in the World 2022 evaluates the state of freedom in 195 countries and 15 territories during calendar year 2021. Each country and territory is assigned between 0 and 4 points on a series of 25 indicators, for an aggregate score of up to 100. The indicators are grouped into the categories of political rights (0–40) and civil liberties (0–60), whose totals are weighted equally to determine whether the country or territory has an overall status of Free, Partly Free, or Not Free.The methodology, which is derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is applied to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographic location, ethnic or religious composition, or level of economic development.Freedom in the World assesses the real-world rights and freedoms enjoyed by individuals, rather than governments or government performance per se. Political rights and civil liberties can be affected by both state and nonstate actors, including insurgents and other armed groups.
2021-08-08
Access Now;
Tools to identify, single out, and track us everywhere we go are inherently incompatible with our human rights and civil liberties. Unfortunately, many Latin American governments are eagerly purchasing this technology and ramping up the implementation of mass biometric surveillance — even as the movement to ban technology for biometric surveillance gains traction worldwide. Meanwhile, the companies supplying the tech are flying under the radar, selling surveillance technology that is deployed across Latin America without sufficient transparency or public scrutiny. Our latest report, Surveillance Tech In Latin America: Made Abroad, Deployed At Home, exposes the companies behind these dangerous products and the government policies and practices that are undermining people's rights.As we highlight in the report, most of the biometric surveillance tech deployed in Latin America is acquired directly or indirectly from companies in Asia (Israel, China, and Japan), Europe (U.K. and France), and the U.S. They include AnyVision, Hikvision, Dahua, Cellebrite, Huawei, ZTE, NEC, IDEMIA, and VERINT, among others. These companies have a duty to respect human rights, yet their tools are often implicated in human rights violations perpetrated against civil society globally — journalists, activists, human rights defenders, lawyers, and members of targeted and oppressed groups. Latin America has a long history of persecuting dissidents and people in marginalized communities, and authorities continue to abuse public power. The COVID-19 pandemic has now given governments a new excuse to deploy dangerous surveillance tools in the name of public safety, even as they fail to protect human rights. The bottom line: the backroom deals pursued in countries like Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador are exposing the public to unacceptable risk. Our report, a research collaboration with our partners at Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (ADC), the Laboratório de Políticas Públicas e Internet (LAPIN), and LaLibre.net (Tecnologías Comunitarias), not only documents the agreements to procure dangerous technology, it also presents case studies to show how the technology is deployed. Finally, we offer recommendations for government, companies, and other stakeholders to increase transparency and prevent rights violations.
2021-03-01
Freedom House;
Freedom in the World 2021 evaluates the state of freedom in 195 countries and 15 territories during calendar year 2020. Each country and territory is assigned between 0 and 4 points on a series of 25 indicators, for an aggregate score of up to 100. The indicators are grouped into the categories of political rights (0–40) and civil liberties (0–60), whose totals are weighted equally to determine whether the country or territory has an overall status of Free, Partly Free, or Not Free.The methodology, which is derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is applied to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographic location, ethnic or religious composition, or level of economic development. Freedom in the World assesses the real-world rights and freedoms enjoyed by individuals, rather than governments or government performance per se. Political rights and civil liberties can be affected by both state and nonstate actors, including insurgents and other armed groups.
2014-01-23
Freedom House;
The state of freedom declined for the eighth consecutive year in 2013, according to Freedom in the World 2014, Freedom House's annual country-by-country report on global political rights and civil liberties.Particularly notable were developments in Egypt, which endured across-the-board reversals in its democratic institutions following a military coup. There were also serious setbacks to democratic rights in other large, politically influential countries, including Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Venezuela, and Indonesia.Findings of the 41st edition of Freedom in the World, the oldest, most authoritative report of democracy and human rights, include: Fifty-four countries showed overall declines in political rights and civil liberties, compared with 40 that showed gains.For the eighth consecutive year, Freedom in the World recorded more declines in democracy worldwide than gains.Some leaders effectively relied on "modern authoritarianism," crippling their political opposition without annihilating it, and flouting the rule of law while maintaining a veneer of order, legitimacy, and prosperity.Central to modern authoritarians is the capture of institutions that undergird political pluralism. They seek to dominate not only the executive and legislative branches, but also the media, judiciary, civil society, economy, and security forces.There were some positive signs for the year: Civil liberties improved in Tunisia, the most promising of the Arab Spring countries.Pakistan showed gains due to successful elections and an orderly rotation of power.In Africa, gains occurred in Mali, Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal, Madagascar, Rwanda, Togo, and Zimbabwe.The addition of Honduras, Kenya, Nepal, and Pakistan raised the number of electoral democracies to 122.
2017-09-22
IIE Center for Academic Mobility Research & Impact;
In 2016, USAID's Center of Excellence on Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance launched its Learning Agenda—a set of research questions designed to address the issues that confront staff in USAID field offices working on the intersection of development and democracy, human rights, and governance. This literature review—produced by a team of political scientists, geographers, and an anthropologist—synthesizes scholarship from diverse research traditions on the following Learning Agenda question:How can citizens keep civic space from shrinking? What enables civic and political participation in countries where civil liberties have been lost? How do forms of civic and political engagement in such contexts differ from forms of engagement in contexts in which civil liberties are protected? Are some forms of civic and political engagement generally more tolerated in newly repressive contexts than others? How do civic actors adapt their engagement tactics to achieve their objectives?The authors identify five strategies that have worked in at least some instances to pry open civic space under backsliding regimes:Alliance-and coalition-building with other domestic civil society groups, since larger groups have greater resources and can reach a larger audience.Indirect resistance and actions, such as charity provision, artistic expression, and local-level political involvement, since strategies that do not overtly confront the regime are less threatened and can still provide a space for community involvement, expression, and problem-solving.Non-violent contentious action, especially protest, which is more likely to be successful and have domestic and international appeal than violent action.Creative and careful use of digital technologies, since much of digital communication is beyond the reach of the state.Maintaining organizational autonomy from the government and international actors, since co-optation by the regime and affiliation with international actors risk compromising a group's message and goals.
2022-05-25
ACAPS;
Since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a wide range of responders, both established organisations and first-time relief providers, have emerged to address the growing needs. At the national level, the Government of Ukraine (GoU) is attempting to centralise the reception and coordination of aid. At the oblast and local levels, the GoU, Oblast Military Administrations (OMAs), and hromadas (municipalities), alongside national and local NGOs and the Ukrainian Red Cross Society, have been distributing and providing aid to the affected population. With the networks and connections they have previously built, especially with public administrations, national NGOs present prior to the 2022 invasion may have considerable capacity to engage in the response. Insecurity has disrupted the activities of some of those NGOs, however, and led their staff to evacuate, particularly in the conflict-affected areas.At the same time, civil society organisations (CSOs), faith-based networks, and a considerable amount of newly emerged volunteers and volunteer networks are providing vital humanitarian response, particularly at the local level. While their capacity may be limited, they are more agile in their ability to reach the affected population even in the most hazardous areas and may have a better understanding of local needs. Civil society sees their contributions to the humanitarian response as a way of participating in the national effort.The international response, consisting of UN agencies and INGOs, considerably scaled up its presence since February, but a strong national response with its own coordination, processing, and delivery procedures characterises the environment it operates in. Population displacement, conflict dynamics, and differing local implementations of national directives mean that international organisations juggle supporting government entities, operating with established humanitarian responders, and establishing new relationships with more fluid ad hoc networks.The multitude of different responders involved at the local level, both new and established, has led to a number of issues, including parallel structures and a lack of respective understanding of how different levels of response are working to address needs. The ways in which the response operates (in terms of the coordination and delivery of assistance) considerably vary by oblast and even hromada. It has been impossible to quantify the impact and reach of the response of local formal and informal organisations, networks, and volunteers.These challenges make it difficult for local and international responders to effectively work together and create cohesion between the different levels of response. Regardless of the challenges, the GoU, NGOs, the international humanitarian system, and informal structures all play an important role in the response, demonstrating a need to enhance relationships, collaboration, and information-sharing between local and international levels of response.
2022-04-01
Global Voices Advox;
Digital communications technologies have been a powerful tool in the advancement of democratic governance, but in recent years there is concern that they are being used to undermine democracy as well. The Unfreedom Monitor, part of Global Voices' Advox project, aims to study and report on this growing phenomenon. This briefing document provides an overview of key developments in digital authoritarianism in a sample of 10 countries, while explaining the theoretical framework and methodology behind the project. The document also provides a basis for expanding this research to other countries so we can deepen our understanding of digital authoritarianism globally as well as its crucial implications for the future.
2013-02-06
Freedom House;
As President Barack Obama enters his second term, relations with Russia present him with a set of thorny problems. The first-term "reset," a fresh American posture toward the Kremlin that was designed to build productive relations by offering compromises on a range of political and geostrategic issues, has clearly run its course. The Obama administration had partly based its hope for improved ties on the ability of Dmitry Medvedev, who served as Russia's president from 2008 to 2012, to achieve liberal reforms, especially on freedom of expression, the rule of law, and the ability of civil society to function without state intrusion. However, substantive reforms never materialized, former president and then prime minister Vladimir Putin remained the dominant force in government, and Russia moved abruptly in a more repressive direction following his return to the presidency in May 2012. Step by step, Putin has pushed through measures to deter public demonstrations, smear and limit funding for nongovernmental organizations, and place restrictions on the internet. He has also made anti-Americanism a central part of his political message. He has accused the United States of fomenting demonstrations against election fraud, shut down all U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) programs in Russia, withdrawn from a series of cooperative agreements with the United States, and signed a vindictive law that prohibits the adoption of Russian children by citizens of the United States.There can be little doubt that a new American policy toward the Kremlin is needed. To help inform the discussion on a new approach, Freedom House is publishing this package of materials on the state of human rights and democracy in Russia since Putin took power in 2000. In the centerpiece essay, Freedom House president David J. Kramer and Eurasia program director Susan Corke assess the nature of the Putin regime and advance a series of proposals for American policy in the coming period. Katherin Machalek, the research analyst for Freedom House's "Nations in Transit" publication, is the author of a companion piece that lays out the progressive legal restrictions on civil society organizations during the Putin era. The package also includes a chronology of selected developments in Russia from 2000 through 2012 , with a focus on the suppression of the political opposition, independent media, and civil society. The chronology, prepared by Freedom House researcher Marissa Miller, serves as a reminder that the repressive measures enacted over the past eight months do not amount to a new direction for Russia, but rather a continuation, in severe form, of trends that have dominated Russian politics throughout the Putin era. Finally, a series of graphical representations prepared by senior research assistant Bret Nelson illustrate the decline of political rights and civil liberties in Russia as measured by Freedom House's annual reports.
