organization:united nations

  • #Taha_Bouhafs, le fumeur de chicha qui a fait tomber #Benalla | #StreetPress
    https://www.streetpress.com/sujet/1550583313-taha-bouhafs-journaliste-chicha-benalla

    À seulement 21 ans, Taha Bouhafs s’est forgé une solide réputation dans les milieux militants et politiques de gauche. Candidat aux législatives de 2017 pour la France Insoumise – à 19 ans -, activiste assidu durant les blocus étudiants de 2018, il ne manque aucun rendez-vous lié aux luttes des quartiers populaires non plus. Surtout, il a participé à lancer la saga Benalla, qui secoue le gouvernement depuis déjà huit mois. Taha est l’auteur de la vidéo où l’ex-collaborateur de Macron tabasse un couple de manifestants, place de la Contrescarpe. « Et ça n’a rien d’un coup de chance que ça soit lui : il est partout, tout le temps », assure son ami #Youcef_Brakni, membre du Comité #Adama

    [...]

    C’est deux mois plus tard qu’une amie lui signale que sa vidéo est sur Le Monde. « #Ariane_Chemin ne m’a jamais ni crédité, ni appelé », regrette-t-il, y voyant un mépris pour les militants de terrain. « Si j’avais été envoyé en GAV, ni elle, ni les journalistes de Médiapart ne seraient venus m’aider… »

    • LA RÉPRESSION CONTRE LES JOURNALISTES CONTINUE
      TAHA, NOTRE JOURNALISTE, BRUTALISÉ ET ARRÊTÉ LORS D’UN REPORTAGE
      Le 11 juin 2019
      https://la-bas.org/la-bas-magazine/au-fil-de-la-bas/taha-notre-journaliste-brutalise-et-arrete-lors-d-un-reportage

      (...) Notre journaliste était envoyé là pour couvrir l’occupation de l’agence Chronopost d’Alfortville par des travailleurs sans-papiers intérimaires. Le Collectif des travailleurs sans-papiers de Vitry-sur-Seine a indiqué qu’un de leurs camarades, Christian, avait également été arrêté par les forces de l’ordre.

      Ils exigent de Chronopost et du groupe La Poste, deuxième employeur du pays après l’État, les documents qui permettront leur régularisation par les différentes préfectures d’Île-de-France.

      La Poste et sa filiale Chronopost font appel à des entreprises de manutention (Partner, Globe Express, Derichebourg, Arès) pour le tri et la manutention dans ses plateformes de tri et de distribution. Ces entreprises délèguent une large partie de l’embauche à des entreprises d’intérim’ qu’elles ont souvent elles-mêmes créées.

      Ces sociétés d’intérim’ emploient des travailleurs sans-papiers en veillant à ce que le turn-over soit rapide. Ces travailleurs ne restent pas assez longtemps pour pouvoir être régularisés. Ils travaillent à temps partiel de 4h du matin à 7h30. (...)

  • Les médias confrontés à la saturation des abonnements en ligne

    A partir d’un sondage mené auprès de 75 000 personnes dans 38 pays, les chercheurs rattachés à l’université britannique d’Oxford pointent que les abonnements numériques ne progressent pas. « La plupart des gens ne sont pas prêts à payer pour de l’information en ligne aujourd’hui, et d’après les tendances actuelles ils ne le feront probablement pas à l’avenir », jugent les auteurs.

    Depuis six ans, la part des lecteurs disposés à payer pour s’informer sur Internet se maintient généralement à 11 %. Au point que plusieurs observateurs redoutent que le secteur ait heurté un plafond. Cette inquiétude est d’autant plus légitime que « peu de gens sont actuellement prêts à s’abonner à plus d’un média en ligne », souligne l’étude. C’est alors la « logique du gagnant rafle tout » qui prime : cet unique abonnement se porte sur les titres dominants, au détriment des journaux locaux ou spécialisés.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2019/06/11/les-medias-confrontes-a-la-saturation-des-abonnements-en-ligne_5474820_3236.
    #medias #information #paywall #journalisme

    • Je n’ai pas encore les idées totalement claires à ce sujet, mais j’ai des débuts de réflexions/questionnements…

      – l’opposition très à la mode entre « le payant qui respecte la qualité de l’information » et « le gratuit qui vend les lecteurs aux annonceurs en les fichant », je pense que c’est du flan, parce qu’« avant l’internet », les revenus des journaux payants était largement constitué à la fois du revenu de la vente et de la publicité. Quand on achète un magazine ou un journal, on a à la fois à payer pour lire, et en même temps c’est gavé de publicité. (Et, il faudrait retrouver les chiffres : en plus de ces revenus « commerciaux », l’ensemble est généralement lourdement subventionné.)

      – par ailleurs, dans le revenu « par la vente », il me semble que l’intérêt central d’avoir des abonnements plutôt que des ventes au numéro, c’est (outre la régularité du revenu) de constituer des fichiers d’abonnés. Lesquels sont (étaient ? je me souviens de ces discussions dans les années 90) particulièrement destinées à être revendus.

      Je me souviens qu’un des aspects, c’était que les médias les plus puissants pouvaient gérer leurs abonnements en interne et ainsi, en plus, avoir le contrôle de leur fichier d’abonnés. Alors que les médias moins puissants déléguaient le service abonnement à une société externe, et l’un des gros écueils, dans ce cas, c’était justement de perdre ce fichier.

      Dans mon souvenir, l’insistance des médias passant sur le Web à constituer des abonnés à leur « mailing list », comme insistaient lourdement les spécialistes de la spécialité, non pas pour de simples question de fidélisation des lecteurs, mais bel et bien pour constituer un fichier que l’on pourrait revendre.

      Du coup :

      – L’idée que la publicité serait un mauvais moyen de financer les contenus, et le paywall une excellente façon, respectueuse et tout ça, je pense que c’est faux et que ça a toujours été un alibi. Dans le papier, on a toujours eu et on a toujours à la fois la vente, la publicité et les aides publiques (et/ou défiscalisations). Sur Web, on a désormais ce discours « moral » sur le respect des lecteurs et la façon « noble » de faire tourner les médias, mais je pense que c’est essentiellement dû au fait que les budgets pubs sur l’internet se déportent de plus en plus vers les réseaux sociaux fermés et la page du moteur de recherche lui-même, et de moins en moins sur « la longue traîne » que constituaient les sites éditoriaux. Donc c’est plus forcé et contraint qu’on prétend que c’est une bonne chose pour le lecteur de bloquer l’accès à l’information derrière un paywall.

      – Je n’ai aucun doute qu’un aspect non-dit du paywall-qui-respecte-la-privacy, en fait c’est la reproduction du vieux modèle : tu paies donc je te fiche moi-même en constituant un beau fichier-clients.

      Dit autrement : si tu visites le NYTimes sans paywall, avec des publicités Google, alors tu alimentes le fichier de Google ; si tu visites derrière un paywall, alors tu es dans le fichier du NYTimes.

      – Et donc les outils qui mutualiseraient les accès aux différents médias sur un abonnement, le gros blocage c’est : ces médias n’auront plus la valeur ajoutée de ce fichier client.

      – Aspect à voir : le paywall c’est bon mangez-en, peut-être aussi parce qu’une des façons de toucher des subventions publiques pour son média en ligne, c’est de dire que c’est pour mettre en place un paywall.

      – Les journaux/magazines sur papier ont à la fois les pubs et la vente payante. Je n’ai rigoureusement aucun doute que, quand ça va bien (ou mieux) pour eux, les médias en ligne te feront bouffer en même temps du paywall et de la publicité (ou de la publicité déguisée). Aucun doute là-dessus. Pour l’instant, on joue sur l’opposition : accès gratuit pourri par des popups qui rendent la lecture pénible et l’accès payant « débarrassé » de la pub. C’est-à-dire que la publicité n’est pas là uniquement pour le financement de l’accès gratuit, mais largement pour te faire chier avec des popups éprouvants, en repoussoir pour te convaincre que tu serais bien plus à l’aise en payant. Mais franchement, je vois pas pourquoi ça durerait.

      – Et enfin, le gros point d’intérêt du paywall : il réintroduit l’accès exclusif à un média pour chaque lecteur. C’est tout l’intérêt, et c’est pour cela que les médias les plus puissants sont passés à ça (NYTimes en tête). Une fois qu’il y a des paywalls, les lecteurs ne s’abonneront qu’à un seul journal, là où l’internet permettait de « butiner » différents journaux. Le but du paywall individuel, c’est de tuer la concurrence, de flinguer l’effet « longue traîne » et de revenir sur le gros problème central des journaux depuis les années 2000, la dilution de leur marque. Fin des années 90, les journaux deviennent des pôles capitalistiques énormes, sur la promesse d’être des « marques de référence » ; avec Rezo.net, Netvibes, puis Google News et Apple News, et désormais Twitter et Facebook, la notion de marque s’est déplacée sur les agrégateurs, au détriment des médias (encore une fois : qui étaient depuis le tournant des années 90/2000, d’énormes investissements capitalistiques) qui se rêvaient dans ce rôle. Le paywall n’a pas vocation simplement à « financer l’information et le travail des journalistes » : il a aussi (surtout ?) vocation à rétablir l’hégémonie des plus gros médias (le Monde en France, NYTimes et WaPo aux États-Unis). Une fois que tu paies le paywall du plus gros média (le NYTimes), tu ne vas en plus payer le paywall pour d’un Boston Globe ou d’un San Jose Mercury News. Et je ne crois pas que ce soit une conséquence imprévue, je pense que c’est une préoccupation centrale pour les gens joueurs. Au détriment, donc, de cet autre fondement de l’idéologie de la presse : la pluralité.

      – Bref, un gros blocage du paywall mutualisé, c’est que ceux qui ont déjà un paywall ne veulent pas perdre le contrôle de leur fichier de lecteurs-abonnés, et que pour les gros joueurs, c’est assez contreproductif de re-diluer l’imposition de leur marque et du quasi-monopole que leur paywall a mis sur l’info-en-ligne-derrière-paywall.

    • Moi non plus je n’ai pas d’idée trop préconçues là-dessus. Mais, franchement, je ne crois pas aux raisonnements machiavéliques des suppots du Grand Kapital. Ne fusse que parce qu’on a affaire à des gens qui ne maîtrisent rien, même s’ils tiennent à faire savoir qu’ils maitrisent (via les media, justement).
      Il y a une chose bien claire : les revenus publicitaires partent en sucette pour les media traditionnels, en partie parce qu’ils (les revenus) se retrouvent sur les agrégateurs et/ou les réseaux sociaux (il est nettement plus rentable de puber sur FB ou Youtube).
      A partir de ce moment là, il n’y a pas des masses d’options (parce qu’un media a quand même des couts fixes, il ne s’agit pas uniquement de verser du pognon aux actionnaires). On repasse au modèle payant. Au moins en partie. Et sur le fond, ça ne me dérange pas (l’idée selon laquelle l’info/le savoir devraient être gratuits est pour moi parmi les idées les plus nazes/démagos du monde).
      Ensuite, pour ce qui est des fichiers, soyons sérieux, n’importe quel site marchand (ou pas forcément marchand) en revend à la pelle, et c’est en quantités autrement plus importantes.
      Ensuite, le côté monopolistique est (ou sera) certes présent, mais sur le fond, c’était déjà le cas avant. Après tout, quel était le pourcentage de personnes abonnées à plus d’un journal papier ? Sur le fond, un media ne vend pas de l’ info/vérité mais du biais de confirmation. Lire plus d’un journal va à l’encontre de cette politique. Il est certain, par contre, que dans une économie du net où il paraît impensable de payer (parce que l’info doit être gratuite, patati patata), cela ne va que renforcer effectivement le monopole de certains media. Mais il faut aussi se demander avant tout quelle est la fonction d’un media (voir plus haut) et si ce fonctionnement en concentration croissante n’est pas « naturel » (non pas du fait de l’offre mais plutôt de la demande).
      Enfin, le paywall pourrait servir à toucher des subventions ? Pas faux. Mais c’est déjà le cas : Le Monde en touche déjà et je ne pense pas que ça augmente. Mais ça pourrait servir de pretexte aux pure-players, c’est vrai.

    • Oui, Lefayot, mais pour une large part, j’essayais d’apporter des arguments sur l’idée des paywalls mutualisés, suggérés par Aude et Monolecte, pas seulement sur l’opposition entre paywall et gratuit. Pour une bonne partie, les considérations sont sur l’opposition entre paywall « par média » (le NYTimes étant à la pointe du truc) et paywall « à plusieurs ».

      Sur le grand plan « machiavélique », je pense qu’il y a beaucoup de suivisme et d’effets de mode, mais justement c’est basé sur des habitudes et des intérêts largement partagés dans ce milieu (récupérer un fichier, ça peut sembler certes un peu risible, mais comme à chaque fois que je rencontre des professionnels du web marchand/startup/médias, ça revient très vite, l’idée que ça va « valoriser » ton business, même si on ne va pas trop savoir comment). Et largement tenter de reproduire ce qui a fonctionné une fois quelque part (de manière vaguement désespérée). Et là, le « plan » de transition du NYTimes vers le paywall – je l’avais un peu documenté par ici – la « vision » qui a mené à ça, et la façon de le faire, pour le coup ça a été fait de manière aussi intelligente que possible à une époque ou c’était réputé impossible (et donc, option précédente : maintenant tout le monde suit ce qu’a fait le NYTimes, en se disant qu’il suffit d’installer un paywall pour avoir la même puissance de frappe).

    • Ca fait deux jours que je me retiens de répondre tant la phrase

      « (l’idée selon laquelle l’info/le savoir devraient être gratuits est pour moi parmi les idées les plus nazes/démagos du monde) »

      me choque et, en cette période où le journalisme libre s’en prend de plus en plus plein la gueule, je dirai même qu’elle me violente.
      Et comme là, rien qu’en commençant à écrire, j’ai les têtes de Taha Bouhafs et Yannis Youlountas au bord des yeux, bah.. je vais encore attendre. Mais étant enfant de l’Educ Pop, vraiment, ... c’est super violent.
      Le savoir est la plus puissante des armes. Conditionner l’idée, l’immatériel, à une valeur marchande, c’est éloigner la masse du savoir et l’approcher du précipice de la guerre. Point. Et tant pis si tu me considères comme une démago-naze, @lefayot mais je t’invite quand même à te questionner sur ce qui est entendable (rentabiliser un support matériel, dédommager un travail intellectuel...) et ce qui est de l’ordre de l’aliénation (tout conditionner à la valeur marchande)...

      En fait, je venais ajouter cette recension à la note initiale et demander si quelqu’un-e avait lu Ces cons de journalistes ! d’Olivier Goujon : https://www.acrimed.org/Lire-Ces-cons-de-journalistes-d-Olivier-Goujon

      En mêlant témoignages de journalistes et description des évolutions du métier (en se penchant sur de nombreux cas, non abordés ici, comme, par exemple, les voyages de presse ou la loi sur les fake news), Olivier Goujon dresse un panorama des nombreuses logiques qui pèsent sur le travail quotidien des journalistes. Avec un bilan amer, mais lucide : les journalistes sont de plus en plus précaires et l’information sacrifiée, dans la presse magazine en particulier, tandis que « les relations publiques et la publicité ont pris le pas sur le journalisme pour imposer un modèle de communication basé sur le divertissement au détriment de l’information. »

    • +1, @val_k
      On oublie un peu facilement qu’il existait une sorte de ratio qui était le nombre de lecteurs par exemplaire vendu . Ainsi, il y avait ceux qui payaient un journal et ceux qui y accédaient. Donc, si tu n’avais pas l’argent pour l’abonnement, tu pouvais aller au bistrot le lire ou chez un voisin, ami, frangin, voir sur un banc public, la bibliothèque, etc.

      La presse en ligne a deux conséquences très différentes :
      1. elle a appris aux lecteurs à comparer l’info, ce qui ne se faisait pas avant. En gros, les gens ont découvert que s’informer avec un seul journal comme cela était la tradition, ce n’est pas une bonne idée. On a découvert, par exemple, que la PQR est vraiment très partisane. Et cela a changé les habitudes de lectures des gens qui, comme moi, préfèrent à présent avoir plusieurs angles sur la même histoire pour tenter d’y démêler les faits de la propagande.
      2. on ne peut plus se passer le journal. Sauf quand les gens abonnés copient l’article et le partagent en loucedé, tout en sachant qu’ils n’ont pas le droit de le faire. Personne ne pensait à ce genre de chose avec les exemplaires papier. Je crois qu’il y a UN canard à paywall qui autorise d’envoyer un nombre limité d’articles à un ami. Donc le numérique a — contrairement à ce que l’on nous assène en permanence — réduit le périmètre du partage et de la gratuité.

    • Ah je suis content de voir arriver cette discussion.

      La remarque de Lefayot est proche d’une petite phrase de @hlc il y a quelques temps, réagissant au hashtag #paywall qu’on utilise sur Seenthis, du style « ça ne me choque pas qu’on fasse payer pour financer l’information », qui m’avait fait tiquer, mais je n’avais pas relevé.

      Et personnellement, ces phrases qui semblent relever de l’évidence, hé ben justement, je trouve que pas du tout.

      Je n’ai pas trop le temps à l’instant, mais je serais vraiment heureux qu’il y ait des échanges là-dessus.

      Le côté évident de la remarque, qui en plus introduit une considération morale (et ici avec le principe de paywall, que je ne trouve pas du tout moralement transparent), ça me semble très proche de la tournure tout aussi « évidente » (c’est-à-dire apparemment de bon sens) au milieu des années 2000, selon laquelle « c’est normal de payer pour financer la musique », avec l’idée qu’il n’y aurait que le paiement et micro-paiement pour écouter de la musique. Phrase qui revenait systématiquement quand on évoquait l’idée de « licence globale » à l’époque.

      Résultat la licence globale on l’a, sauf que c’est le streaming géré/organisé par des grandes entreprises américaines et que les conditions de rémunération des artistes (« la création ») n’en sont pas améliorées (oh…). Et qu’il y a même moyen d’écouter de la musique gratuitement sans abonnement en allant sur Youtube (ce que font beaucoup de gens). Et avec en plus une usine à gaz institutionnelle et technique qui coûte des millions pour prétendument lutter contre le téléchargement « illégal ».

      Du coup, répondre à la problématique du paywall par une remarque évidente qu’il faut bien financer l’information, ça me pose problème : parce que l’équation n’est pas évidente pour moi, et parce que la posture morale (en ce qu’elle évacue d’autres questions tout aussi défendables moralement, dont par exemple la remarque d’Agnès) n’est pas plus tenable.

    • L’information est financée dans ce pays : abonnements, vente au n°, pubs, subventions, aménagements fiscaux.
      Mais comme le fait remarquer justement @arno, comme dans pratiquement tous les secteurs d’activité actuellement, l’argent est capté par les intermédiaires et ne ruissèle pratiquement plus jusqu’au créateurs/producteurs.

      On pourrait presque produire une sorte d’équation de l’exploitation des créateurs : plus tu produis une part importante de la matière première d’une filière, moins tu reçois ta part de la valeur ajoutée extraite de la vente au consommateur final.

      Pour revenir à la presse, les journalistes sont de plus en plus mal payés, mais c’est surtout qu’à l’intérieur même de la profession, les inégalités de rémunérations se creusent, en plus des discriminations habituelles : l’éditorialiste ramasse le pactole pour une part de travail insignifiante, mais à la hauteur de sa réputation, pendant que le stagiaire ou le localier fournit l’essentiel de ce qui va remplir les pages pour pratiquement des miettes de rémunération, avec, au milieu de cette pyramide de l’exploitation et du mépris, les pigistes qui voient le prix du feuillet suivre une courbe inversement proportionnelle à celle du cout de la vie et les AE, grandes gueules externalisées et maintenant rémunérées avec des miettes, sans aucun droit lié à la profession ou au statut !

    • À propos du journalisme, du vrai, du payé, cet article qui date d’il y a 3 ans (juin 2016) est en train de refaire le tour du ouaib pour dénier à Taha Bouhafs (et d’autres) la reconnaissance professionnelle.
      Pour en finir avec le « tous photographes, tous journalistes ».
      https://philipperochot.com/2016/06/07/pour-en-finir-avec-le-tous-photographes-tous-journalistes-philippe-r
      L’auteur, Philippe Rochot, est un journaliste ex-otage et conditionne le professionnalisme à des études et une culturel politique permettant de toujours connaître tous les angles d’un sujet. Il semble pourtant méconnaître beaucoup de choses, à commencer par exemple par la technique du gonzo.
      Journalisme gonzo — Wikipédia - https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalisme_gonzo

    • Lire aussi :
      En France, on ne fait vraiment plus confiance aux médias

      Le rapport annuel du Reuters Institute est sans appel : la confiance se dégrade un peu partout dans le monde. Mais surtout en France, notamment après la crise des #GiletsJaunes.

      « la polarisation politique encourage la croissance de projets partisans, qui, associés à des articles racoleurs et plusieurs formes de désinformations contribuent à décrédibiliser les médias, analyse le rapport. Ce qui soulève plusieurs questions sur la manière de délivrer des informations équilibrées et justes à l’ère du numérique. »

      https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/medias/en-france-on-ne-fait-vraiment-plus-confiance-aux-medias_2084056.html
      Trouvé sur l’oiseau bleu de @gjpvernant

    • Puisque @arno m’y incite, je dis quelques mots :

      – dans ce débat, je trouve de bon arguments chez tout le monde, et souvent, je ne comprends pas pourquoi ces arguments créent du dissensus. Car en réalité, ils ne s’adressent pas au même problème, donc se côtoient plus qu’ils ne s’opposent.

      – j’ai dit et je répète : la création (d’information, de culture ou de connaissance) mérite un paiement. Ça ne dit rien de la manière dont ce paiement se réalise. Pour la BBC, le NPR ou France-Info, c’est pas le biais de service public. Pour la majeure partie de ce que j’ai déposé sur le web (mon travail d’universitaire) c’est encore un service public qui l’a financé... donc c’est offert gratuitement au lecteur (mais en fait, c’est un paiement différé, car il/elle a payé des impôts qui ont financé la production).

      – On pourrait continuer : la « licence légale » pour laquelle nous nous sommes battue était une forme de financement de la création musicale. Elle reposait sur une plateforme publique (proposition Dutoit à l’Assemblée) et sur un modèle statistique d’évaluation des usages répartis (voir Philippe Aigrain pour des calcul précis). Donc deux possibilités (centralisée ou répartie P2P), mais au final un financement des créateurs (et de l’industrie des intermédiaires, musiciens de studio, preneurs de son, producteurs, médias,... n’oublions pas qu’on ne crée jamais tout seul, et que la vision romantique de l’auteur isolée a été depuis longtemps battue en brèche - cf. Du bon usage de la piraterie de Florent Latrive).

      – La question est donc comment on finance. Pour le producteur d’information, le paywall a des avantages (soulignés par plusieurs ici) : centralisation du paiement, captation d’audience et fidélisation sur un ou deux titres. La gratuité en a d’autres (captation des données par les agrégateurs - d’accès genre FB et G. ou de publicité comme Doubleclick). Le financement à la source (public, ou privé via le crowdfunding, ou encore participation à un projet collectif comme le travail associatif) en a encore d’autres.

      – Oui, ce serait vachement mieux si tout était gratuit, si nous étions toutes des soeurs et si tous les gars du monde voulaient bien se donner la main... Mais va falloir se bouger le cul de devant son ordi pour y parvenir ;-)

      – Reste l’idée intermédiaire d’un accès payant à un système qui verserait ensuite pour nous aux producteurs en fonction de nos usages (tiens, on retrouve la licence légale sous une autre forme). Elle semble la meilleure solution pour la lecteurice. Mais elle pose des problèmes aux producteurs (la fidélisation est une garantie d’avenir). On touche d’ailleurs là un point important dans le débat : il est souvent vu du point de vue de l’usager... alors que la question du financement est posée pour le producteur.

      Certes, dit comme ça, c’est un peu poser la quadrature du cercle, car on ne voit pas émerger LA bonne solution. Trop facile @hlc ;-)

      Pour le reste, les arguments « moraux » ou la mise en doute de la qualité même du journalisme, fut-il payé pour ça... c’est un autre débat, et mélanger les deux (financement et qualité) ne nous fera pas avancer. J’ai des idées sur ce deuxième débat, mais pas ici car ce serait du brouillage sur ce qui me semble être le cœur : comment on finance la production d’information, de culture et de connaissances.

      Et de mon expérience (entre créateur d’un journal de contre-info dans ma folle jeunesse, bibliothécaire, enseignant payé par la puissance publique et maintenant éditeur privé), je crois que je n’ai jamais vraiment pu trouver une « bonne » solution. Juste un ensemble de bricolages, d’arrangements, de tentatives, d’avancées (ouvertures) et de reculs (paywall si vous tenez au terme). Sauf à considérer tel ou tel domaine (par exemple le logiciel libre, ou les ressources éducatives libres, ou... ) les généralisations risquent d’être contre-productives.

      Mes deux sous qui ne sont pas près d’épuiser la question...

    • A propos de #paywall & #piraterie on avait déjà commencé le débat ici https://seenthis.net/messages/784160 quand je m’offusquais qu’un article sur la communauté du #Libre soit uniquement accessible en payant.
      Et si je relie « qualité » (morale, sociale) et finance (paiement, salaire...) c’est parce que sur mon chemin de #photographe, il m’a toujours été renvoyé que si je n’étais pas payée, ou que si je ne cherchais pas à commercialiser [mon travail / mes créations] c’est donc que je n’étais pas professionnelle, donc pas photographe. Je me suis fait avoir longtemps par cet argument fallacieux (plus fréquemment sorti aux femmes, qui, c’est bien connu, ne sont ni créatrices ni professionnelles, mais ont le plus souvent des loisirs, j’en parle un peu par là https://seenthis.net/messages/737513...) mais désolée, selon moi tout est lié et tout est (choix) politique.
      Ainsi entre les #automedias où tout à chacun-e peut être journaliste (ou pas) en dilettante et ne s’inflige généralement pas d’auto-censure (quoi que, mais c’est un autre sujet) et les #medias_libres type @bastamag ou #Reporterre qui font le choix d’un paiement solidaire, et Le Monde ou autres, il y en a bien plus d’un, monde, et des castes, et des classes. Mais au demeurant, on ne m’ôtera pas de l’idée qu’inféoder le savoir à la capacité individuelle de le payer est une vision politique élitiste tandis qu’inciter à donner l’accès libre à la connaissance et questionner la notion de « vrai #travail » peut, tout au plus passer pour de l’utopie mais ne mérite certainement pas ni déni ni insulte !
      Sur l’accès libre au savoir, je crois qu’il faut aussi renvoyer aux sciences et aux conséquences de la privatisation, et que beaucoup de chemin a été parcouru autour du suicide de #Aaron_Swartz...

    • on ne m’ôtera pas de l’idée qu’inféoder le savoir à la capacité individuelle de le payer est une vision politique élitiste

      Je suppose qu’à peu près tout le monde est d’accord avec ça, reste la question de savoir comment on peut vivre de son activité journalistique (si toutefois on souhaite en vivre). Dans le cadre capitaliste actuel, je crains qu’aucune solution vraiment viable n’existe (par viable, j’entends sans faire payer individuellement pour donner accès aux infos). Je pense au Média qui a choisi un financement par des « socios » en laissant le contenu accessible à tout le monde et dont les finances semblent aller de mal en pis... Médiapart, assez régulièrement, donne accès à tout son contenu pendant 1 jour ou 2, c’est peu mais la démarche est intéressante.
      Reste les solutions de contournement, comme l’évoque Agnès on pouvait se passer le journal avant, eh bien généralement rien n’empêche de se passer les identifiants de nos abonnements aux journaux en ligne (mais j’ai l’impression que ça se fait moins que pour des trucs comme Netflix).

    • Le point n’est pas la contribution des consommateurs à la rémunération de la création, mais bien où passe le putain de fric brassé par le secteur qui n’arrive jamais jusqu’au créateur.

      Tu pourrais faire banquer 200€ l’article (ce qui tout de même limiterait vachement le lectorat) que ce serait quand même en bout de chaine un semi-bénévole qui cravacherait pour produire le contenu.

  • UAE says ’sophisticated’ tanker attacks likely the work of a state actor - Reuters
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-tanker-probe-un/uae-to-present-tanker-attack-report-to-u-n-security-council-members-diploma


    A combination of undated photographs provided June 6, 2019 by the United Arab Emirates mission to the United Nations show underwater damage to the (clockwise from top left) Saudi Arabian tanker Amjad, Saudi Arabian tanker Al Marzoqah, Norwegian tanker Andrea Victory and Emirati vessel A. Michel in the Port of Fujairah.
    UAE Mission/Handout via REUTERS

    The United Arab Emirates told United Nations Security Council members on Thursday that attacks on four tankers off its coast on May 12 bore the hallmarks of a “sophisticated and coordinated operation,” most likely by a state actor.

    In a document on the briefing to Security Council members, the UAE, joined by Norway and Saudi Arabia, did not say who it believed was behind the attacks and did not mention Iran, which has been accused by the United States of being directly responsible.

    The attacks required expert navigation of fast boats and trained divers who likely placed limpet mines with a high degree of precision on the vessels under the waterline to incapacitate but not sink them, according to the preliminary findings of the countries’ joint investigation.

    While investigations are still ongoing, these facts are strong indications that the four attacks were part of a sophisticated and coordinated operation carried out by an actor with significant operational capacity, most likely a state actor,” the three countries said in the document.

  • Why a #hipster, #vegan, #green_tech economy is #not_sustainable | Canada | #Al_Jazeera
    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/hipster-vegan-green-tech-economy-sustainable-190605105120654.html

    morceaux choisis:

    The illusion of ’#sustainable_development'

    When capitalism teams up with growth-oriented efficiency improvements, one result is the fabulous #hipsterised “green tech” enclaves we see emerging in cities around the world, including #Montreal.

    In recent years, veganism has also been sucked into the #profit-making “green” economy. Its rising popularity is indeed quite mind-boggling. What was traditionally seen as a subversive and anti-establishment form of resistance to the global food industry and its horrific abuse of animals has increasingly become a “cash cow”.

    In the process, the implicit socio-economic violence behind #gentrification will be invariably “greenwashed” and presented as development that would make the area more “sustainable”, “beautiful” and “modern”.

    Unfortunately, creation by destruction is what #capitalism does best, and its damaging practices are anything but green. This #market-driven#sustainable” vision of economic activity, #ecological-conscious diets and “hipness” within modern capitalism reinforce inequality and still hurt the environment.

    On a global scale, capitalism is most certainly not “cool”… it is literally #burning_our_planet. An aloof, detached, apolitical coolness which centres on individuality and imagery is simply not going to cut it any more.
    Such lifestyles may appear marginally efficient, but they are, by and large, a convenient by-product of shifting social and ecological costs to those less privileged both locally and global

  • Afghan Migration to Germany: History and Current Debates

    In light of the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, Afghan migration to Germany accelerated in recent years. This has prompted debates and controversial calls for return.

    Historical Overview
    Afghan migration to Germany goes back to the first half of the 20th century. To a large extent, the arrival of Afghan nationals occurred in waves, which coincided with specific political regimes and periods of conflict in Afghanistan between 1978 and 2001. Prior to 1979 fewer than 2,000 Afghans lived in Germany. Most of them were either businesspeople or students. The trade city of Hamburg and its warehouses attracted numerous Afghan carpet dealers who subsequently settled with their families. Some families who were among the traders that came to Germany at an early stage still run businesses in the warehouse district of the city.[1]

    Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the number of Afghans seeking refuge and asylum in Germany increased sharply. Between 1980 and 1982 the population grew by around 3,000 persons per year. This was followed by a short period of receding numbers, before another period of immigration set in from 1985, when adherents of communist factions began facing persecution in Afghanistan. Following a few years with lower immigration rates, numbers started rising sharply again from 1989 onwards in the wake of the civil war in Afghanistan and due to mounting restrictions for Afghans living in Iran and Pakistan. Increasing difficulties in and expulsions from these two countries forced many Afghans to search for and move on to new destinations, including Germany.[2] Throughout the 1990s immigration continued with the rise of the Taliban and the establishment of a fundamentalist regime. After reaching a peak in 1995, numbers of incoming migrants from Afghanistan declined for several years. However, they began to rise again from about 2010 onwards as a result of continuing conflict and insecurity in Afghanistan on the one hand and persistently problematic living conditions for Afghans in Iran and Pakistan on the other hand.

    A particularly sharp increase occurred in the context of the ’long summer of migration’[3] in 2015, which continued in 2016 when a record number of 253,485 Afghan nationals were registered in Germany. This number includes established residents of Afghan origin as well as persons who newly arrived in recent years. This sharp increase is also mirrored in the number of asylum claims of Afghan nationals, which reached a historical peak of 127,012 in 2016. Following the peak in 2016 the Afghan migrant population has slightly decreased. Reasons for the numerical decrease include forced and voluntary return to Afghanistan, onward migration to third countries, and expulsion according to the so-called Dublin Regulation. Naturalisations also account for the declining number of Afghan nationals in Germany, albeit to a much lesser extent (see Figures 1 and 2).

    The Afghan Migrant Population in Germany
    Over time, the socio-economic and educational backgrounds of Afghan migrants changed significantly. Many of those who formed part of early immigrant cohorts were highly educated and had often occupied high-ranking positions in Afghanistan. A significant number had worked for the government, while others were academics, doctors or teachers.[4] Despite being well-educated, professionally trained and experienced, many Afghans who came to Germany as part of an early immigrant cohort were unable to find work in an occupational field that would match their professional qualifications. Over the years, levels of education and professional backgrounds of Afghans arriving to Germany became more diverse. On average, the educational and professional qualifications of those who came in recent years are much lower compared to earlier cohorts of Afghan migrants.

    At the end of 2017, the Federal Statistical Office registered 251,640 Afghan nationals in Germany. This migrant population is very heterogeneous as far as persons’ legal status is concerned. Table 1 presents a snapshot of the different legal statuses that Afghan nationals in Germany held in 2017.

    Similar to other European countrie [5], Germany has been receiving increasing numbers of unaccompanied Afghan minors throughout the last decade.[6] In December 2017, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) registered 10,453 persons of Afghan origin under the age of 18, including asylum seekers, holders of a temporary residence permit as well as persons with refugee status. The situation of unaccompanied minors is specific in the sense that they are under the auspices of the Children and Youth support services (Kinder- und Jugendhilfe). This implies that unaccompanied Afghan minors are entitled to specific accommodation and the support of a temporary guardian. According to the BAMF, education and professional integration are priority issues for the reception of unaccompanied minors. However, the situation of these migrants changes once they reach the age of 18 and become legally deportable.[7] For this reason, their period of residence in Germany is marked by ambiguity.

    Fairly modest at first, the number of naturalisations increased markedly from the late 1980s, which is likely to be connected to the continuous aggravation of the situation in Afghanistan.[8]

    With an average age of 23.7 years, Germany’s Afghan population is relatively young. Among Afghan residents who do not hold German citizenship there is a gender imbalance with males outweighing females by roughly 80,390 persons. Until recently, most Afghans arrived in Germany with their family. However, the individual arrival of Afghan men has been a dominant trend in recent years, which has become more pronounced from 2012 onwards with rising numbers of Afghan asylum seekers (see Figure 2).[9]

    The Politicization of Afghan Migration
    Prior to 2015, the Afghan migrant population that had not received much public attention. However, with the significant increase in numbers from 2015 onwards, it was turned into a subject of increased debate and politicization. The German military and reconstruction engagement in Afghanistan constitutes an important backdrop to the debates unfolding around the presence of Afghan migrants – most of whom are asylum seekers – in Germany. To a large extent, these debates revolved around the legitimacy of Afghan asylum claims. The claims of persons who, for example, supported German troops as interpreters were rarely questioned.[10] Conversely, the majority of newly arriving Afghans were framed as economic migrants rather than persons fleeing violence and persecution. In 2015, chancellor Angela Merkel warned Afghan nationals from coming to Germany for economic reasons and simply in search for a better life.[11] She underlined the distinction between “economic migrants” and persons facing concrete threats due to their past collaboration with German troops in Afghanistan. The increasing public awareness of the arrival of Afghan asylum seekers and growing skepticism regarding the legitimacy of their presence mark the context in which debates on deportations of Afghan nationals began to unfold.

    Deportations of Afghan Nationals: Controversial Debates and Implementation
    The Federal Government (Bundesregierung) started to consider deportations to Afghanistan in late 2015. Debates about the deportation of Afghan nationals were also held at the EU level and form an integral part of the Joint Way Forward agreement between Afghanistan and the EU. The agreement was signed in the second half of 2016 and reflects the commitment of the EU and the Afghan Government to step up cooperation on addressing and preventing irregular migration [12] and encourage return of irregular migrants such as persons whose asylum claims are rejected. In addition, the governments of Germany and Afghanistan signed a bilateral agreement on the return of Afghan nationals to their country of origin. At that stage it was estimated that around five percent of all Afghan nationals residing in Germany were facing return.[13] To back plans of forced removal, the Interior Ministry stated that there are “internal protection alternatives”, meaning areas in Afghanistan that are deemed sufficiently safe for people to be deported to and that a deterioration of security could not be confirmed for the country as such.[14] In addition, the BAMF would individually examine and conduct specific risk assessments for each asylum application and potential deportees respectively.

    Country experts and international actors such as the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) agree on the absence of internal protection alternatives in Afghanistan, stating that there are no safe areas in the country.[15] Their assessments are based on the continuously deteriorating security situation. Since 2014, annual numbers of civilian deaths and casualties continuously exceed 10,000 with a peak of 11,434 in 2016. This rise in violent incidents has been recorded in 33 of 34 provinces. In August 2017 the United Nations changed their assessment of the situation in Afghanistan from a “post-conflict country” to “a country undergoing a conflict that shows few signs of abating”[16] for the first time after the fall of the Taliban. However, violence occurs unevenly across Afghanistan. In 2017 the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), registered the highest levels of civilian casualties in Kabul province and Kabul city more specifically. After Kabul, the highest numbers of civilian casualties were recorded in Helmand, Nangarhar, Kandahar, Faryab, Uruzgan, Herat, Paktya, Kunduz, and Laghman provinces.[17]

    Notwithstanding deteriorating security conditions in Afghanistan and parliamentary, non-governmental and civil society protests, Germany’s Federal Government implemented a first group deportation of rejected asylum seekers to Afghanistan in late 2016. Grounds for justification of these measures were not only the assumed “internal protection alternatives”. In addition, home secretary Thomas de Maizière emphasised that many of the deportees were convicted criminals.[18] The problematic image of male Muslim immigrants in the aftermath of the incidents on New Year’s Eve in the city of Cologne provides fertile ground for such justifications of deportations to Afghanistan. “The assaults (sexualized physical and property offences) which young, unmarried Muslim men committed on New Year’s Eve offered a welcome basis for re-framing the ‘refugee question’ as an ethnicized and sexist problem.”[19]

    It is important to note that many persons of Afghan origin spent long periods – if not most or all of their lives – outside Afghanistan in one of the neighboring countries. This implies that many deportees are unfamiliar with life in their country of citizenship and lack local social networks. The same applies to persons who fled Afghanistan but who are unable to return to their place of origin for security reasons. The existence of social networks and potential support structures, however, is particularly important in countries marked by high levels of insecurity, poverty, corruption, high unemployment rates and insufficient (public) services and infrastructure.[20] Hence, even if persons who are deported to Afghanistan may be less exposed to a risk of physical harm in some places, the absence of social contacts and support structures still constitutes an existential threat.

    Debates on and executions of deportations to Afghanistan have been accompanied by parliamentary opposition on the one hand and street-level protests on the other hand. Non-governmental organisations such as Pro Asyl and local refugee councils have repeatedly expressed their criticism of forced returns to Afghanistan.[21] The execution of deportations has been the responsibility of the federal states (Ländersache). This leads to significant variations in the numbers of deportees. In light of a degrading security situation in Afghanistan, several governments of federal states (Landesregierungen) moreover paused deportations to Afghanistan in early 2017. Concomitantly, recognition rates of Afghan asylum seekers have continuously declined.[22]

    A severe terrorist attack on the German Embassy in Kabul on 31 May 2017 led the Federal Government to revise its assessment of the security situation in Afghanistan and to temporarily pause deportations to the country. According to chancellor Merkel, the temporary ban of deportations was contingent on the deteriorating security situation and could be lifted once a new, favourable assessment was in place. While pausing deportations of rejected asylum seekers without criminal record, the Federal Government continued to encourage voluntary return and deportations of convicted criminals of Afghan nationality as well as individuals committing identity fraud during their asylum procedure.

    The ban of deportations of rejected asylum seekers without criminal record to Afghanistan was lifted in July 2018, although the security situation in the country continues to be very volatile.[23] The decision was based on a revised assessment of the security situation through the Foreign Office and heavily criticised by the centre left opposition in parliament as well as by NGOs and churches. Notwithstanding such criticism, the attitude of the Federal Government has been rigorous. By 10 January 2019, 20 group deportation flights from Germany to Kabul were executed, carrying a total number of 475 Afghans.[24]

    Assessing the Situation in Afghanistan
    Continuing deportations of Afghan nationals are legitimated by the assumption that certain regions in Afghanistan fulfil the necessary safety requirements for deportees. But how does the Federal Government – and especially the BAMF – come to such arbitrary assessments of the security situation on the one hand and individual prospects on the other hand? While parliamentary debates about deportations to Afghanistan were ongoing, the news magazine Spiegel reported on how the BAMF conducts security assessments for Afghanistan. According to their revelations, BAMF staff hold weekly briefings on the occurrence of military combat, suicide attacks, kidnappings and targeted killings. If the proportion of civilian casualties remains below 1:800, the level of individual risk is considered low and insufficient for someone to be granted protection in Germany.[25] The guidelines of the BAMF moreover rule that young men who are in working age and good health are assumed to find sufficient protection and income opportunities in Afghanistan’s urban centres, so that they are able to secure to meet the subsistence level. Such possibilities are even assumed to exist for persons who cannot mobilise family or other social networks for their support. Someone’s place or region of origin is another aspect considered when assessing whether or not Afghan asylum seekers are entitled to remain in Germany. The BAMF examines the security and supply situation of the region where persons were born or where they last lived before leaving Afghanistan. These checks also include the question which religious and political convictions are dominant at the place in question. According to these assessment criteria, the BAMF considers the following regions as sufficiently secure: Kabul, Balkh, Herat, Bamiyan, Takhar, Samangan and Panjshir.[26]

    Voluntary Return
    In addition to executing the forced removal of rejected Afghan asylum seekers, Germany encourages the voluntary return of Afghan nationals.[27] To this end it supports the Reintegration and Emigration Programme for Asylum Seekers in Germany which covers travel expenses and offers additional financial support to returnees. Furthermore, there is the Government Assisted Repatriation Programme, which provides financial support to persons who wish to re-establish themselves in their country of origin. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) organises and supervises return journeys that are supported by these programmes. Since 2015, several thousand Afghan nationals left Germany with the aid of these programmes. Most of these voluntary returnees were persons who had no legal residence status in Germany, for example persons whose asylum claim had been rejected or persons holding an exceptional leave to remain (Duldung).

    Outlook
    The continuing conflict in Afghanistan not only causes death, physical and psychological hurt but also leads to the destruction of homes and livelihoods and impedes access to health, education and services for large parts of the Afghan population. This persistently problematic situation affects the local population as much as it affects migrants who – voluntarily or involuntarily – return to Afghanistan. For this reason, migration out of Afghanistan is likely to continue, regardless of the restrictions which Germany and other receiving states are putting into place.

    http://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/laenderprofile/288934/afghan-migration-to-germany
    #Allemagne #Afghanistan #réfugiés_afghans #histoire #asile #migrations #réfugiés #chiffres #statistiques #renvois #expulsions #retour_volontaire #procédure_d'asile
    ping @_kg_

  • ICC submission calls for prosecution of EU over migrant deaths

    Member states should face punitive action over deaths in Mediterranean, say lawyers.

    The EU and member states should be prosecuted for the deaths of thousands of migrants who drowned in the Mediterranean fleeing Libya, according to a detailed legal submission to the international criminal court (ICC).

    The 245-page document calls for punitive action over the EU’s deterrence-based migration policy after 2014, which allegedly “intended to sacrifice the lives of migrants in distress at sea, with the sole objective of dissuading others in similar situation from seeking safe haven in Europe”.

    The indictment is aimed at the EU and the member states that played a prominent role in the refugee crisis: Italy, Germany and France.

    The stark accusation, that officials and politicians knowingly created the “world’s deadliest migration route” resulting in more than 12,000 people losing their lives, is made by experienced international lawyers.

    The two main authors of the submission are Juan Branco, who formerly worked at the ICC as well as at France’s foreign affairs ministry, and Omer Shatz, an Israeli lawyer who teaches at Sciences Po university in Paris.
    Most refugees in Libyan detention centres at risk – UN
    Read more

    The allegation of “crimes against humanity” draws partially on internal papers from Frontex, the EU organisation charged with protecting the EU’s external borders, which, the lawyers say, warned that moving from the successful Italian rescue policy of Mare Nostrum could result in a “higher number of fatalities”.

    The submission states that: “In order to stem migration flows from Libya at all costs … and in lieu of operating safe rescue and disembarkation as the law commands, the EU is orchestrating a policy of forced transfer to concentration camps-like detention facilities [in Libya] where atrocious crimes are committed.”

    The switch from Mare Nostrum to a new policy from 2014, known as Triton (named after the Greek messenger god of the sea), is identified as a crucial moment “establishing undisputed mens rea [mental intention] for the alleged offences”.

    It is claimed that the evidence in the dossier establishes criminal liability within the jurisdiction of the ICC for “causing the death of thousands of human beings per year, the refoulement [forcible return] of tens of thousands migrants attempting to flee Libya and the subsequent commission of murder, deportation, imprisonment, enslavement, torture, rape, persecution and other inhuman acts against them”.

    The Triton policy introduced the “most lethal and organised attack against civilian population the ICC had jurisdiction over in its entire history,” the legal document asserts. “European Union and Member States’ officials had foreknowledge and full awareness of the lethal consequences of their conduct.”

    The submission does not single out individual politicians or officials for specific responsibility but does quote diplomatic cables and comments from national leaders, including Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron.

    The office of the prosecutor at the ICC is already investigating crimes in Libya but the main focus has been on the Libyan civil war, which erupted in 2011 and led to the removal of Muammar Gaddafi. Fatou Bensouda, the ICC prosecutor, has, however, already mentioned inquiries into “alleged crimes against migrants transiting through Libya”.

    The Mare Nostrum search and rescue policy launched in October 2013, the submission says, was “in many ways hugely successful, rescuing 150,810 migrants over a 364-day period”.

    Criticism of the policy began in mid-2014 on the grounds, it is said, that it was not having a sufficient humanitarian impact and that there was a desire to move from assistance at sea to assistance on land.

    “EU officials sought to end Mare Nostrum to allegedly reduce the number of crossings and deaths,” the lawyers maintain. “However, these reasons should not be considered valid as the crossings were not reduced. And the death toll was 30-fold higher.”

    The subsequent policy, Triton, only covered an “area up to 30 nautical miles from the Italian coastline of Lampedusa, leaving around 40 nautical miles of key distress area off the coast of Libya uncovered,” the submission states. It also deployed fewer vessels.

    It is alleged EU officials “did not shy away from acknowledging that Triton was an inadequate replacement for Mare Nostrum”. An internal Frontex report from 28 August 2014, quoted by the lawyers, acknowledged that “the withdrawal of naval assets from the area, if not properly planned and announced well in advance – would likely result in a higher number of fatalities.”

    The first mass drownings cited came on 22 January and 8 February 2015, which resulted in 365 deaths nearer to the Libyan coast. It is alleged that in one case, 29 of the deaths occurred from hypothermia during the 12-hour-long transport back to the Italian island of Lampedusa. During the “black week” of 12 to 18 April 2015, the submission says, two successive shipwrecks led to the deaths of 1,200 migrants.

    As well as drownings, the forced return of an estimated 40,000 refugees allegedly left them at risk of “executions, torture and other systematic rights abuses” in militia-controlled camps in Libya.

    “European Union officials were fully aware of the treatment of the migrants by the Libyan Coastguard and the fact that migrants would be taken ... to an unsafe port in Libya, where they would face immediate detention in the detention centers, a form of unlawful imprisonment in which murder, sexual assault, torture and other crimes were known by the European Union agents and officials to be common,” the submission states.

    Overall, EU migration policies caused the deaths of “thousands civilians per year in the past five years and produced about 40,000 victims of crimes within the jurisdiction of the court in the past three years”, the report states.

    The submission will be handed in to the ICC on Monday 3 June.

    An EU spokesperson said the union could not comment on “non-existing” legal actions but added: “Our priority has always been and will continue to be protecting lives and ensuring humane and dignified treatment of everyone throughout the migratory routes. It’s a task where no single actor can ensure decisive change alone.

    “All our action is based on international and European law. The European Union dialogue with Libyan authorities focuses on the respect for human rights of migrants and refugees, on promoting the work of UNHCR and IOM on the ground, and on pushing for the development of alternatives to detention, such as the setting up of safe spaces, to end the systematic and arbitrary detention system of migrants and refugees in Libya.

    “Search and Rescue operations in the Mediterranean need to follow international law, and responsibility depends on where they take place. EU operations cannot enter Libya waters, they operate in international waters. SAR operations in Libyan territorial waters are Libyan responsibility.”

    The spokesperson added that the EU has “pushed Libyan authorities to put in place mechanisms improving the treatment of the migrants rescued by the Libyan Coast Guard.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/03/icc-submission-calls-for-prosecution-of-eu-over-migrant-deaths
    #justice #décès #CPI #mourir_en_mer #CPI #cour_pénale_internationale

    ping @reka @isskein @karine4

    Ajouté à la métaliste sur les sauvetages en Méditerranée :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/706177

    • L’Union Européenne devra-t-elle un jour répondre de « crimes contre l’Humanité » devant la Cour Pénale Internationale ?

      #Crimes_contre_l'humanité, et #responsabilité dans la mort de 14 000 migrants en 5 années : voilà ce dont il est question dans cette enquête menée par plusieurs avocats internationaux spécialisés dans les Droits de l’homme, déposée aujourd’hui à la CPI de la Haye, et qui pourrait donc donner lieu à des #poursuites contre des responsables actuels des institutions européennes.

      La démarche fait l’objet d’articles coordonnés ce matin aussi bien dans le Spiegel Allemand (https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/fluechtlinge-in-libyen-rechtsanwaelte-zeigen-eu-in-den-haag-an-a-1270301.htm), The Washington Post aux Etats-Unis (https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/fluechtlinge-in-libyen-rechtsanwaelte-zeigen-eu-in-den-haag-an-a-1270301.htm), El Pais en Espagne (https://elpais.com/internacional/2019/06/02/actualidad/1559497654_560556.html), The Guardian en Grande-Bretagne, et le Monde, cet après-midi en France... bref, ce qui se fait de plus retentissant dans la presse mondiale.

      Les auteurs de ce #plaidoyer, parmi lesquels on retrouve le français #Juan_Branco ou l’israélien #Omer_Shatz, affirment que Bruxelles, Paris, Berlin et Rome ont pris des décisions qui ont mené directement, et en connaissance de cause, à la mort de milliers de personnes. En #Méditerrannée, bien sûr, mais aussi en #Libye, où la politique migratoire concertée des 28 est accusée d’avoir « cautionné l’existence de centres de détention, de lieux de tortures, et d’une politique de la terreur, du viol et de l’esclavagisme généralisé » contre ceux qui traversaient la Libye pour tenter ensuite de rejoindre l’Europe.

      Aucun dirigeant européen n’est directement nommé par ce réquisitoire, mais le rapport des avocats cite des discours entre autres d’#Emmanuel_Macron, d’#Angela_Merkel. Il évoque aussi, selon The Guardian, des alertes qui auraient été clairement formulées, en interne par l’agence #Frontex en particulier, sur le fait que le changement de politique européenne en 2014 en Méditerranée « allait conduire à une augmentation des décès en mer ». C’est ce qui s’est passé : 2014, c’est l’année-bascule, celle où le plan Mare Nostrum qui consistait à organiser les secours en mer autour de l’Italie, a été remplacé par ce partenariat UE-Libye qui, selon les auteurs de l’enquête, a ouvert la voix aux exactions que l’on sait, et qui ont été documentées par Der Spiegel dans son reportage publié début mai, et titré « Libye : l’enfer sur terre ».

      A présent, dit Juan Branco dans The Washington Post (et dans ce style qui lui vaut tant d’ennemis en France), c’est aux procureurs de la CPI de dire « s’ils oseront ou non » remonter aux sommet des responsabilités européennes. J’en terminerai pour ma part sur les doutes de cet expert en droit européen cité par El Pais et qui « ne prédit pas un grand succès devant la Cour » à cette action.

      https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/revue-de-presse-internationale/la-revue-de-presse-internationale-emission-du-lundi-03-juin-2019


      #UE #Europe #EU #droits_humains

    • Submission to ICC condemns EU for ‘crimes against humanity’

      EU Commission migration spokesperson Natasha Bertaud gave an official statement regarding a recently submitted 245-page document to the International Criminal Court by human rights lawyers Juan Branco and Omer Shatz on June 3, 2019. The case claimed the EU and its member states should face punitive action for Libyan migrant deaths in the Mediterranean. The EU says these deaths are not a result of EU camps, rather the dangerous and cruel routes on which smugglers take immigrants. Bertaud said the EU’s track record on saving lives “has been our top priority, and we have been working relentlessly to this end.” Bertaud said an increase in EU operations in the Mediterranean have resulted in a decrease in deaths in the past 4 years. The accusation claims that EU member states created the “world’s deadliest migration route,” which has led to more than 12,000 migrant deaths since its inception. Branco and Shatz wrote that the forcible return of migrants to Libyan camps and the “subsequent commission of murder, deportation, imprisonment, enslavement, torture, rape, persecution and other inhuman acts against them,” are the grounds for this indictment. Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron were named specifically as those knowingly supporting these refugee camps, which the lawyers explicitly condemned in their report. The EU intends to maintain its presence on the Libyan coast and aims to create safer alternatives to detention centers.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=28&v=AMGaKDNxcDg

    • Migration in the Mediterranean: why it’s time to put European leaders on trial

      In June this year two lawyers filed a complaint at the International Criminal Court (ICC) naming European Union member states’ migration policies in the Mediterranean as crimes against humanity.

      The court’s Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, must decide whether she wants to open a preliminary investigation into the criminality of Europe’s treatment of migrants.

      The challenge against the EU’s Mediterranean migrant policy is set out in a 245-page document prepared by Juan Branco and Omer Shatz, two lawyer-activists working and teaching in Paris. They argue that EU migration policy is founded in deterrence and that drowned migrants are a deliberate element of this policy. The international law that they allege has been violated – crimes against humanity – applies to state policies practiced even outside of armed conflict.

      Doctrinally and juridically, the ICC can proceed. The question that remains is political: can and should the ICC come after its founders on their own turf?

      There are two reasons why the answer is emphatically yes. First, the complaint addresses what has become a rights impasse in the EU. By taking on an area stymying other supranational courts, the ICC can fulfil its role as a judicial institution of last resort. Second, by turning its sights on its founders (and funders), the ICC can redress the charges of neocolonialism in and around Africa that have dogged it for the past decade.
      ICC legitimacy

      The ICC is the world’s first permanent international criminal court. Founded in 2002, it currently has 122 member states.

      So far, it has only prosecuted Africans. This has led to persistent critiques that it is a neocolonial institution that “only chases Africans” and only tries rebels. In turn, this has led to pushback against the court from powerful actors like the African Union, which urges its members to leave the court.

      The first departure from the court occurred in 2017, when Burundi left. The Philippines followed suit in March of this year. Both countries are currently under investigation by the ICC for state sponsored atrocities. South Africa threatened withdrawal, but this seems to have blown over.

      In this climate, many cheered the news of the ICC Prosecutor’s 2017 request to investigate crimes committed in Afghanistan. As a member of the ICC, Afghanistan is within the ICC’s jurisdiction. The investigation included atrocities committed by the Taliban and foreign military forces active in Afghanistan, including members of the US armed forces.

      The US, which is not a member of the ICC, violently opposes any possibility that its military personnel might be caught up in ICC charges. In April 2019 the ICC announced that a pre-trial chamber had shut down the investigation because US opposition made ICC action impossible.

      Court watchers reacted with frustration and disgust.
      EU migration

      An estimated 30,000 migrants have drowned in the Mediterranean in the past three decades. International attention was drawn to their plight during the migration surge of 2015, when the image of 3-year-old Alan Kurdi face-down on a Turkish beach circulated the globe. More than one million people entered Europe that year. This led the EU and its member states to close land and sea borders in the east by erecting fences and completing a Euro 3 billion deal with Turkey to keep migrants there. NATO ships were posted in the Aegean to catch and return migrants.

      Migrant-saving projects, such as the Italian Mare Nostrum programme that collected 150,000 migrants in 2013-2014, were replaced by border guarding projects. Political pressure designed to reduce the number of migrants who made it to European shores led to the revocation and non-renewal of licenses for boats registered to NGOs whose purpose was to rescue migrants at sea. This has led to the current situation, where there is only one boat patrolling the Mediterranean.

      The EU has handed search and rescue duties over to the Libyan coast guard, which has been accused repeatedly of atrocities against migrants. European countries now negotiate Mediterranean migrant reception on a case-by-case basis.
      A rights impasse

      International and supranational law applies to migrants, but so far it has inadequately protected them. The law of the sea mandates that ships collect people in need. A series of refusals to allow ships to disembark collected migrants has imperilled this international doctrine.

      In the EU, the Court of Justice oversees migration and refugee policies. Such oversight now includes a two-year-old deal with Libya that some claim is tantamount to “sentencing migrants to death.”

      For its part, the European Court of Human Rights has established itself as “no friend to migrants.” Although the court’s 2012 decision in Hirsi was celebrated for a progressive stance regarding the rights of migrants at sea, it is unclear how expansively that ruling applies.

      European courts are being invoked and making rulings, yet the journey for migrants has only grown more desperate and deadly over the past few years. Existing European mechanisms, policies, and international rights commitments are not producing change.

      In this rights impasse, the introduction of a new legal paradigm is essential.
      Fulfilling its role

      A foundational element of ICC procedure is complementarity. This holds that the court only intervenes when states cannot or will not act on their own.

      Complementarity has played an unexpectedly central role in the cases before the ICC to date, as African states have self-referred defendants claiming that they do not have the resources to try them themselves. This has greatly contributed to the ICC’s political failure in Africa, as rights-abusing governments have handed over political adversaries to the ICC for prosecution in bad faith, enjoying the benefits of a domestic political sphere relieved of these adversaries while simultaneously complaining of ICC meddling in domestic affairs.

      This isn’t how complementarity was supposed to work.

      The present rights impasse in the EU regarding migration showcases what complementarity was intended to do – granting sovereign states primacy over law enforcement and stepping in only when states both violate humanitarian law and refuse to act. The past decade of deadly migration coupled with a deliberately wastrel refugee policy in Europe qualifies as just such a situation.

      Would-be migrants don’t vote and cannot garner political representation in the EU. This leaves only human rights norms, and the international commitments in which they are enshrined, to protect them. These norms are not being enforced, in part because questions of citizenship and border security have remained largely the domain of sovereign states. Those policies are resulting in an ongoing crime against humanity.

      The ICC may be the only institution capable of breaking the current impasse by threatening to bring Europe’s leaders to criminal account. This is the work of last resort for which international criminal law is designed. The ICC should embrace the progressive ideals that drove its construction, and engage.

      https://theconversation.com/migration-in-the-mediterranean-why-its-time-to-put-european-leaders
      #procès

    • Naufrages en Méditerranée : l’UE coupable de #crimes_contre_l’humanité ?

      Deux avocats – #Omer_Shatz membre de l’ONG #Global_Legal_Action_Network et #Juan_Branco, dont le livre Crépuscule a récemment créé la polémique en France – ont déposé une plainte auprès de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) à Paris le 3 juin dernier.

      Cette plainte qualifie de crimes contre l’humanité les politiques migratoires des États membres de l’Union européenne (UE) en Méditerranée.

      Selon le journal Le Monde :
      Pour les deux avocats, en permettant le refoulement des migrants en Libye, les responsables de l’UE se seraient rendus complices « d’expulsion, de meurtre, d’emprisonnement, d’asservissement, de torture, de viol, de persécution et d’autres actes inhumains, [commis] dans des camps de détention et les centres de torture libyens ».

      Les deux avocats ont transmis un rapport d’enquête (https://www.la-croix.com/Monde/Europe/Deces-migrants-Mediterranee-lUnion-europeenne-poursuivie-crimes-contre-lhu) de 245 pages sur la politique méditerranéenne de l’UE en matière de migration, à la procureure de la Cour, Fatou Bensouda, qui doit décider si elle souhaite ouvrir une enquête préliminaire sur la criminalité liée au traitement des migrants en Europe.

      Ils démontrent que la politique migratoire de l’UE est fondée sur la dissuasion et que les migrants noyés sont un élément délibéré de cette politique. Le droit international qu’ils allèguent avoir été violé – les crimes contre l’humanité – s’applique aux politiques étatiques pratiquées même en dehors des conflits armés.

      Sur les plans doctrinal et juridique, la CPI peut agir. La question qui demeure est politique : la CPI peut-elle et doit-elle s’en prendre à ses fondateurs sur leurs propres territoires ?

      Il y a deux raisons pour lesquelles la réponse est catégoriquement oui. Premièrement, la plainte porte sur ce qui est devenu une impasse en matière de droits au sein de l’UE. En s’attaquant à un domaine qui paralyse d’autres cours supranationales, la CPI peut remplir son rôle d’institution judiciaire de dernier ressort. Deuxièmement, en se tournant vers ses fondateurs (et ses bailleurs de fonds), la CPI peut répliquer à ses détracteurs qui l’accusent d’avoir adopté une posture néocolonialiste vis-à-vis du continent africain, une image qui la poursuit depuis au moins la dernière décennie.
      La légitimité de la cour pénale

      La CPI est la première cour pénale internationale permanente au monde. Fondée en 2002, elle compte actuellement 122 états membres.

      Jusqu’à présent, la cour n’a poursuivi que des ressortissants issus de pays africains. Cela a conduit à des critiques persistantes selon lesquelles il s’agit d’une institution néocoloniale qui « ne poursuit que les Africains », ne jugeant que les adversaires politiques de certains leaders ayant fait appel à la CPI.

      En retour, cela a conduit à des pressions à l’encontre de la cour de la part d’acteurs puissants comme l’Union africaine, qui exhorte ses membres à quitter la cour.

      Le premier départ du tribunal a eu lieu en 2017, avec le Burundi. Les Philippines en est sorti en mars 2019.

      Les deux états font actuellement l’objet d’enquêtes au sein de la CPI : respectivement au sujet d’exactions commises au Burundi depuis 2015 et aux Philippines concernant la campagne de lutte contre la drogue menée par le président Duterte. L’Afrique du Sud avait menacé de se retirer, avant de faire machine arrière.

      C’est dans ce contexte sensible que le procureur de la CPI avait décidé en 2017 d’enquêter sur les exactions commises en Afghanistan par les talibans, mais aussi par les forces militaires étrangères actives en Afghanistan, y compris les forces armées américaines. Si l’acte avait été alors salué, le projet n’a pu aboutir.

      Les États-Unis, qui ne sont pas membres de la CPI, se sont violemment opposés à toute possibilité d’investigation. En avril 2019, la CPI a annoncé qu’une chambre préliminaire avait mis fin à l’enquête car l’opposition américaine rendait toute action de la CPI impossible. Une décision qui a suscité de vives réactions et beaucoup de frustrations au sein des organisations internationales.

      La CPI connaît une période de forte turbulence et de crise de légitimité face à des états récalcitrants. Un autre scénario est-il envisageable dans un contexte où les états mis en cause sont des états membres de l’Union européenne ?
      Migrations vers l’Union européene

      On estime que plus de 30 000 personnes migrantes se sont noyées en Méditerranée au cours des trois dernières décennies. L’attention internationale s’est attardée sur leur sort lors de la vague migratoire de 2015, lorsque l’image du jeune Alan Kurdi, 3 ans, face contre terre sur une plage turque, a circulé dans le monde.

      Plus d’un million de personnes sont entrées en Europe cette année-là. Cela a conduit l’UE et ses États membres à fermer les frontières terrestres et maritimes à l’Est en érigeant des clôtures et en concluant un accord de 3 milliards d’euros avec la Turquie pour y maintenir les migrants. Des navires de l’OTAN ont été positionnés dans la mer Égée pour capturer et rapatrier les migrants.

      Les projets de sauvetage des migrants, tels que le programme italien Mare Nostrum – qui a permis de sauver 150 000 migrants en 2013-2014,- ont été remplacés par des projets de garde-frontières. Les pressions politiques visant à réduire le nombre de migrants qui ont atteint les côtes européennes ont conduit à la révocation et non-renouvellement des licences pour les bateaux enregistrés auprès d’ONG dont l’objectif était de sauver les migrants en mer. Cela a conduit à la situation actuelle, où il n’y a qu’un seul bateau de patrouille la Méditerranée.

      L’UE a confié des missions de recherche et de sauvetage aux garde-côtes libyens, qui ont été accusés à plusieurs reprises d’atrocités contre les migrants. Les pays européens négocient désormais l’accueil des migrants méditerranéens au cas par cas et s’appuyant sur des réseaux associatifs et bénévoles.

      Une impasse juridique

      Le droit international et supranational s’applique aux migrants, mais jusqu’à présent, il ne les a pas suffisamment protégés. Le droit de la mer est par ailleurs régulièrement invoqué.

      Il exige que les navires recueillent les personnes dans le besoin.

      Une série de refus d’autoriser les navires à débarquer des migrants sauvés en mer a mis en péril cette doctrine internationale.

      Au sein de l’UE, la Cour de justice supervise les politiques relatives aux migrations et aux réfugiés.

      Mais cette responsabilité semble avoir été écartée au profit d’un accord conclu il y a déjà deux ans avec la Libye. Cet accord est pour certains une dont certains l’équivalent d’une « condamnation à morts » vis-à-vis des migrants.

      De son côté, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a été perçue comme une institution ne soutenant pas spécialement la cause des migrants.

      Certes, en 2012 ce tribunal avait mis en avant la situation de ressortissants somaliens et érythréens. Interceptés en mer par les autorités italiennes, ils avaient été forcés avec 200 autres à retourner en Libye où leurs droits civiques et physiques n’étaient pas respectés, et leurs vies en danger. Portée par des organisations humanitaires, l’affaire avait conduit à un jugement de la cour stipulant :

      « que quand des individus sont interceptés dans des eaux internationales, les autorités gouvernementales sont obligées de s’aligner sur les lois internationales régulant les droits de l’Homme. »

      Cette position avait été célébrée dans ce qui semblait constituer une avancée pour les droits des migrants en mer. Il n’est cependant pas clair dans quelle mesure cette affaire peut s’appliquer dans d’autres cas et faire jurisprudence.

      Si les tribunaux européens sont invoqués et rendent leurs avis, le contexte migratoire empire, or les mécanismes, les politiques et les engagements européens et internationaux existants en matière de droits ne produisent pas de changement.

      Dans cette impasse juridique, l’introduction d’un nouveau paradigme semble essentielle.
      Remplir pleinement son rôle

      Dans ce contexte complexe, un élément fondateur de la CPI peut jouer un rôle : le principe de complémentarité.

      Elle [la complémentarité] crée une relation inédite entre les juridictions nationales et la Cour permettant un équilibre entre leurs compétences respectives.

      Cela signifie que le tribunal n’intervient que lorsque les États ne peuvent ou ne veulent pas agir de leur propre chef.

      Jusqu’à présent, la complémentarité a joué un rôle central inattendu dans les affaires dont la CPI a été saisie jusqu’à présent, les États africains s’étant autoproclamés incompétents, invoquant le manque de ressources (notamment juridiques) nécessaires.

      Cela a cependant grandement contribué à l’échec politique de la CPI sur le continent africain. Des gouvernements abusifs ont ainsi profité de ce système pour remettre à la CPI des adversaires politiques tout en se plaignant simultanément de l’ingérence de la CPI dans leurs affaires internes.

      Ce n’est pas ainsi que la complémentarité devait fonctionner.
      Le refus d’action de l’UE doit pousser la CPI à agir

      L’impasse dans laquelle se trouve actuellement l’UE en ce qui concerne les droits en matière de migration montre ce que la complémentarité est censée faire – accorder la primauté aux États souverains sur l’application de la loi et intervenir uniquement lorsque les États violent le droit humanitaire et refusent d’agir.

      La dernière décennie de migrations meurtrières, conjuguée à une politique de réfugiés délibérément délaissée en Europe, constitue une telle situation.

      Les migrants potentiels ne votent pas et ne peuvent pas être représentés politiquement dans l’UE.

      Leur protection ne dépend donc que des normes relatives aux droits de l’Homme et des engagements internationaux qui les entérinent. Ces normes ne sont pas appliquées, en partie parce que les questions de citoyenneté et de sécurité des frontières sont restées largement du ressort des États souverains. Ces politiques se traduisent aujourd’hui par un « crime contre l’humanité » continu.

      La CPI est peut-être l’institution qui sera capable de dénouer la situation complexe et l’impasse actuelle en menaçant de traduire les dirigeants européens en justice, faisant ainsi écho avec les idéaux progressistes qui ont nourri sa construction.

      https://theconversation.com/naufrages-en-mediterranee-lue-coupable-de-crimes-contre-lhumanite-1

  • What it means to be a ‘refugee’ in South Sudan and Uganda

    After decades of armed conflict in South Sudan and Uganda, labels of ‘refugee’ and ‘internally displaced person’ fail to reflect the complex realities of the people they refer to. Leben Moro examines the history of movement across the region’s borders, and argues refugees are not the passive recipients of aid as often presented by humanitarian initiatives.

    Since independence from British colonial rule, large numbers of South Sudanese and Ugandans have repeatedly crossed the shared border to escape civil wars. These forced movements of large populations have created shifting labels of ‘refugees’ and ‘internally displaced persons’ (IDPs), with tremendous social, economic and political repercussions for the persons to which these labels are applied.

    In August 1955, months before Sudan’s independence, the largely Christian Southern Sudanese took up arms against Muslim rulers in the North to achieve a vision of greater regional autonomy, which sparked a mass flight of people from their homes. By the end of the First Sudanese Civil War in 1972, the Sudanese government estimated that 500,000 people had hidden in the bush, and another 180,000 had crossed into neighbouring countries, with 74,000 settling in four official camps (Onigo, Agago, Acholpii and Nakapiripirit) in northern Uganda. Many of the displaced persons, including my own family members, self-settled in other parts of Uganda, mainly near cotton ginning mills and other businesses operated by Ugandans of Indian origin, who employed them as casual labourers.

    My own family members settled near Gulu, the largest town in northern Uganda, among the Acholi ethnic group. Some South Sudanese journeyed southwards to Bwelye in the centre of Uganda, where there was plentiful fertile land and jobs in Indian enterprises. Others travelled further south into the heartland of the Baganda, the largest tribe in the country, to work in sugar plantations and different enterprises, including fields where locals grew coffee, bananas and other crops.

    Over time, many newcomers acquired land with their earnings and became poll taxpayers. Their receipt documentation allowed them to move across land in relative safety. In general, however, life was hard as they lacked citizenship and were vulnerable to exploitation and harassment.

    The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) coordinated a programme of official repatriation, supported by public authorities in Sudan and Uganda, including a mandate that supported Sudan’s IDPs. Many people, however, chose not to leave.

    In 1979, Uganda became embroiled in a bitter civil war following the overthrow of President Idi Amin Dada, forcing Southern Sudanese, including my own family members, and many Ugandans from the north of the country, to flee into the relatively peaceful Southern Sudan. The UNHCR and other humanitarian organisations as well as public authorities in Sudan helped settle many refugees in camps, but some Ugandans settled among local people, initially without external support.

    The relative peace in Southern Sudan was disrupted in 1983 when the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) was founded to lead another armed struggle against Sudan’s newly declared Islamic state under President Gaafar Nimeiry – which came to be known as the Second Sudanese Civil War. The violence forced Ugandan peoples living in Southern Sudan back into Uganda and many Southern Sudanese also made the crossing. Some of the refugees returned to locations they had lived in during the first civil war or joined relatives or friends who had remained in Uganda. People used their established networks.

    The new wave of refugees received generous assistance from the UNHCR and the Ugandan government, whose policy was the settlement of refugees in camps and dedicated areas. Effectively, the policy redefined a refugee as ‘someone receiving assistance and living in a camp’. Many displaced Southern Sudanese avoided encampment, with its associated restrictions of movement, by self-settling among locals or dividing their family members or time between camps and outside locations.

    As in the first civil war, many displaced persons in Southern Sudan did not cross international borders, but remained behind in dire circumstances. Their plight forced the United Nations to launch another initiative, Operation Lifeline Sudan, in the 1980s to assist those trapped in the war zone. This suffering formally ceased in 2005 with the conclusion of the much-lauded Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the Sudanese government and the SPLM/A, enabling the return of the IDPs to their original homes and refugees back to the country.

    In 2011, Southern Sudan seceded from Sudan. About two years later, the world’s newest country relapsed into a vicious civil war. Sparked by divisions among the country’s key leaders, ethnic identities were subsequently exploited to mobilise fighters with devastating consequences for national unity and the wellbeing of civilians.

    During the conflict, many Nuer people, an ethnic group primarily inhabiting South Sudan’s Nile Valley, fled into areas created on UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) bases, called Protection of Civilians Sites (PoCs), to escape killing by members of the Dinka, the largest ethnic group, who had effectively taken over the country with the support of Ugandan soldiers. Nuer fighters retaliated against Dinka civilians, forcing many to flee to the Uganda border and other locations.

    Many South Sudanese headed north into the new Republic of Sudan, where public authorities labelled them ’arrivals’, a new term with no precedent in refugee policy or literature, and confined them to ‘waiting stations’. Uganda also received a large number of displaced persons, among them refugees placed in settlements with international assistance. Many displaced persons settled among locals without external assistance, thus avoiding the label of ‘refugee’.

    What it means to be ‘refugees’ in Uganda

    The 1951 Refugee Convention states a person becomes a refugee after crossing an internationally recognised border in search of protection, recognition and status by public authorities in the asylum country or the UNHCR. When the circumstances that forced the person to seek refuge cease to exist, the refugee re-avails themselves of the country’s protection they had fled. Thus defined concrete international borders are characterised as integral to becoming a refugee or ending refuge.

    For South Sudanese displaced persons, the border between their country and Uganda is not a clearly defined line separating two jurisdictions. Many parts of the border are contested by ordinary people and public authorities on both sides. Consequently, people inhabiting locations along these contested areas are not always on peaceful terms despite often belonging to the same ethnic groups, such as the Acholi of South Sudan and Uganda.

    Different ethnic groups that have seen clashes over contested territories have also been forced into settling in areas of close proximity following unrest in their respective homelands. My own research reveals the Kuku of Kajokeji in South Sudan were so suspicious of the Madi in the Ugandan Moyo district that, when they settled in the latter’s region, they avoided treatment in the Moyo hospital for fear of maltreatment by Madi medical personnel. The history of conflict over certain borders has a direct bearing on the welfare of refugees in the present.

    Armed groups and criminals also operate along the border, posing serious security problems, with some people losing their lives at the hands of unknown gunmen. Despite this danger, refugees and other South Sudanese cross in and out of South Sudan for matters of family and livelihoods, such as to harvest crops in their old fields due to food shortages in their new home. Others return their deceased kin to bury them decently on their old compounds and, further, trips are made to the national capital, Juba, to visit relatives or deal with administrative issues.

    These movements defy the legal meaning of ‘refugee’, who is supposed to return home when the threat of persecution that caused the flight is over. They demonstrate that refugees are not the passive and docile recipients of aid, as often presented, but active individuals who exercise agency. Studies remind us that were refugees only to eat the ‘food which is distributed to them, they would die’.

    What it means to stay behind as an IDP

    Because IDPs are citizens living in their native county they are entitled to the same rights and legal protections as fellow citizens as stipulated by the constitution. In reality, IDPs do not always enjoy citizenship rights because those in power consider them enemies or supporters of enemies.

    During the second civil war, the Sudanese government branded IDPs as rebel supporters and subjected them to all kinds of punitive measures, including starvation and denial of basic services. Many IDPs consequently starved to death or died due to deadly diseases, such as kala azar, as the already rudimentary healthcare system in pre-war Southern Sudan was destroyed by repeated military bombardments as well as frequent obstructions of international humanitarian access.

    When South Sudan gained independence and descended into civil war, IDPs did not fare any better. Following shocking atrocities and the continued risk of further violence, many Nuer civilians remain in PoCs on UNMISS bases under the protection of peacekeepers in refugee-like situations. Deprived of state protection, their situation has become worse than most refugees in South Sudan, deprioritised over the dominant Dinka.

    The labels of ‘refugee’ and ‘internally displaced person’ do not reflect the experiences of most South Sudanese refugees in Uganda, and IDPs within South Sudan. These terms present refugees and IDPs as powerless recipients of aid when, in reality, refugees and IDPs are active agents in efforts to improve their situation. In some cases, they creatively manipulate borders and the systems in place to satisfy their basic needs.

    It has been expressed that South Sudanese refugees have shown an extraordinary creativity and resourcefulness that can form a blueprint for future refugee assistance programmes. When ‘official legal categories rarely match realities on the ground’, aid workers should now appreciate and encourage the active involvement of refugees and IDPs to address the challenges that confront them.

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2019/05/28/what-it-means-to-be-a-refugee-in-south-sudan-and-uganda
    #réfugiés #IDPs #déplacés_internes #Soudan_du_Sud #Ouganda #histoire #histoire

  • U.S. is using unreliable dental exams to hold teen migrants in adult detention

    The young Bangladeshi sitting in the dentist’s chair last October thought he was getting checked for diseases.

    Dental staff examined his teeth, gave him a cleaning and sent him back to the juvenile facility where he had been held for months since illegally crossing the border in July.

    But a checkup wasn’t the real purpose of the dental work. The government wanted to figure out if “I.J.,” as the young migrant has been identified, really was 16, as he said, or an adult.

    The use of dental exams to help determine the age of migrants increased sharply in the last year, one aspect of the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration and illegal border crossings.

    The accuracy of forensic testing to help determine the age of migrants is very much a subject of the debate. And with the stakes so high, the exams are becoming another legal battleground for the government.

    Federal law prohibits the government from relying exclusively on forensic testing of bones and teeth to determine age. But a review of court records shows that in at least three cases – including I.J.’s – the government did just that, causing federal judges to later order the minors released from adult detention.

    In a case last year, a Guatemalan migrant was held in adult detention for nearly a year after a dental exam showed he was likely 18, until his attorneys fought to get his birth certificate, which proved he was 17.

    For I.J., the results had serious ramifications. Based on the development of his teeth, the analysis showed an 87.70% probability that he had turned 18.

    An immigration official reported that it was apparent to the case manager that I.J. “appeared physically older than 17 years of age,” and that he and his mother had not been able to provide a second type of identification that might prove his age.

    The next month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took him away in shackles and placed him in a medium-security prison that houses immigrant detainees.

    He spent about five months in adult detention and 24 of those days in segregated custody. Whenever he spoke with an officer, he would say he was a minor — unaware for more than a month that his teeth had landed him there.

    “I came to the United States with a big dream,” I.J. said. “My dream was finished.”

    But when the Arizona-based Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project took I.J.’s case to federal court, a district judge found that the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s age re-determination violated federal law and the agency’s own guidelines.

    In April, the judge ordered I.J. released back into Office of Refugee Resettlement custody, a program responsible for unaccompanied migrant children. He has since reunited with his family in New York. The Florence Project also filed another case in federal court that resulted in the government voluntarily returning a Bangladeshi minor to ORR custody and rescinding his age re-determination.

    As the government grappled with an influx of the number of families and children arriving at the border in fiscal year 2018, approvals of ORR age determination exams more than doubled.

    These handful of cases where a minor was released from adult detention is almost certainly an undercount, as most migrants held in adult detention do not have legal representation and are unlikely to fight their cases.

    It is unclear how often migrants pretend to be minors and turn out to be adults. In a call with reporters earlier this year, a Customs and Border Protection official said that from April 2018 to March 25 of this year, his agents had identified more than 3,100 individuals in family units making fraudulent claims, including those who misrepresented themselves as minors.

    Unaccompanied minors are given greater protections than adults after being apprehended. The government’s standard refers migrants to adult custody if a dental exam analysis shows at least a 75% probability that they are 18 or older. But other evidence is supposed to be considered.

    Dr. David Senn, the director of the Center for Education and Research in Forensics at UT Health San Antonio, has handled more than 2,000 age cases since 1998.

    A program that Senn helped develop estimates the mean age of a person and the probability that he or she is at least 18. In addition to looking at dental X-rays, he has also looked at skeletal X-rays and analyzed bone development in the hand and wrist area.

    He handled a larger number of cases in the early 2000s, but last year he saw his caseload triple — rising to 168. There appears to be a slowdown this calendar year for Senn, one of a few dentists the government uses for these analyses.

    He said making an exact age determination is not possible.

    “We can only tell you what the statistics say,” Senn said. “I think the really important thing to note is that most people who do this work are not trying to be policemen or to be Border Patrol agents or immigration …. what we’re trying to do is help. What we’re trying to do is protect children.”

    In 2007 and again in 2008, the House Appropriations Committee called on the Department of Homeland Security to stop relying on forensic testing of bones and teeth. But it was the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 that declared age determinations should take into account “multiple forms of evidence, including the non-exclusive use of radiographs.”

    In a Washington state case, an X-ray analysis by Senn showed a 92.55% probability that Bilal, a Somali migrant, already had reached 18 years of age. ICE removed him from his foster home and held him in an adult detention center.

    “Not only were they trying to save themselves money, which they paid to the foster family, but they were wrecking this kid’s life,” said Matt Adams, legal director for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which represented Bilal. “They were just rolling the dice.”

    In 2016, a federal judge found that the Office of Refugee Resettlement relied exclusively on the dental exam and overturned the age determination for the young Somali.

    Last year, in the case of an Eritrean migrant who said he was 17, Senn’s analysis of dental X-rays showed a 92.55% probability that he had turned 18, and provided a range of possible ages between 17.10 and 23.70.

    It was enough to prompt his removal from a juvenile facility and placement into an adult one.

    Again, a district judge found that the government had relied exclusively on the dental exam to determine his age and ordered the migrant released back into ORR custody.

    Danielle Bennett, an ICE spokeswoman, said the agency “does not track” information on such reversals.

    “We should never be used as the only method to determine age,” Senn said. “If those agencies are not following their own rules, they should have their feet held to the fire.”

    Similar concerns over medical age assessments have sprung up in other countries, including the United Kingdom and Sweden.

    The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ guidance about how adolescent migrants’ ages should be analyzed says that if countries use scientific procedures to determine age, that they should allow for margins of error. Michael Bochenek, an attorney specializing in children’s rights at Human Rights Watch, said that for adolescents, the margin of error in scientific tests is “so big that it doesn’t tell you anything.”

    An influx of Bangladeshi migrants claiming to be minors has contributed to the government’s recent use of dental exams. From October through March 8, more than 150 Bangladeshis who claimed to be minors and were determined to be adults were transferred from the Office of Refugee Resettlement to ICE custody, according to the agency.

    In fiscal year 2018, Border Patrol apprehensions of Bangladeshi migrants went up 109% over the year before, rising to 1,203. Similarly, the number of Bangladeshi minors in ORR custody increased about 221% between fiscal 2017 and fiscal 2018, reaching 392.

    Ali Riaz, a professor at Illinois State University, said Bangladeshis are leaving the country for reasons including high population density, high unemployment among the young, a deteriorating political environment and the “quest for a better life.”

    In October, Myriam Hillin, an ORR federal field specialist, was told that ICE had information showing that a number of Bangladeshi migrants in their custody claiming to be underage had passports with different birth dates than on their birth certificates.

    Bochenek said it’s common for migrant children to travel with fake passports that make them appear older, because in some countries minors are more likely to be intercepted or questioned by immigration agents.

    While I.J. was able to regain status as a minor, three Bangladeshi migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally in the San Diego area in October 2018 are still trying to convince the government they are underage.

    Their passports didn’t match their birth certificates. Dental exams ordered by immigration officials found that each of them had about an 89% likelihood of being adults.

    “Both subjects were adamant that the passports were given to them by the ‘agent’ (smuggler), however, there is little reason to lie to any of the countries they flew into,” wrote one Border Patrol agent, describing the arrest of two of the migrants. “Also, it is extremely difficult to fake a passport, especially for no reason. I have seen [unaccompanied children] fly into each of the countries (except for Panama and Costa Rica) and pass through with no problem. This is a recent trend with Bangladeshis. They do it in order to be released from DHS custody faster.”

    During interviews, the young migrants, Shahadat, Shahriar and Tareq, told asylum officers that smugglers had given them the passports, according to records from the interviews.

    When asked why they had been given those birth dates, they said it had something to do with smugglers’ plans for their travel.

    “I don’t have that much idea,” Shahadat told an asylum officer, according to the officer’s notes in a summary-style transcript. “When I asked why, they told me that if I don’t give this [date of birth] there will be problems with travel.”

    Shahriar told the officer that the smuggler became aggressive when questioned.

    The migrants have submitted copies of birth certificates, school documents and signed statements from their parents attesting to their claimed birth dates. An online database of birth records maintained by the government of Bangladesh appears to confirm their date of birth claims.

    Shahriar also provided his parents’ birth certificates. If he were as old as immigration officials believe him to be, his mother would have been 12 years old when she had him.

    In each case, immigration officials stood by the passport dates.

    Shahadat and Shahriar are being held in Otay Mesa Detention Center. Tareq was held at the facility for months before being released on a $7,500 bond. All three are moving through the immigration system as adults, with asylum proceedings their only option to stay in the U.S..

    At least one of the migrants, Shahadat, was placed in administrative segregation, a version of solitary confinement in immigration detention, when his age came into question, according to documents provided by their attorney.

    A judge ordered him deported.

    https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-immigrant-age-migrants-ice-dental-teeth-bangladesh-20190602-story.
    #tests_osseux #os #âge #USA #Etats-Unis #mineurs #enfants #enfance #rétention #détention_administrative #dents #migrations #asile #réfugiés #USA #Etats-Unis

  • Twitter Takes Down Accounts of China Dissidents Ahead of Tiananmen Anniversary - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/01/business/twitter-china-tiananmen.html

    Yet the culprit was not Chinese censors but Twitter’s own overactive filters.

    In a statement, Twitter said that as a part of its routine efforts to stop spam and inauthentic behavior, it had inadvertently gone after a number of legitimate Chinese-language accounts.

    “These accounts were not mass reported by the Chinese authorities — this was routine action on our part,” the company said in a statement on Twitter. “Sometimes our routine actions catch false positives or we make errors. We apologize.”

    Online, many users said they did not believe Twitter’s statement told the whole story. One human rights lawyer, whose account had been taken down, said that in protest he tweeted an image of Twitter’s bird mascot colored red with five yellow stars to evoke the Chinese flag.

    In the past, Twitter has come under fire for its political tone deafness, especially overseas. After the United Nations found that deliberate social media manipulation helped encourage a genocide in Myanmar, Twitter’s founder, Jack Dorsey, chose the country as the destination for a meditation retreat. While there, he declined to meet with organizers who were fighting violent propaganda and dangerous rumors spread on the platform.

    Twitter said that all users in China who had their accounts recently suspended should be able to recover them, though a day later, some accounts remained locked, according to Yaxue Cao, editor of ChinaChange.org, a website dedicated to writings on civil society and human rights.

    “I do believe Twitter is trying to do good,” Ms. Cao said. “No questions about that. But the results are mixed.”

    #Twitter #Censure #Chine

  • GM fungus rapidly kills 99% of malaria mosquitoes, study suggests - BBC News
    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-48464510

    Un champignon pour tuer les moustiques vecteurs du paludisme - Top #Santé
    https://www.topsante.com/medecine/sante-et-voyage/paludisme/un-champignon-pour-tuer-les-moustiques-vecteurs-du-paludisme-632089

    Les chercheurs de l’université du Maryland, aux États-Unis, ont identifié un #champignon appelé Metarhizium pingshaense, qui infecte naturellement les #moustiques qui propagent le #paludisme. Dans un essai mené au Burkina Faso, ce champignon génétiquement modifié a fait disparaître 99% des populations de moustiques en 45 jours.

    Pour renforcer les pouvoirs de ce champignon, les chercheurs se sont tournés vers une toxine trouvée dans le venin d’une espèce d’araignée australienne. Ils ont génétiquement modifié le champignon pour qu’il fabrique cette toxine à l’intérieur du moustique.

    #ogm

  • Statistiques de la conférence de presse des organisations syriennes et de la défense civile aujourd’hui sur les résultats de la récente campagne sur les zones libérées, #Idlib :
    - 600 victimes
    - 5 marchés populaires ciblés
    - 22 installations médicales ont été détruites
    - La fermeture de 55 établissements médicaux
    - Utilisation de chlore à Canibiet
    - 80 enfants tués
    - 50 écoles ciblées
    - 45 000 enfants sont sortis de l’éducation
    Déplacés 307 000 plus de 50 000 familles
    - 27 mosquées détruits
    - Destruction de 9 fours de production du pain
    - Brûler des cultures avec du Phosphore

    #guerre #conflit #victimes #statistiques #chiffres #phosphore #armes_chimiques Canibiet #destruction #écoles #enfants #déscolarisation #morts #décès

    Reçu d’un ami réfugié syrien qui vit à Grenoble, via whatsapp, le 01.06.2019

    • Stop the carnage: doctors call for an end to Syria hospital airstrikes

      Dozens of prominent doctors have called for urgent action to halt the bombing campaign by Syrian and Russian planes that has targeted more than 20 hospitals in Syria’s north-west, putting many out of action and leaving millions of people without proper healthcare.

      Coordinates for many of those hit had been shared with the regime and its Russian backers by the United Nations in an effort to protect civilians. The Syrian opposition were promised war planes would avoid identified sites on bombing raids; instead they have endured more than a month of fierce attacks.

      Since late April, in defiance of a truce brokered by Moscow and Ankara last year, regular airstrikes on opposition-held territory in northern Idlib province have killed hundreds of civilians and displaced hundreds of thousands more, rights groups say.

      They have also destroyed key parts of the healthcare system, says a letter from doctors around the world published in the Observer. “We are appalled by the deliberate and systematic targeting of healthcare facilities and medical staff,” they warned. “Their [the medical staff’s] job is to save lives, they must not lose their own in the process.”

      Signatories include Denis Mukwege, a gynaecologist who won the Nobel peace prize last year, Peter Agre, a physician who won the Nobel prize in chemistry in 2003, MP and doctor Sarah Wollaston, and Terence English, former president of the Royal College of Surgeons, as well as David Nott, a surgeon who works in war zones, and Zaher Sahloul, a Syrian exile, doctor and founder of a medical charity. They urged the UN to investigate the targeting of listed hospitals and asked the international community to put pressure on Russia and Syria to stop targeting medical centres and reverse funding cuts to surviving hospitals and clinics that are now overwhelmed by refugees.

      One paediatrician, Abdulkader Razouk, described to the Observer how he and his colleagues evacuated an entire hospital including dialysis patients, mothers in labour and premature babies in incubators, as airstrikes began in their town, at least 12 miles from the frontline. “After the airstrikes, but before the direct attack, we knew the hospital would be targeted,” he said in a phone interview about the Tarmala hospital, which was eventually hit on 10 May. “Only a few medical staff stayed to provide emergency response.”
      Letters: The BBC’s wish for a finger in every pie
      Read more

      The airstrike destroyed more than half the hospital and much of its equipment from beds and generators to the operating theatres, emergency services and pharmacy. Staff went back briefly to hunt through the rubble for any supplies that survived the onslaught but the building is now abandoned. “It would be impossible to rebuild and reopen now,” Razouk said. “The airstrikes are continuing and still targeting the hospital until this moment, even though it’s empty.”

      The May bombing was not the first attack on the hospital. That came in 2015, first with the Syrian military’s wildly inaccurate barrel bombs, and later by Russian missiles, that destroyed a residential building next door but spared the clinic itself. In 2018 there was a direct hit on the clinic but then it was able to reopen after repairs.

      However the damage after the latest attack was so severe that it is beyond repair, and anyway most of the civilians it served have fled, Razouk said.

      “This was the worst attack, it has been very tough, there is no possibility whatsoever to continue work there,” he said. “Life can’t return to this area, especially under these brutal attacks. There are no people, not even animals, there’s nothing left in there, it’s like a doomed land. There is no hope to go back.”

      He and other staff are opening a new temporary hospital near the Turkish border, where most of the residents of Tarmala have fled and are now living in refugee camps. It will have some of the neonatal incubators and dialysis machines evacuated before the strike, but there is a desperate need for more supplies.

      Around 80 medical facilities – including clinics and hospitals – have been shut because of damage in attacks or because of fear they will be targeted, said Mohamad Katoub from the Syrian American Medical Society. The huge number of refugees displaced by attacks has left those that are still operating overwhelmed.

      “The tactic of attacking health and other civilian infrastructure in Syria is not new, displacement is not new, these are all chronic issues. But this is the biggest displacement ever, and it is much further beyond our capacity as NGOs to respond,” he said.

      Turkey, which backs Idlib’s rebel groups, is already home to 3.6 million Syrians and faces the dilemma of whether or not to absorb any of the newly displaced. A group were reportedly planning a protest march to the border at the weekend.

      The de-escalation deal brokered last autumn saved Idlib and the surrounding countryside from an impending government assault. At the time, aid agencies warned that a military campaign would put the lives of 3 million civilians at risk, and trigger the worst humanitarian crisis of an already protracted and bloody war.

      But the agreement has unravelled since January, when the hardline Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) wrested control of the area from more moderate rebels.

      Damascus and Moscow have said the HTS takeover legitimises the current campaign against Idlib as they are targeting terrorists not covered by the ceasefire deal.

      Many civilians in Idlib now feel they have been caught between the harsh rule of HTS and the intensified regime assault, and say that life has all but ground to a halt.

      “I was studying at Idlib university but I’ve had to stop going. So has my sister,” said 22-year-old Raja al-Assaad, from Ma’arat al-Nu’maan, which has been under heavy attack.

      “Some people have left to try to go to Turkey but the truth is that there is nowhere to go. Nowhere in Idlib is safe. And in my town we already have lots of people who have been displaced from lots of other areas of Syria.”

      “All normal life has shut down and there is nothing for us to do except wait for death.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/02/doctors-global-appeal-stop-syria-bombing-hospitals-idlib

    • Russie/Syrie : Nouveau recours à des #armes interdites

      Ces attaques qui aggravent les souffrances des civils violent les normes du #droit_international.

      Les forces armées russes et syriennes ont utilisé de manière indiscriminée des armes interdites en vertu du droit international contre des zones civiles dans le nord-ouest de la Syrie au cours des dernières semaines, a déclaré Human Rights Watch aujourd’hui. Selon les Nations Unies, cette région est actuellement habitée par environ trois millions de civils, dont au moins la moitié sont des personnes déplacées ayant fui d’autres régions du pays.

      Depuis le 26 avril 2019, l’alliance militaire russo-syrienne a mené quotidiennement des centaines d’attaques contre des groupes antigouvernementaux dans les gouvernorats d’Idlib, de #Hama et d’#Alep,, tuant environ 200 civils, dont 20 enfants. L’alliance a utilisé contre des zones civiles densement peuplées des armes à sous-munitions et des armes incendiaires, pourtant interdites selon le droit international, ainsi que des barils d’explosifs (« #barrel_bombs ») largués sur ces zones, d’après des secouristes, des témoins et des informations disponibles via des sources en accès libre. Le 17 mai, le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies a tenu une deuxième réunion d’urgence au sujet de la situation dans le nord-ouest de la Syrie, sans pour autant élaborer une stratégie précise pour protéger les civils qui y résident.

      « L’alliance militaire russo-syrienne utilise de manière indiscriminée contre des civils piégés une panoplie d’armes pourtant interdites par le droit international », a déclaré Lama Fakih, directrice par intérim de la division Moyen-Orient à Human Rights Watch. « Entretemps, la Russie exploite sa présence au Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies pour se protéger et pour protéger son allié à Damas, et pour poursuivre ces exactions contre des civils. »

      Les armes à sous-munitions peuvent être lancées depuis le sol par des systèmes d’artillerie, des roquettes et des projectiles, ou bien larguées depuis le ciel. Elles explosent généralement dans l’air, dispersant plusieurs petites bombes, ou sous-munitions, au-dessus d’une vaste zone. De nombreuses sous-munitions n’explosent toutefois pas lors de l’impact initial, ce qui laisse au sol de dangereux fragments explosifs qui, à l’instar des mines terrestres, peuvent mutiler et tuer, des années après.

      Les armes incendiaires, qui produisent de la chaleur et du feu par le bais de la réaction chimique d’une substance inflammable, provoquent des brûlures atroces et sont capables de détruire des maisons et d’autres structures civiles.

      La Convention de 2008 sur les armes à sous-munitions interdit l’utilisation d’armes à sous-munitions, tandis que le Protocole III de la Convention sur les armes classiques interdit certaines utilisations des armes incendiaires. La Russie et la Syrie ne font pas partie des 120 pays ayant adhéré à la Convention sur les armes à sous-munitions, mais la Russie est un État partie au Protocole sur les armes incendiaires.

      https://www.hrw.org/fr/news/2019/06/03/russie/syrie-nouveau-recours-des-armes-interdites

    • La battaglia per Idlib

      Dal 26 aprile le forze del governo siriano, sostenute dall’assistenza militare russa, hanno intensificato un’offensiva a Idlib, nella provincia nord-occidentale della Siria, l’ultima roccaforte dell’opposizione armata al presidente Assad. A Idlib vivono quasi tre milioni di persone, metà delle quali sfollate internamente. Per questo gli accordi di Astana firmati proprio dalla Russia, insieme a Turchia e Iran, indicavano Idlib come una zona di de-escalation delle violenze. Un accordo però che non sembra più aver valore. Ieri la Russia ha bloccato una dichiarazione del Consiglio di sicurezza dell’ONU, con la quale il consiglio voleva lanciare un allarme per l’intensificarsi del intorno alla provincia di Idlib, con l’intento di scongiurare un disastro umanitario.

      Anche nel conflitto libico i civili sono quelli a pagare il prezzo più alto. Attualmente in Libia ci sono oltre 1 milione di persone bisognose di assistenza umanitaria e protezione. Non solo migranti e rifugiati, ma anche sfollati libici che vivono in condizioni di estrema marginalità sociale, senza accesso a cure e servizi essenziali e martoriati dal conflitto in corso. La campagna #Oltrelefrontiere ” promossa da CIR vuole migliorare il livello di protezione di migranti, rifugiati e sfollati interni, fornendo assistenza umanitaria e promuovendo la ricerca di soluzioni durature, per contribuire alla progressiva normalizzazione delle loro condizioni di vita.

      https://www.raiplayradio.it/articoli/2019/06/Rai-Radio-3-Idlib-Siria-4e42d346-f7d0-4d71-9da3-7b293f2e7c89.html

  • Tunisia prepares to host refugees fleeing Libya

    Officials working for international organizations and institutions have visited Tunisia’s border areas with Libya to evaluate the resources available ahead of the potential arrival of refugees fleeing armed clashes in Libya.

    Representatives for the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Refugee Agency UNHCR and the regional directorate of the Tunisian health ministry on Thursday visited the border delegations of Dehiba and Ramada, in the governorate of Tataouine near the border with Libya. Officials visited the locations to examine the resources available ahead of the potential mass arrival of refugees fleeing armed clashes in Libya.

    Visit to prevent humanitarian crisis

    The visit was aimed at preventing a possible humanitarian crisis like the one reported in 2011, which required international aid, given a situation in Libya considered critical by humanitarian agencies. The inspection was used to identify logistical needs and intervention strategies to deal in the best way possible with the potential arrival of refugees. Concern over the situation in Libya and its consequences on Tunisia was expressed by the UN High commissioner for Refugees in Tunisia, Mazen Abu Shanab, who stressed that assistance efforts need to be intensified due to an increase in the number of Libyan migrants in Tunisia, an estimated 300 a month.

    Amnesty documents ’war crimes’ in Tripoli

    Amnesty International has gathered witness testimony and analyzed satellite imagery that documented attacks that could constitute “war crimes” in areas of Tripoli where an offensive conducted by the troops of General Khalifa Haftar has been ongoing since the beginning of April, according to a statement released by the human rights organization. These attacks could be examined by the international judiciary, Amnesty stressed, highlighting the case of three residential areas in the Abu Salim district of Tripoli that were “indiscriminately attacked with rockets during an episode of intense fighting between April 15-17” (Hay al-Intissar, Hay Salaheddin and the so-called “Kikla buildings”).

    The organization also said in the statement that it documented attacks that endangered the lives of hundreds of refugees and migrants, including an air raid on May 7 that hit an area some 100 meters from the migrant detention center of Tajoura, wounding two detainees.


    https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/16979/tunisia-prepares-to-host-refugees-fleeing-libya
    #OMS #HCR #asile #migrations #Libye #réfugiés #migrerrance #externalisation #Ramada #camps #camps_de_réfugiés

    Les personnes qui fuient les affrontements en Libye passent la frontière avec la Tunisie et sont installées dans #camp_de_réfugiés à #Dehiba, en plein désert, à quelques km de la frontière avec la Libye...

    Le commentaire de #Vincent_Cochetel :

    #Tunisia, we should not panic, but prepare. 120 arrivals (non-Libyans) this week. Reception capacity must improve. Working on it with partners and with very limited resources

    https://twitter.com/cochetel/status/1134456403115094017?s=19

    ping @_kg_ @isskein @reka

  • Selon l’#ONU, Julian #Assange présente des symptômes de « #torture #psychologique » - Le Point
    https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/selon-l-onu-julian-assange-presente-des-symptomes-de-torture-psychologique-3

    Le rapporteur de l’ONU sur la torture, qui a rencontré le #lanceur_d'alerte, estime qu’il a été « exposé à des formes graves de peines ou de traitements inhumains ».

    [...]

    En plus de maux physiques [...]

    #whistleblower

  • UN warns against extraditing Assange to US
    https://www.ft.com/content/c3d35d24-82ec-11e9-b592-5fe435b57a3b

    Nils Melzer, the UN’s special rapporteur on torture, said that if Assange was sent to the US, he would be “exposed to a real risk of serious violations of his human rights”. Mr Melzer also attacked what he called “a relentless and unrestrained campaign of public mobbing, intimidation and defamation against Assange” in the UK, US, Sweden and Ecuador, including by politicians and members of the judiciary.

  • Counter-mapping: cartography that lets the powerless speak | Science | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2018/mar/06/counter-mapping-cartography-that-lets-the-powerless-speak

    Sara is a 32-year-old mother of four from Honduras. After leaving her children in the care of relatives, she travelled across three state borders on her way to the US, where she hoped to find work and send money home to her family. She was kidnapped in Mexico and held captive for three months, and was finally released when her family paid a ransom of $190.

    Her story is not uncommon. The UN estimates that there are 258 million migrants in the world. In Mexico alone, 1,600 migrants are thought to be kidnapped every month. What is unusual is that Sara’s story has been documented in a recent academic paper that includes a map of her journey that she herself drew. Her map appears alongside four others – also drawn by migrants. These maps include legends and scales not found on orthodox maps – unnamed river crossings, locations of kidnapping and places of refuge such as a “casa de emigrante” where officials cannot enter. Since 2011, such shelters have been identified by Mexican law as “spaces of exception”.

    #cartographie_radicale #contre_cartographie #cartographie_participative #cartoexperiment

  • Congo Ebola response must be elevated to maximum level, UN told | Global development | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/may/29/congo-ebola-response-must-be-elevated-to-maximum-level-un-told

    The UN has been urged by charities to ramp up Ebola prevention work in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the highest level of emergency response.

    Only three crises – Yemen, Syria and Mozambique – are treated as the equivalent of a level-three response, activated when agencies are unable to meet needs on the ground.

    Charities including Mercy Corps and Oxfam said the same declaration should also be made in DRC, following a recent acceleration in the spread of Ebola.

    Almost 2,000 cases of Ebola have been recorded since the outbreak began in August. As of Monday, 1,287 people have died from the disease.

    #santé #ebola #rdc

  • If mayors ruled migration : Promises and gaps

    On 8th December 2018, two days before the UN Intergovernmental Conference to Adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, some 80 cities around the world convened in Marrakech for the 5th Mayoral Forum on Human Mobility, Migration and Development. The cities signed a Mayors’ Declaration, identifying common priorities in the follow up and review process of the Global Compact. On that same occasion, a new initiative called the Mayors Migration Council was launched, to support cities’ engagement in international deliberations and policies concerning refugees and migrants. A couple of months afterwards, on February 9th, 2019, the mayors of the main Spanish and Italian cities launched an alliance to oppose the ‘closed harbours’ policy of the Italian Minister of the Interior Matteo Salvini and to denounce the incapacity of the EU to address the situation appropriately.

    These are just two recent examples that show how city policies and mobilisation on migration can resonate well beyond municipal and national walls. Can cities’ international mobilisation rescue states (and the EU) from their failure in dealing with migration issues? Cities’ enthusiasts like Benjamin Barber, founder of the Global Parliament of Mayors, have no doubts about the governance capacity of city networks (CN henceforth): ‘Mayors can rule the world because cities represent a level of governance sufficiently local to demand pragmatism and efficiency in problem solving but sufficiently networked to be able to fashion cooperative solutions to the interdependent challenges they face’. Pragmatism and cooperative interaction are presented as the key assets of mayors, cities and, by extension, city networks’ mode of governing global challenges. On the basis of – the still scarce – existing research on city global mobilisation on migration-related issues and of the preliminary results of the MinMUS Project, we can identify the promises and challenges of transnational city networks for the building of a new multilevel governance of international migration.

    Is local policy more pragmatic?

    The idea that local governments must deal with the situation ‘as it is’, therefore taking distance from abstract – and presumably ineffective – ideological recipes, has underpinned the development of research on local migration policy. However, evidence is contradictory and, especially in the US, studies seem to show that pragmatic attitudes and accommodative solutions are just as likely to occur as decisions aiming at excluding migrants or simply ignoring the issue altogether. What a ‘pragmatic solution’ is cannot be easily established a priori, but will depend on policymakers’ interests, perceptions, and definitions of the situation.

    Data collected by the Cities of Refuge project on 27 transnational city networks in Europe show that the most networked cities are leaning towards the centre-left, progressive-side of the political spectrum. And even if membership usually outlasts political shifts, this might not correspond to active participation, as pointed out by research in the field of climate change mitigation. Furthermore, according to Cities of Refuge, cities that adhere to international networks have an average population of 1.5 million, meaning that they are primarily large cities. However, as noted by OECD, while nearly two-thirds of migrants settle in metropolitan and densely populated regions, asylum seekers are more spread across urban-rural areas.

    Territorial dispersal of asylum seekers reflects evidence on reception policies collected by the CeasEVAL Project. To face the sense of pressure generated by increasing inflows since 2011, national governments in both federal/regional countries (Germany, Italy and Spain) and centralised ones (Finland, Luxemburg, Greece and Bulgaria), have redistributed asylum seekers all over their territory, including small municipalities in rural and mountains areas. Even though the reaction of local populations has not necessarily been negative, CeasEVAL points out a high level of heterogeneity in the type of accommodation and quality of services provided, as well as in opportunities for effective integration. Policy learning and exchange of best practices would probably be of great interest to these ‘new immigrant destinations’; however, they often do not have the financial, human and political resources required to participate in international network activities.

    Hence, the international arena is a highly selective one, which risks excluding those – especially small – cities that might be more in need of accessing knowledge and other – mainly financial – resources in order to deal effectively with the challenges of migration and asylum. Modes of inclusion will also depend on the goals of city networks, which are extremely diverse.

    Cities as key players in the multilevel governance of migration?

    City networks gather together on a voluntary basis local authorities in order to pursue perceived collective interests or purposes. They lack authoritative power, and therefore have to rely upon horizontal coordination and mutual cooperation to carry out and implement their initiatives. As such, city networks are organisations which aim at realising quintessential multilevel governance policy processes: on the vertical dimension, they interact with institutions operating at different – local, regional, national and supra-national – territorial scales; on the horizontal dimension city networks establish new relations between cities and with non-public actors mobilised at a city level.

    To assess these hypotheses, the MInMUS project (website) has carried out an in-depth analysis of four transnational networks on migration, i.e.: the Migration and Integration Working Group of Eurocities, the European Coalition of Cities Against Racism (ECCAR), the Intercultural Cities Programme (ICC) and Welcoming America. Results show that these networks: 1) pursue different agendas and 2) are engaged in different types of policymaking processes.

    Regarding agendas, ECCAR and ICC are focused on the promotion of a specific type of local policy, i.e. anti-discrimination and interculture respectively; Eurocities seeks to represent main cities vis-á-vis the European Commission, being involved primarily in lobbying activities; whereas Welcoming America is concerned with soliciting grassroots participation and community partnerships. As for policymaking processes, Welcoming America prioritizes relations with actors such as NGOs, CSOs and private business, whereas Eurocities is more focused on relations with the European Commission and national governments. A more balanced pattern of multilevel political dynamics can be discerned in the other two cases. In particular ICC, starting from 2016, has adopted an explicit multilevel governance approach aimed at promoting cooperation and coordination both on the vertical, i.e. between different levels of government, and on the horizontal, i.e. with non-public actors, dimensions of policy-making.

    Multilevel governance, far from being the essence of city networking initiatives, is only one possible mode of policymaking interactions and it is not even the most relevant one. City networks may well find it more convenient or appropriate to pursue other types of policy interactions, centred on a vertical dimension as in the case of Eurocities or on the horizontal dimension as in that of Welcoming America. Multilevel governance seems easier to pursue in the case of networks that are already established as multilevel organisations. This is the case of ECCAR, launched by Unesco in 2004, and of ICC, officially started in 2008 as a joint initiative of the Council of Europe and the European Commission. Patterns of relations and modes of policymaking seem to reflect to a large extent the genesis of city networks and their distinctive policy agenda.

    Getting back to our initial question: Can cities’ international mobilisation rescue states (and the EU) from their failure in dealing with migration issues? While one cannot deny the key role played by cities in the managing of migration crises as well as in supporting integration and community cohesion more generally, city networks’ skewed membership that consists mainly of larger and politically progressive cities should make us cautious about their impact on improving migrants’ living conditions at a grassroots level. Furthermore, evidence suggests that the initiative of supranational institutions ‘from above’ has played a key role in favouring cities’ collaboration around specific policy issues such as interculture and anti-discrimination. Indeed, cities and their networks represent a new actor in the multilevel political dynamics around migration; yet whether and to what extent they will be effective in promoting collaborative multilevel governance relations and influencing national government and EU agendas on migration remains to be seen.

    https://blogs.eui.eu/migrationpolicycentre/mayors-ruled-migration-promises-gaps
    #municipalisme #migrations #villes #collectivités_locales #asile #migrations #réfugiés #gouvernance

    Ajouté à la métaliste sur les #villes-refuge :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/759145

    ping @karine4

  • Libya : Flight data places mysterious planes in Haftar territory | News | Al Jazeera
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/05/libya-flight-data-places-mysterious-planes-haftar-territory-1905272058198

    Satellite images and flight data show two Russian-made Ilyushin 76 aircraft registered to a joint Emirati-Kazakh company called Reem Travel made several trips between Egypt, Israel, and Jordan before landing at military bases controlled by Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) in early April, just as it attempted to seize the capital.

    Flight transponders appear to have been turned off while flying into the war-torn North African country. Libya is currently under an arms embargo imposed by the United Nations after years of fighting.

    Video published by Haftar’s forces shows one of the cargo planes - with the registration number UP-I7645 - after landing at LNA’s Tamanhant military base in southern Libya. It had taken off from Benghazi in the east, Haftar’s stronghold.

    Sans surprise, la version arabe met l’accent sur la collaboration avec Israël : https://www.aljazeera.net/news/politics/2019/5/27/%D8%AD%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%8A%D9%82-%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%A

    #libye #mercenaires

  • Verso - The Radical origins of international indigenous representation - https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4329-the-radical-origins-of-international-indigenous-representation

    While Indigenous representation has become a permanent feature at the UN, its radical origins are less well known. The historic 1977 Geneva gathering was preceded by a simpler, but no less monumental, gathering in Standing Rock, along the banks of the Missouri River. In the heat of the Northern Plains summer, 5,000 people from more than ninety-seven different Indigenous nations met from June 8 to 16, 1974. By the end of the week, the International Indian Treaty Council was founded as an international arm of the American Indian Movement (AIM), tasked with gaining international recognition at the UN for Indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere. The Treaty Council’s founding document, the “Declaration of Continuing Independence,” foregrounded nationhood and treaty rights as central features of an American Indian political identity. “We condemn the United States of America for its gross violation of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty in militarily surrounding, killing, and starving the citizens of the Independent Oglala Nation into exile,” it read, in reference to the brutal crackdown on AIM following their occupation of Wounded Knee in 1973. The Treaty Council appealed to “conscionable nations” to join “in charging and prosecuting the United States of America for its genocidal practices against the sovereign Native Nations; most recently illustrated by Wounded Knee 1973 and the continued refusal to sign the United Nations 1948 Treaty on Genocide.”2 Following the seventy-one-day siege, AIM leadership had been arrested and tied up in court proceedings. Then came the brutal repression under the infamous FBI Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) that nearly destroyed Indigenous, Black, and revolutionary movements in the United States. The strategic turn to international human rights law largely saved the Indigenous movement from utter collapse in a moment of intense state repression.

    #peuples_autochtones #internationalisme #standing_rock

  • Siri and Alexa Reinforce Gender Bias, U.N. Finds - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/siri-alexa-ai-gender-bias.html

    Why do most virtual assistants that are powered by artificial intelligence — like Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa system — by default have female names, female voices and often a submissive or even flirtatious style?

    The problem, according to a new report released this week by Unesco, stems from a lack of diversity within the industry that is reinforcing problematic gender stereotypes.

    “Obedient and obliging machines that pretend to be women are entering our homes, cars and offices,” Saniye Gulser Corat, Unesco’s director for gender equality, said in a statement. “The world needs to pay much closer attention to how, when and whether A.I. technologies are gendered and, crucially, who is gendering them.”

    One particularly worrying reflection of this is the “deflecting, lackluster or apologetic responses” that these assistants give to insults.

    The report borrows its title — “I’d Blush if I Could” — from a standard response from Siri, the Apple voice assistant, when a user hurled a gendered expletive at it. When a user tells Alexa, “You’re hot,” her typical response has been a cheery, “That’s nice of you to say!”

    Siri’s response was recently altered to a more flattened “I don’t know how to respond to that,” but the report suggests that the technology remains gender biased, arguing that the problem starts with engineering teams that are staffed overwhelmingly by men.

    “Siri’s ‘female’ obsequiousness — and the servility expressed by so many other digital assistants projected as young women — provides a powerful illustration of gender biases coded into technology products,” the report found.

    Amazon’s Alexa, named for the ancient library of Alexandria, is unmistakably female. Microsoft’s Cortana was named after an A.I. character in the Halo video game franchise that projects itself as a sensuous, unclothed woman. Apple’s Siri is a Norse name that means “beautiful woman who leads you to victory.” The Google Assistant system, also known as Google Home, has a gender-neutral name, but the default voice is female.

    Baked into their humanized personalities, though, are generations of problematic perceptions of women. These assistants are putting a stamp on society as they become common in homes across the world, and can influence interactions with real women, the report warns. As the report puts it, “The more that culture teaches people to equate women with assistants, the more real women will be seen as assistants — and penalized for not being assistant-like.”

    #Assistants_vocaux #Genre #Féminisme #IA #Ingtelligence_artificielle #Voix

  • Environnement : un décret gouvernemental menace les sites classés - Le Parisien
    http://www.leparisien.fr/societe/environnement-un-decret-gouvernemental-menace-les-sites-classes-23-05-201

    Le gouvernement propose de donner aux seuls préfets le pouvoir d’autoriser des travaux importants dans des espaces naturels ou patrimoniaux exceptionnels.

    « Un hôtel cinq étoiles dans le site protégé des Calanques, une retenue d’eau sur les pentes du Mont-Blanc pour alimenter des canons à neige, un projet de logements HLM dans le jardin d’un château classé… » Élodie Martinie-Cousty siège à la commission supérieure des sites et elle en a vu passer des dossiers à lui faire dresser les cheveux sur la tête.

    Cette instance administrative conseille le ministre de l’Écologie. Les maires viennent y faire reconnaître la qualité de leur territoire en demandant notamment le classement pour toujours de sites exceptionnels qui ont reçu, pour certains, un label Unesco. Mais un projet de décret gouvernemental pourrait fragiliser le poids des experts paysagistes, défenseurs du patrimoine et du ministre lui-même, qui jouent souvent les remparts face aux bétonneurs.

    Le préfet garant du respect de la loi

    N’est ce pas François de Rugy lui-même qui a annoncé mercredi 22 mai que le projet minier de la Montagne d’Or ne se ferait pas en Guyane ? Preuve que ses services ont du poids quand un projet semble « incompatible » avec les exigences environnementales. Les associations écologistes vivent donc d’autant plus mal le décret en préparation.

    Car il vise à donner totalement la main aux préfets de département même quand il s’agira d’accorder des autorisations de travaux importants dans les sites classés. « L’objectif est de transférer cette compétence à l’appréciation locale, notamment pour gagner du temps, justifie-t-on au ministère de l’Écologie. Il n’est pas question de traiter au rabais la gestion du patrimoine car le préfet sera le garant du respect de la loi. » Sauf que les ONG en doutent.
    « Ce décret est scélérat »

    Quand elle ne siège pas à la commission des sites, Élodie Martinie-Cousty est administratrice bénévole à France Nature Environnement (FNE) et elle s’inquiète de voir un jour des parcs de loisirs, des zones commerciales ou des clubs de vacances venir défigurer des sites naturels comme la réserve de Scandola en Corse, le mont Saint-Michel ou le Val de Loire. « Ce décret est scélérat car il ouvre la porte aux grands aménageurs qui feront évidemment pression sur les préfets pour faire passer des projets, avec parfois le soutien des élus locaux », craint la militante associative.

    Dans une question écrite adressée à François de Rugy, le sénateur (RDSE) du Puy-de-Dôme Eric Gold souligne la forte inquiétude des « gestionnaires des 2700 sites classés, territoires d’excellence en matière de paysage, car ce décret pourrait mener à une perte d’équité de traitement au niveau national en raison notamment de la sensibilité variable des préfets aux enjeux environnementaux. » « Cela fait cent ans que la loi sur les paysages a fait ses preuves et permet que l’on ne fasse pas n’importe quoi n’importe où », ajoute l’élu.

    Au ministère de l’Écologie, on se veut rassurant : « Si des élus locaux ou des associations jugent que des travaux risquent de porter atteinte à un site classé, le préfet pourra toujours décider que la décision finale relève de l’administration centrale. » « Mais on sait bien que localement, certains lobbys peuvent être influents en mettant en avant les enjeux de développement économique du département », fait valoir Eric Gold.

    Avocat spécialiste du droit de l’environnement, Arnaud Gossement voit dans cette décision une forme de double discours. « Le gouvernement défend officiellement la biodiversité mais prépare un décret qui, de fait, fragilise la protection des sites classés. Cet en même temps permet peut-être de gagner des élections mais pas de faire progresser l’écologie. »

  • Le Sénat supprime un article sensible du projet de loi pour Notre-Dame
    https://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2019/05/23/le-senat-supprime-un-article-sensible-du-projet-de-loi-pour-notre-dame_54661


    Ouvriers, techniciens, architectes sont à pied d’oeuvre sur le chantier de reconstruction de Notre-Dame de Paris, dévastée par un incendie le 15 avril.
    STEPHANE DE SAKUTIN / AFP

    L’article 9 devait permettre de déroger aux règles en matière d’urbanisme, d’environnement, de patrimoine, ou de commande publique.

    A l’Assemblée nationale, lors de la présentation du projet de loi pour la conservation et la restauration de la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris, voté en première lecture, le feu couvait déjà dans les rangs de l’opposition. Ce dont rêvaient certain(e)s député(e)s, le Sénat l’a fait. « Convaincue qu’autoriser des dérogations aux règles en vigueur pour faciliter la restauration de Notre-Dame est inutile et se révélerait dangereux à la fois pour l’exemplarité de ce chantier et la crédibilité de notre législation, la commission de la culture a supprimé l’article 9 du projet de loi », a expliqué, mercredi 22 mai dans un communiqué, la commission de la culture, de l’éducation et de la communication de la Chambre haute. La suppression de l’article a été votée à l’unanimité moins les voix de la République en marche, le parti présidentiel.

    Le rapporteur du texte au Sénat, Alain Schmitz (Yvelines, LR), qui avait été particulièrement actif lors de l’audition par la commission, le jeudi 16 mai, du ministère de la culture et de la communication, Franck Riester, s’interroge :
    « Comment les autres propriétaires de monuments historiques pourraient-ils encore accepter de se soumettre aux dispositions de nos codes si l’Etat lui-même est autorisé à s’en affranchir pour lancer l’un des chantiers patrimoniaux les plus emblématiques ? Ce serait ouvrir une véritable boîte de Pandore ».

    Que dit l’article 9 du projet de loi ? « Le Gouvernement est autorisé à prendre par ordonnances toutes dispositions (…) de nature à faciliter la réalisation, dans les meilleurs délais et dans des conditions de sécurité satisfaisantes, des travaux de restauration de la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris. » Ces ordonnances « peuvent prévoir des adaptations ou dérogations aux règles en matière d’urbanisme, d’environnement, de construction et de préservation du patrimoine (…), aux règles en matière de commande publique (…) ».

    Le caractère impératif de la procédure est notamment lié à l’injonction du président de la République, Emmanuel Macron, qui, dès le lendemain de l’incendie ayant gravement endommagé Notre-Dame le 15 avril, avait publiquement déclaré « [vouloir] que la reconstruction soit achevée d’ici cinq années. » Une décision hâtive, compte tenu de la méconnaissance, alors, de l’ampleur des dégâts et, donc, de la tâche à accomplir, et de sa durée.

    Tout en souhaitant « ne pas voir le ministère de la culture mis hors-jeu », la commission sénatoriale a rappelé, lors de ses échanges avec Franck Riester, comme l’avaient rappelé précédemment les député(e)s, que certaines dispositions actuelles du code du patrimoine permettent de s’adapter à des situations de nature exceptionnelle. « Face à des besoins en urgence impérieuse, nous n’avons pas le temps de faire des appels d’offres », indique Charlotte Hubert, présidente de la compagnie des architectes en chef des Monuments historiques, présente sur le site de Notre-Dame de Paris.

    Comme la loi l’y autorise, la Direction des affaires culturelles (DRAC) Ile-de-France, par l’intermédiaire de la préfecture, a d’ores et déjà réquisitionné des entreprises possédant les compétences nécessaires. Ce fut ainsi le cas pour les maîtres verriers ou les serruriers chargés de la dépose des vitraux hauts de la nef et du chœur. En pareille circonstance, un économiste, au sein de l’équipe de maîtrise d’œuvre, vérifie les tarifs proposés par les prestataires avant de passer commande. La prestation réalisée est aussitôt réglée.

    Dans ses attendus, la commission de la culture a également jugé nécessaire d’inscrire dans la loi une référence aux engagements de la France vis-à-vis de ses obligations internationales en matière de patrimoine. « L’architecture de la cathédrale a été déterminante pour le classement du bien “Paris, Rives de la Seine” au patrimoine mondial de l’Unesco en 1991, a rappelé sa présidente, Mme Catherine Morin-Desailly (Seine-Maritime, UC). Les travaux de restauration de Notre-Dame devront préserver l’authenticité et l’intégrité du bien si nous ne voulons pas prendre le risque de porter atteinte à la valeur universelle exceptionnelle de celui-ci et de perdre le bénéfice de ce classement (…) ».

    La commission a également souhaité lever l’ambiguïté quant à la nature du dispositif spécifique chargé de gérer et de contrôler l’ensemble du projet de restauration. Si, lors de son audition, Franck Riester a évoqué parmi les pistes celle d’une « maîtrise d’ouvrage gérée directement par l’administration centrale », les sénateurs, « dans un souci d’améliorer l’intelligibilité du projet de loi » souhaitent confier cette responsabilité à un nouvel établissement public dont le fonctionnement serait « encadré strictement » : soit « un établissement public à caractère administratif placé sous la tutelle du ministère de la culture » dont la maîtrise d’œuvre – ce qui est déjà le cas sur le site de la cathédrale – serait assurée sous l’autorité de l’architecte en chef des Monuments historiques.

    Au plan politique, enfin, la volonté des sénateurs de supprimer l’article 9, risque, selon Alain Schmitz, de rendre « compliqué » un accord en commission mixte paritaire (CMP). En cas de désaccord persistant lors d’un processus législatif, cette dernière réunit sept élus de chacune des deux chambres, plus éventuellement leurs présidents respectifs, qui valideront – ou pas – l’adoption du projet de loi. Le texte du projet de loi, remanié par la commission de la culture, sera examiné en séance publique par le Sénat en première lecture, lundi 27 mai.

    • Le Sénat s’attaque au projet de loi pour la restauration de Notre-Dame
      https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2019/05/27/le-senat-s-attaque-au-projet-de-loi-pour-la-restauration-de-notre-dame_54679

      Au Sénat, dominé par l’opposition de droite, le texte est critiqué comme « une loi d’exception » rédigée « dans la précipitation ». Le texte a déjà été largement amendé.

      Après l’Assemblée nationale, le Sénat doit examiner en première lecture, lundi 27 mai, le texte encadrant la restauration de la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris, dont charpente et flèche ont été détruites dans un incendie le 15 avril. Emmanuel Macron a assuré vendredi assumer « totalement » un « calendrier serré, volontariste ».
      […]
      Le texte a déjà été largement amendé en commission, mais les derniers propos du président de la République devraient contribuer à alimenter les débats en séance. Les sénateurs ont ainsi supprimé l’article habilitant le gouvernement à déroger si nécessaire, et dans un souci de rapidité, à certaines règles en matière d’urbanisme, protection de l’environnement, commande publique ou préservation du patrimoine.

      La restauration devra être fidèle au « dernier état visuel connu » du monument avant le sinistre, y compris la flèche, ont déjà acté les sénateurs. Un prérequis qui n’exclurait cependant pas l’utilisation de matériaux et techniques différents.

      Ce point risque de relancer dans l’hémicycle la querelle entre anciens et modernes qui a suivi l’annonce d’un concours d’architecture international pour restaurer la flèche. Vendredi, M. Macron a assuré que le chantier « redonnerait une flèche » à la cathédrale.
      Le texte habilite le gouvernement à créer par ordonnance un établissement public chargé de la conduite du chantier. Les sénateurs l’ont placé sous la tutelle du ministère de la culture.

  • Alexa, why does the brave new world of AI have all the sexism of the old one ?
    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/may/22/alexa-why-does-the-brave-new-world-of-ai-have-all-the-sexism-of-the-old

    Virtual assistants such as Google Home and Siri only encourage the attitude that women exist merely to aid men in getting on with more important things. When women are over-represented in the workforce, it tends be in industries of assistance – cleaning, nursing, secretarial work and, now, the world of virtual assistants. Research by Unesco has shown that using default female voices in AI – as Microsoft has done with Cortana, Amazon with Alexa, Google with Google Assistant and Apple with (...)

    #Apple #Google #Microsoft #Amazon #robotique #Home #Assistant #Alexa #Cortana #domotique #Siri #biométrie #discrimination #voix (...)

    ##algorithme
    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/44671b648a16095e4077973b446bf932f5c64484/1061_0_2443_1467/master/2443.jpg

  • Pourquoi les assistants vocaux ont des voix féminines
    https://usbeketrica.com/article/pourquoi-les-assistants-vocaux-ont-des-voix-feminines

    L’UNESCO s’alarme de la prolifération d’assistants vocaux (Siri, Alexa, Cortana, Google Assistant) programmés pour avoir une voix féminine par défaut, une « personnalité docile », et pour répondre de façon évasive et joueuse aux insultes ou provocations à caractère sexuel. Ou comment des outils du quotidien auxquels des centaines de millions de personnes s’adressent tous les jours peuvent renforcer les préjugés sexistes associant les femmes au statut d’assistantes zélées. I would blush if I could. La (...)

    #Apple #Google #Microsoft #Amazon #robotique #Assistant #Alexa #Cortana #domotique #Siri #biométrie #discrimination (...)

    ##voix

  • Israel demolishes record number of Palestinian homes in a single day - The National

    https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/israel-demolishes-record-number-of-palestinian-homes-in-a-single-day-1.8
    https://www.thenational.ae/image/policy:1.794666:1558548539/image.jpg?f=16x9&q=0.6&w=1200&$p$f$q$w=70c86c9

    The number of Palestinian homes in occupied East Jerusalem that were demolished by Israel’s military in a single day peaked on April 29, when 31 structures were flattened, the UN’s envoy for Middle East peace said on Wednesday.

    In his monthly briefing to the Security Council, Nickolay Mladenov reported that the figure was the highest daily total since the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) began monitoring such activities in 2009.

    Mr Mladenov called for “an immediate halt to the Israeli authorities’ destruction of Palestinian-owned property in East Jerusalem”.

    The demolitions are justified by Israel on the grounds that the structures are not approved by Israeli-issued building permits. However, such documents are near impossible for Palestinians to obtain.

    #israel #palestine #démolition #occupation #colonisation