AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 2018
We work to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth, and dignity are denied. Amnesty International is a global movement of millions of people demanding human rights for all people – no matter who they are or where they are. We are the world’s largest grassroots human rights organization. Amnesty International USA is a nonprofit human rights organization and the largest country section of Amnesty International. We have more than a million supporters in the U.S., including more than 200,000 dues-paying members. We have hundreds of groups in communities, high schools, and colleges in all 50 states. We engage people in the U.S. in protecting human rights around the world, while we also work to protect human rights here at home.Amnesty International USA is part of a global movement with 7 million supporters and a presence in more than 70 countries. Amnesty International’s uniquely effective approach for protecting human rights uses a three-pronged approach: we conduct research to uncover human rights abuses and document patterns; we use this research to educate the public and equip activists to demand change; and we mobilize grassroots activists nationwide to advocate for human rights in the U.S. and around the globe. From start to finish, our work focuses on the individual—people whose human rights are abused, and people who have the power to change the world.
CONTENTS
08 DIRECTORS WORD 14 POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY 16 DON’T SHOOT 22 MIGRANT AND REFUGEE RIGHTS 24 FORGOTTEN ODYSSEYS 30 GENDER & REPRODUCTIVE EQUITY 32 THIS IS NO DISORDER 36 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION & SPEECH 38 CRYPTIC TENDENCIES 42 FINANCIALS 46 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
Amnesty International
TAKING INJUSTICE
Person(ally) every day across the world, people’s human rights are violated. activists are thrown into prison in saudi arabia; a refugee is raped crossing into the united states; a gay man in russia is killed by his government. and every day, amnesty international is there, often in the most dangerous corners of the world, defending people’s fundamental rights.
We find the facts, expose what’s happening, and rally people together to force governments and others to respect everyone’s human rights. Today, our work in the U.S. is more important than ever. Human rights are under attack here and abroad. Too often, the U.S. government is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a President, Congress, and state legislative landscape more hostile to human rights. That’s why it’s so important that Amnesty International USA is strong and growing. Our membership has increased steadily over the past three years, as have financial contributions. We have hundreds of local groups and student groups in all 50 states, with a growing network of volunteer leaders to harness grassroots pressure for human rights in state legislatures, Congress, and governments around the world. We’re focusing our resources strategically, with two priority campaigns—protecting refugees and human rights defenders— that have domestic and global components, as well as ongoing programmatic work to protect human rights for those most at risk. And we’re getting results. In 2016 alone, Amnesty International USA helped win the freedom of 153 people around the world who were imprisoned for exercising their human rights; helped persuade the U.S. government to let 110,000 refugees rebuild their lives in this country; helped pass a law to reduce gun violence in Minnesota; helped abolish the death penalty in Delaware and stopped death sentences in several individual cases; and helped end a government program that could have been used to start a Muslim registry. Our work in the year ahead will be more important than ever. And thanks to your partnership and activism, we’re strong when we’re needed most.
Ann Borroughs Executive Director
CAMPAIGNING FOR THE PERSECUTED
1961 A GLOBAL MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS BEGINS Lawyer and Founder, Peter Benenson launches the ‘Appeal for Amnesty’ in the Observer newspaper, after two Portuguese students are jailed for raising a toast to freedom.
The first prisoner of conscience is released, Ukrainian Archbishop Josyf Slipyi in Siberia. It sparks decades of tireless campaigning on behalf of people persecuted for their beliefs.
1963
1972 COMBATTING TORTURE Amnesty launches its first campaign against torture. 12 years later, the UN votes to combat torture worldwide with the Convention against Torture in 1984.
NELSON MANDELA, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AMBASSADOR ENDING THE DEATH PENALTY Amnesty launches its first campaign against the death penalty. When we started in 1961, only nine countries had abolished state executions. By 2014, that figure had risen to 140
1980
1993 ESTABLISHING ICC Amnesty campaigns for an International Criminal Court (ICC) to bring those responsible for genocides and war crimes to justice. The ICC is finally established in 2002.
Nelson Mandela becomes an Amnesty International Ambassador of Conscience. In 1962, Amnesty had sent a lawyer to observe his trial in South Africa. Nelson Mandela wrote that “his mere presence, as well as the assistance he gave, were a source of tremendous inspiration and encouragement to us.�
2006
“ ONLY WHEN THE LAST PRISONER OF CONSCIENCE HAS BEEN FREED, WHEN THE LAST TORTURE CHAMBER HAS BEEN CLOSED, WHEN THE UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IS A REALITY FOR THE WORLD’S PEOPLE, WILL OUR WORK BE DONE.” peter benenson
Amnesty International Founder
How abuse of power and racism have deep set roots in american history Last month, hours after a jury acquitted former police officer Jeronimo Yanez of manslaughter in the shooting death of 32-yearold Philando Castile, protesters in St. Paul, Minnesota, shutdown I-94. With signs that read: “Black Lives Matter” and “No Justice, No Peace,” the chant of “Philando, Philando” rang out as they marched down the highway in the dark of night.
The scene was familiar. A year earlier, massive protests had erupted when Yanez killed Castile, after pulling him over for a broken taillight. Dashcam footage shows Yanez firing through the open window of Castile’s car, seconds after Castile disclosed that he owned and was licensed to carry a concealed weapon. A respected school nutritionist, Castile was one of 233 African-Americans shot and killed by police in 2016, a startling number when demographics are considered. African-Americans make up 13 percent of the U.S. population but account for 24 percent of people fatally shot by police. According to the Washington Post, blacks are “2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.” Today’s stories are anything but a recent phenomenon. A cardboard placard in the collections of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture underscores that reality. “The message after 50 years is still unresolved,” remarks Samuel Egerton, who donated the poster to the Smithsonian after carrying it in protest during the 1963 March on Washington. (Collection of the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, gift of Samuel Y. Edgerton)
“This idea of police brutality was very much on people’s minds in 1963, following on the years, decades really, of police abuse of power and then centuries of oppression of African-Americans,” says William Pretzer, senior history curator at the museum.A poster, collected in Baltimore, Maryland, by curators at the National Museum of African American History, following the death of Freddie Gray. Modern policing did not evolve into an organized
The yellowing sign is a reminder of the continuous oppression and violence that has disproportionately shaken black communities for generations—“We Demand an End to Police Brutality Now!” is painted in red and white letters.
institution until the 1830s and ’40s when northern cities decided they needed better control over quickly growing populations. The first American police department was established in Boston in 1838. The communities most targeted by harsh tactics were recent European immigrants. But, as African-Americans fled the horrors of the Jim Crow south, they too became the victims of brutal and punitive policing in the northern cities where they sought refuge.
“The message after 50 years is still unresolved,” remarks Samuel Egerton, a college professor, who donated the poster to the museum. He carried it in protest during the 1963 March on Washington. Five decades later, the poster’s message rings alarmingly timely. Were it not for the yellowed edges, the placard could almost be mistaken for a sign from any of the Black Lives Matter marches of the past three years.
In 1929, the Illinois Association for Criminal Justice published the Illinois Crime Survey. Conducted between 1927 and 1928, the survey sought to analyze causes of high crime rates in Chicago and Cook County, especially among criminals associated with Al Capone. But also the survey provided data on police activity—although African-Americans made up just five percent of the area’s population, they constituted 30 percent of the victims of police killings, the survey revealed.
“There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, ’When will you be satisfied?” said Martin Luther King, Jr. in his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech at the 1963 march. His words continue to resonate today after a long history of violent confrontations between African-American citizens and the police. “We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.”
“There was a lot of one-on-one conflict between police and citizens and a lot of it was initiated by the police,” says Malcolm D. Holmes, a sociology professor at the University of Wyoming, who has researched and written about the topic of police brutality extensively. That same year, President Herbert Hoover established the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement to investigate crime related to prohibition in addition to policing tactics. Between 1931 and 1932, the commission published the findings of its investigation in 14 volumes, one of which was titled “Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement.” The realities of police brutality came to light, even though the commission did not address racial disparities outright. During the Civil Rights Era, though many of the movement’s leaders advocated for peaceful protests, the 1960s were fraught with violent and destructive riots. Police Disperse Marchers with Tear Gas by unidentified photographer, 1966 (Collection of the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, Gift of Howard Greenberg Gallery) Aggressive dispersion tactics, such as police dogs and fire hoses, against individuals in peaceful protests and sit-ins were the most widely publicized examples of police brutality in that era.
“Eradicating the social inequalities that perpetuate these relationships that sustain
is something we must address�
But it was the pervasive violent policing in communities of color that built distrust at a local, everyday level. One of the deadliest riots occurred in Newark in 1967 after police officers severely beat black cab driver John Smith during a traffic stop. Twenty-six people died and many others were injured during the four days of unrest. In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson organized the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders to investigate the causes of these major riots. The origins of the unrest in Newark weren’t unique in a police versus citizen incident. The commission concluded “police actions were ‘final’ incidents before the outbreak of violence in 12 of the 24 surveyed disorders.” The commission identified segregation and poverty as indicators and published recommendations for reducing social inequalities, recommending an “expansion and reorientation of the urban renewal program to give priority to projects directly assisting low-income households to obtain adequate housing.” Johnson, however, rejected the commission’s recommendations. Black newspapers reported incidents of police brutality throughout the early and mid-20th century and the popularization of radio storytelling spread those stories even further. In 1991, following the beating of cab driver Rodney King, video footage vividly told the story of police brutality on television to a much wider audience. The police officers, who were acquitted of the crime, had hit King more than 50 times with their batons. Today, live streaming, tweets and Facebook posts have blasted the incidents of police brutality, beyond the black community and into the mainstream media. Philando Castile’s fiancée, Diamond Reynolds, who was in the car with her daughter when he was shot, streamed the immediate aftermath of the shooting on her phone using Facebook live.
“Modern technology allows, indeed insists, that the white community take notice of these kinds of situations and incidents,” says Pretzer. And as technology has evolved, so has the equipment of law enforcement. Police departments with military-grade equipment have become the norm in American cities. Images of police officers in helmets and body armor riding through neighborhoods in tanks accompany stories of protests whenever one of these incidents occurs. “What we see is a continuation of an unequal relationship that has been exacerbated, made worse if you will, by the militarization and the increase in fire power of police forces around the country,” says Pretzer. The resolution to the problem, according to Pretzer, lies not only in improving these unbalanced police-community relationships, but, more importantly, in eradicating the social inequalities that perpetuate these relationships that sustain distrust and frustration on both sides. ’There’s a tendency to stereotype people as being more or less dangerous. There’s a reliance upon force that goes beyond what is necessary to accomplish police duty,” says Holmes. “There’s a lot of this embedded in the police departments that helps foster this problem.”
05
FORGOTTEN Odysseys: faez al sharaa was walking to work in his hometown of Daraa, the southern Syrian city where the protests against President Bashar al-Assad first erupted. For young civilians like Faez, leaving the house in the spring of 2013 had become a game of Russian roulette. Dozens were dying each day in the civil war between Assad’s forces and anti-government insurgents.
The ancient farming town of Daraa had become a grisly battlefield.
Dissidents had disappeared.
On that Tuesday morning in late March, Faez was confronted by a group of Syrian army soldiers. They were looking for a man who had been spotted with a handgun. Faez and three others were detained and accused of being terrorists. Standing at gunpoint, his hands in the air, he recalls feeling furious with himself for risking the solo walk to work. “We felt death upon us, and we accepted it,” he says now. “I can’t describe it in words.” He got lucky. At that moment, an old woman barreled into the street, begging the gun-toting soldiers to spare these men. They were her son, her nephew, her neighbors, the old lady pleaded. Faez had never seen the woman before. But the soldiers relented. The stranger saved his life.By the time Faez returned home that night from his job at a healthcare company, he had resolved to flee Syria. He talked it over with his wife, informed his mother, and then reached out online to an underground group known for smuggling Syrians into Jordan. Again Faez was fortunate: the smugglers had space in a private car to carry him and his wife to the border the next day. The couple packed their bags with clothing, photos from their wedding and a few keepsakes: a set of colored bowls they had received as a gift, a glimmering golden plate inscribed with the Shahada, the Muslim profession of faith. The following morning, they walked out the door and left their life behind.
A GLOBAL CRISIS Now Faez is one of the lucky ones, a refugee who has been granted a new future in the United States. He tells the story of his family’s two-year odyssey from his living-room couch in a Dallas suburb. His wife Shaza, also 28, fixes Arabic coffee in the kitchen. The couple’s 14-month old daughter Sham toddles across the room. Baby Sara, 4 months old and an American citizen, beams from her rocker. The al Sharaa family arrived in Dallas nine months ago. They have adjusted well to a bracing cultural transition. Faez and Shaza are picking up English. He has a steady job on the graveyard shift at a local Walmart, stocking shelves in the frozen section from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. They have a second-hand sedan and a new apartment, where bowls of fruit and ornaments from home brighten the shag carpeting and popcorn ceiling. Neighbors have been welcoming. But there are notes of frustration in Faez’s voice as he recounts the family’s journey through an interpreter, Razan Ali, 22, who doubles as the family’s resettlement case worker at the International Rescue Committee. When we met on Nov. 19, the U.S. House of Representatives had just voted by a wide margin to tighten oversight of the program that resettles Syrian refugees in the U.S., forcing top government officials to certify that each new arrival poses no security threat. Some 30 governors have objected to admitting new refugees in their states, including Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican. Donald Trump,
the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination, has promised to deport refugees who have already arrived, while increasing surveillance of American mosques and keeping watch lists of certain immigrant groups. The backlash was driven by the discovery of a Syrian passport among the belongings of a member of the terrorist cell that attacked Paris on Nov. 13. It didn’t matter that the document was later revealed as a likely forgery. An ugly strain of nativism, stoked by the prospect of a terrorist infiltrating the U.S. by posing as an asylee, is coursing through national politics, from the campaign trail to the U.S. Capitol. With fear spreading and solutions in short supply, the refugees have become a target, even though they are trying to escape violence and move on with their lives. The refugees, Faez says, have become “scapegoats.” Polls conducted since the Paris attacks show the majority of Americans oppose admitting refugees. Refugee advocacy groups worry the fear will lead to violence. Two days after Faez spoke with TIME, armed protesters—some with masks and tactical weapons—gathered outside a green-domed mosque in nearby Irving, Tex., to challenge what one sign decried as the “Islamization of America.” Faez has been stunned by the response. “It shocked me, because America prides itself on diversity. It is a melting pot,” he says. “Some are misinformed, or not informed, by what is going on in Syria.” Half of Syria’s population of 22 million has been uprooted by the war between a tyrant and the terrorists of the Islamic State. Some 300,000 have been killed. More than 4 million Syrians have fled.
the “Islamization of America.” Faez has been stunned by the response. “It shocked me, because America prides itself on diversity. It is a melting pot,” he says. “Some are misinformed, or not informed, by what is going on in Syria.” Half of Syria’s population of 22 million has been uprooted by the war between a tyrant and the terrorists of the Islamic State. Some 300,000 have been killed. More than 4 million Syrians have fled. Syrian families have drowned when flimsy rafts capsized in the Mediterranean. Others perished on the treacherous overland journey through the Balkans. In August, 71 Syrian refugees suffocated in the back of a chicken truck abandoned alongside a highway in Austria; the dead included children as young as 1. In August, 71 Syrian refugees suffocated in the back of a chicken truck abandoned alongside a highway in Austria; the dead included children as young as 1. The burden of sheltering the refugees has fallen largely on Syria’s neighbors, like Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Wealthy nations in Northern and Western Europe have rolled out the welcome mat as well. Germany expects to take in some 800,000 Syrians in 2015, and France, in the wake of the bloodshed in Paris, announced it would admit another 30,000. By contrast, the U.S. has taken in only about 2,200 since the violence began in 2011. President Obama has called for the U.S. to welcome at least 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year, though international aid groups and top Democrats like Hillary Clinton have called for the country to accept many more. The irony of the backlash is that refugees like the al Sharaas are more scrutinized than virtually anyone entering the U.S. “The process is thorough and extensive, and no one is actually resettled unless their identity, background, motives, and affiliations have been ascertained beyond doubt,” says international migration expert Maurizio Albahari, a professor at the University of Notre Dame. The initial
vetting is conducted by the U.N.’s refugee agency, which usually refers the most vulnerable applicants to the U.S. At the top of the list are survivors of torture, victims of sexual violence, targets of political persecution, the medically needy, and single mothers with children. Nine U.S. government agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Defense and the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center then conduct background checks of their own. It’s “the most rigorous screening and security vetting of any category of traveler to the United States,” says a senior administration official who requested anonymity to discuss the policy. Officials with the Department of Homeland Security travel abroad to conduct in-person interviews with every applicant. Fingerprints and iris scans are matched against criminal databases. Biographical information such as past visa applications are scrutinized to ensure the applicant’s story coheres. The process takes 18 to 24 months, and some 50% are rejected. “Short of swimming the Atlantic,” I.R.C. vice president Jennifer Sime told a congressional panel Nov. 19, “the refugee resettlement program is the most difficult way to come to the U.S.”
THE EXODUS Faez knows this firsthand, though his family’s journey was in some ways smoother than the average Syrian refugee experience. It began with a 90-minute hike to meet a smuggler’s car. As he and his wife scampered through neighborhoods pocked by war, a missile crashed into a nearby building. “We could’ve been killed,” Faez says. But they found their ride, which deposited them in a town on the porous border with Jordan. On the other side, a fleet of buses and trucks were waiting to shuttle fleeing families to relative safety. Two days later they arrived at the Zaatari refugee camp, a makeshift city of 80,000 plagued by rape and violence. As the crisis deepens, the sprawling labyrinth has become the fourth-largest city in Jordan. Many asylees spend years here, waiting as the U.N.’s refugee agency registers them and completes the laborious process of resettling them abroad. Shaza’s relatives arranged to smuggle them out of the encampment and into the Jordanian capital of Amman, where they could stay with family. Faez found an off-the-books job with his old healthcare company, working the night shift to evade detection. The couple registered with the U.N. and began wending through a set of background checks. A first interview gave way to a second.
At first Sweden seemed like an option. The prosperous nation—a desirable location due to the benefits it offers—has born a heavy burden in the refugee crisis since its 2013 pledge to provide permanent residency to almost any Syrian refugee. With more refugees per capita than any other European nation, it is now buckling under the strains, with public housing limited and a political backlash brewing. The al Sharaas were eventually informed Sweden was not accepting any more refugees. Following a third round of screening, the family was told they were now headed to Finland. Faez was excited about the plan after nearly two years in limbo. Life in Jordan was dismal. Locals were unfriendly. Without work authorization, his employer paid low wages, and he felt exploited. Promised aid didn’t arrive. “My life there was very difficult,” he says. “Our rights weren’t respected.” Then Finland fell through as well. A month later, the International Organization for Migration called to say the family were destined for the U.S. Faez wasn’t keen on the idea at first. “I didn’t want to come to America,” he says. It was so far from his old life, and he felt ill-equipped for the challenge, with few possessions, no money or language skills and a meager social safety net awaiting them. Among refugees, the U.S. is known for providing skimpier benefits than the nations of Europe. “In about two to three months, you’re expected to be on your feet, to fend for yourselves,” Faez says. “I didn’t feel ready for that.” The al Sharaas finally left for Texas in February. They were now a family of three, with an infant daughter born in Jordan and another on the way. “I was scared,” Faez recalls. It was his first time on an airplane.
A REUNION IN JEOPARDY They touched down in Dallas after nightfall on Feb. 18. The family was shy and timid at first, recalls Daley Ryan, the deputy director of the IRC’s office in Dallas. A caseworker brought them to an apartment the organization had rented for them. It was in a slightly run-down neighborhood, but as they gaped at the kitchen appliances they marveled aloud that this was all theirs. At times the transition has been tough. The graveyard shifts put Faez on a nocturnal schedule. Shaza, who wears a hijab, has been slower to pick up English as she spends days in the apartment tending to her young children. But until recently, they had been struck by the depth of opportunities afforded them in the U.S., and by the sense that the country’s creed of equality was reality, not just rhetoric. “I go about my daily activities without any discrimination,” Faez says. “When I apply for a job, I am treated fairly.” The family is paying off their $1,300 one-way plane tickets to the U.S. in monthly installments,
and found a new apartment in a safer neighborhood, which is decorated with a Sony flatscreen and remnants of home, like the golden plate adorned with one of the pillars of Islam: “There is no God but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God.” The family found a local mosque and socializes with the small group of fellow refugees in the area. He worked hard to improve his English, and has laid out a series of longterm goals, including a higher education degree. “I would like to make sure to provide for my wife and children,” he says, “so they can live a happy life.”
Faez came to believe that the U.S. offered the chance for personal growth and prosperity for his children. But in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, the political frenzy has upended their lives. In early December, six relatives from Syria are set to arrive in Dallas, placed there by the IRC to be close to the al Sharaa family. Governors lack the authority to disrupt a federal program, but their opposition can make resettlement tricky. Last week a Syrian family destined for Indiana was rerouted to Connecticut because of Hoosier State Gov. Mike Pence’s objections to the refugee program. “I’m very worried about my family,” Faez says. Asked what he would wanted to share with leery Americans, Faez had a simple message. “I want them to know the Syrian people are not terrorists,” he says. “We are against ISIS. We don’t support them. They are a criminal organization. Syrian citizens are the ones paying the price.”
OVERCOMING A HURDLE: REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT IN TEXAS The data presented is a comparision of the resettlement of refugees in Texas. As the Trump administration pushes for tigher restrictions on refugee relocation, Texas is seeing an 80% decrease of refugee acceptance in the state.
FY 2016
FY 2017
FY 2018
7500 ACCEPTED REFUGEES
5000 ACCEPTED REFUGEES
1800 ACCEPTED REFUGEES
Data sourced from U.S. State Department ‘s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration Division
THIS IS NO DISORDER: CHINA’S BRUTAL CONVERSION THERAPY TACTICS
The psychiatrist told my mom, ‘Homosexuality is just like all the other mental diseases, like depression, anxiety or bipolar disorder. It can be cured...Trust me, leave him here, he is in good hands.’
Homosexuality is neither a crime nor officially regarded as an illness in China. For decades, the legal status of consensual samesex activity between men was ambiguous, but that was cleared up in the revised criminal code of 1997. In 2001, the Chinese Society of Psychiatry removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. This is consistent with the consensus of global medical associations that homosexuality is not a medical condition. However, public hospitals and private clinics in China continue to offer so-called “conversion therapy,” which aims to change an individual’s sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual, based on the false assumption that homosexuality is a disorder that needs to be remedied. Despite a legal framework that requires that the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders comply with diagnostic standards and standards on the categorizations of mental disorders, Chinese authorities have not taken the necessary steps to stop public hospitals or private clinics from offering conversion therapy. The steps should include: issuing clear guidelines to all public and private hospitals and clinics indicating that conversion therapy contravenes existing law; closely monitoring medical facilities to determine whether conversion therapy is taking place; and, where it is, holding such facilities accountable, including by suspending the licenses of errant facilities or practitioners. This report documents multiple abusive aspects of conversion therapy, including coercion and threats, physical abduction, arbitrary confinement, forced medication and injection, and use of electroshocks. It is based on interviews with 17 individuals who underwent conversion therapy under intense family and social pressure, as well as parents and rights activists.
orally; forced use of medicine; and forced psychiatric intervention — violate domestic and international standards, and the human rights of LGBT people. These include the right to non-discrimination, the right to freedom from arbitrary deprivation of liberty, the right to privacy, the right to health, the right to freedom from non-consensual medical treatment, and, in the case of some minors, the rights of the child. Use of electroshocks have arguably amounted to acts of torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment. China does not have a law protecting individuals from discrimination due to sexual orientation or gender identity. While the Chinese Psychological Society has issued professional guideline that prohibit discrimination due to sexual orientation during psychology counseling practice, professional associations have not prevented medical practitioners from conducting conversion therapy. Other than two known successful lawsuits, in which a gay man sued for forced conversion therapy and another for false advertising, those who conduct conversion therapy have not been scrutinized or held accountable by professional associations or the law. There are inadequate options for members of the public to file complaints or seek remedies for medical or psychiatric practices that violate Chinese domestic law and international law.
All interviewees were emphatic about one thing: they would not have
undergone conversion therapy were it not for family and social pressure. Some said their parents took them forcibly to hospitals for such therapy: Chinese society continues to strongly favor children who can pass on their family name. For individuals who are gay or lesbian, this creates intense family pressure to enter heterosexual marriages and have children. Despite all efforts, no one experienced any change to their sexual orientation. Amnesty International found that, in most cases, conversion therapy took place in public hospitals, which are government-run and monitored. In a few cases, conversion therapy was conducted in privately owned psychiatric or psychological clinics, licensed and supervised by the National Health and Family Planning Commission. Governments are obligated to safeguard the fundamental human rights of individuals within their territory or jurisdiction. The abuses that occur in conversion therapy — including involuntary confinement; verbal harassment and intimidation; lack of informed consent in writing or
Governments are obligated to safeguard the fundamental human rights of individuals within their territory or jurisdiction, including the right to liberty, the right to non-discrimination, the right to freedom from torture, the right to privacy, the right to health, and the rights of the child. Allowing the discriminatory practice of conversion therapy in public hospitals and state-licensed clinics is inconsistent with the Chinese government’s obligations under its national law, and international law. Chinese authorities should immediately take steps to ensure that its declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder is supported by meaningful protections. They should prohibit the forced admission of individuals without mental disease or disorder into psychiatric facilities, and establish disciplinary and accountability mechanisms to address abusive and unethical medical and psychiatric practices. Public and private health facilities should not be permitted to provide treatments that are ineffective, unethical, and harmful, including conversion therapy.
WHAT IS CONVERSION THERAPY?
Conversion therapy refers to purportedly psychiatric or psychological “treatment,” or spiritual counseling, aimed at changing an individuals’ sexual orientation, from homosexuality or bisexuality to heterosexuality. Conversion therapy can also aim to change gender identity, but this report focuses on sexual orientation change efforts, consistent with the experience of interviewees. All cases documented in the report were attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation. Two interviewees who identify as transgender women, Liu Xiaoyun and Li Qi, identified as gay at the time of conversion therapy. This means homosexuality was the presumed “disorder” being “treated”. Despite all efforts, no one experienced any change to their sexual orientation. According to the interviews Human Rights Watch conducted, conversion therapy in China involves multiple techniques, including psychiatric consultation, hypnotherapy, medication, aversion therapy, and electroshock treatment. There is now a global consensus among professional medical bodies that conversion therapy with the intent to "cure" homosexuality is ineffective, unethical, and potentially harmful. The World Psychiatric Association (WPA), an association of national psychiatric societies across 118 different countries, issued a statement in March 2016 that, “it has been decades since modern medicine abandoned pathologizing same-sex orientation and behavior.” It also stated that “[p]sychiatrists have a social responsibility to advocate for a reduction in social inequalities for all individuals, including inequalities related to gender identity and sexual orientation.” The association concluded: WPA believes strongly in evidence-based treatment. There is NO sound scientific evidence that innate sexual orientation can be changed. Furthermore, so-called treatments of homosexuality can create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination flourish, and they can be potentially harmful. The provision of any intervention purporting to “treat” something that is not a disorder is wholly unethical. Multiple national professional associations globally have affirmed this position. A 2015 joint statement issued by 12 United Nations agencies, including the World Health Organization (WHO), called on states to protect LGBT people from violence, torture, and ill-treatment, including by ending “unethical and harmful so-called ‘therapies’ to change sexual orientation.” States have taken different approaches to ending conversion therapy. In the United States, nine states and the District of Columbia
In 2001, the Chinese Society of Psychiatry modified the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (CCMD) and removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. have laws that limit conversion therapy. There have been legislative initiatives to ban conversion therapy in Australia, Brazil, Chile, Israel, Switzerland, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, among other countries. At time of writing, Malta was the only country in the world to impose a nationwide ban on conversion therapy.
(NON EXISTENT) RIGHTS OF LGBT PEOPLE IN CHINA Homosexuality has been depicted in Chinese arts and documented in Chinese literature since ancient times. One of the earliest notions of homosexuality in Chinese history is the first-century Chinese Emperor Ai of the Han Dynasty (27 to 1 BC), who, upon waking from an afternoon nap, cut off his sleeve so as not to wake his male lover, Dong Xiang, who was sleeping across it. For 2000 years, same-sex love has been referred to in China as “the passion of the cut sleeve.” Historically, social attitudes and public policy toward homosexuality have shifted in different dynasties. Since 1907, when “ji jian” (anal sex between men) was removed from the penal code, laws governing consensual same sex intimacy between men in China have been vague and inconsistent, subject to court interpretation. The Criminal Code of 1979 contained no express prohibition against male same-sex activity, but a 1984 National Supreme People’s Court case expressly included “ji jian” under the rubric of “other hooligan activities.” For this reason, the legal status of consensual male same-sex conduct in China existed in a zone of ambiguity under the rubric of “hooliganism,” until revision of the Criminal Code in 1997. The revised criminal code did away with “hooliganism” and stipulated that “all crimes must be expressly prescribed by the law.” Taken together, these provisions effectively meant that consensual anal sex between men was no longer criminalized. Sex between women has never been criminalized. While these important developments could have cleared the way for gay and lesbian people to live openly and assert equal rights, there has been little progress in a number of areas, including LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination legislation, adequate information and education on HIV/ AIDS and other health-related issues, protection from employment discrimination under China’s labor law, or protection of the individual autonomy and privacy of transgender people.
However, in recent years, diverse groups seeking to advance the rights of LGBT people have grown and become important sources of information, services, and advocacy in China. These groups have made tremendous efforts to support equal rights for LGBT people in China, and to raise awareness about the difficulties they face. These efforts have borne fruit: for example, the annual Shanghai Pride, a cultural festival, has taken place since 2009, and since 2008 the Beijing LGBT center has provided support services for LGBT people, advocated for equal rights, and organized creative public events, such as celebratory flash mobs on Valentine’s Day. PFLAG China, founded in Guangzhou in 2008, supports LGBT individuals and their families, friends, and supporters by hosting regional and national conferences in different cities. In 2007 the first Lala Camp took place in Zhuhai to encourage a network of lesbian, bisexual, and transgender organizations in China. However, the movement still faces considerable social and legal challenges. This has limited the ability of LGBT groups to operate freely. LGBT organizations face similar difficulties to other NGOs when it comes to legal registration, and most opt to register as private companies, which is costly and fully taxable. Although some forms of public gatherings are permitted (including Shanghai Pride), government-imposed restrictions on LGBT groups are particularly clear with respect to freedoms of expression and assembly, In July 2017, a transgender man won a labor discrimination case, considered the first such case of its kind in China.[7] In April 2016, Qiu Bai (a self-adopted pseudonym), a media major at Sun Yet-sen University in Guangzhou, brought a lawsuit against the Ministry of Education because school textbooks still include “homosexuality” in a list of mental disorders. Qiu challenged the ministry to revise the text books, and although her case was initially rejected by the court on grounds she had no “legal stakeholder” relationship with the Ministry of Education on this issue, she refiled in June 2016, arguing that “as a current university student, the plaintiff has a direct interest in the textbook materials”, and the case was accepted by the First Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing.[8] In April 2016, a Chinese court dismissed a case brought by two gay men seeking permission to be legally married.
“ While violent and extreme hostility against LGBT persons is not common in China, the government has significantly limited activism on behalf of LGBT rights—part of deepening official hostility towards independent civil society.”
Professor Li Yinhe, a well-known sociologist and longtime activist, who in 2000, 2005, 2008, and 2015 tried to introduce bills to the National People’s Congress of China that would amend the existing marriage law to include same-sex couples. Despite such efforts, no such bills have made it to the agenda of the legislature. These cases, and the media attention they received, have raised the public profile of LGBT activism in China.
Amnesty International USA
SECURITY EXPERT AND HACKER MORGAN MARQUIS-BOIRE spends his days researching the shady underworld of government surveillance. Here he explains how governments are using malicious computer code to spy on journalists and human rights activists
across the world.
CRYPTIC TENDENCIES:
How goverments are using spyware to ATTACK free speech
Amnesty International USA
What is spyware and how is it different to malware? Broadly, malware is malicious code that does something harmful or undesirable on a user’s system that runs without their consent. Most people will be familiar with the concept of viruses, trojans, crimeware and even ransomware, which encrypts your data and tries to ‘ransom’ it back to you. Over the last few years there has been a rise in awareness of malware used for surveillance, or spyware. This is software installed on a victim’s computer by state actors, spies and police, rather than cyber criminals. It gives them access to the victim’s online communications and, as so much of our lives is now online, this is where most state surveillance now occurs.
How much can they see? It depends on what you do on the device that has been compromised. For example, as mobile phones have become less about making phone calls and more about general online communication, we’ve seen a corresponding market for so-called ‘lawful intercept’ mobile spyware. If you have this type of software surreptitiously installed on your phone it allows people to track your location via GPS, access your contacts list, spy on your SMS messaging, record your phone calls, see what you’re talking about on Facebook chat and more.
Who is being targeted? A group of Moroccan journalists and activists known as Mamfakinch were targeted with malware that appears to have been deployed by the Moroccan authorities. They were sent a “bait” document in the form of a communication pretending to be a news “scoop”. When analysed, I found the document contained malicious code that secretly installed spyware on their devices, so the government could see what Mamfakinch were going to be writing and who their sources were. I also discovered that Ahmed Mansoor, a prominent human rights defender in the United Arab Emirates, has been tracked using commercial spyware. He's constantly subjected to physical and electronic surveillance, and has been beaten and physically assaulted. He has also received numerous death threats because of his peaceful activism. During the Arab Spring, the government of Bahrain used spyware sold to them by a UK firm to monitor a group called Bahrain Watch, which tracks arms sales. And in the US, a satellite television station ESAT which reports on Ethiopia was targeted by spyware created by another European company.
Who are the companies selling spyware? There are smaller players that have become notorious for their sales to repressive regimes. A British-German company Gamma International distributed the spyware used to monitor the activists in Bahrain. Then there’s Hacking Team, an Italian company involved in the attack on Mamfakinch and who have previously sold spyware to a variety of repressive governments, including Sudan, Ethiopia, Bahrain, Egypt, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia. A recent leak showed that they were contemplating selling to Libya as recently as May this year. And then there are the bigger multinational companies, such as Lockheed-Martin, BAE Systems and Raytheon, who also make this type of technology. This map shows many more of the players operating in the shady surveillance industry.
What can activists and journalists do? The use of protective technologies like encryption, anonymization and privacy tools is pretty low among human rights activists. A lot of people have a good idea of the sensitive information – documents, communications, research – they might want to protect. So the next step is to educate yourself and start thinking sanely about security. There are a number of resources online, such as EFF’s comprehensive surveillance self-defence kit. For a quick and simple guide, you can also read this blog post by a colleague from Citizen Lab. I tend to shy away from broadly advocating individual tools as if they’re a panacea, because nothing is a universal surveillance cure-all. People also need to realise they’re not only making that decision for themselves, but for other people they’re communicating with who may be in a more dangerous situation.
What should Amnesty do about about this? I think it’s really positive that organisations like Amnesty are starting to speak out about the dangers of surveillance for human rights groups. Amnesty, who have themselves been spied on, know directly what a harmful trend this is. I’m hoping that this will promote a more positive ‘security hygiene’ in this space. And it’s also great that Amnesty is lobbying for more positive policy change in this area too. I’d love to see more transparency around the use of this type of surveillance by governments, as well as a raised awareness among individuals and small organisations about the security measures they should be taking.
What will happen in the FUTURE?? It’s difficult to look too far in to the future since this is a rapidly changing area of technology. We’ve seen the NSA say they’re going to stop collecting metadata from mobile phones, but on the other side the UK government and the FBI have been fear-mongering about strong encryption on chat and messaging applications and arguing for greater access to users’ private data. It’s really difficult to predict how this will all pan out, but it’s never been more
important for people to get involved in the debate and scrutinize what governments are doing.
A VIEW INTO OUR
FINANCIAL
Summaries
2018 was a strong financial year for Amnesty International USA, thanks to the generous support of our donors. Revenue increased by 2% over 2017, allowing us to expand our human rights work quickly in response to human rights crises. Programmatic spending increased by $2.2 million, or 8%, in 2018, with 78% of our overall spending going directly toward advancing our programmatic goals, including freeing prisoners of conscience, fighting discrimination, and pushing for public policies that respect the human rights of people around the world. We are the largest country section within Amnesty International’s global movement. In 2016, we contributed nearly $10 million to the International Secretariat to support Amnesty International’s work around the world – particularly in countries where the need is greatest. We are grateful to all our donors, whose financial support and dedication to human rights makes our work possible.
2018 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES (INCORPORATING THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT)
INCOME Donations and Legacies Charitable activities Other Trading activities Investment Income
TOTAL INCOMING RESOURCES EXPENDITURE Raising Funds Charitable activities Exceptional Restructuring costs Loss on Disposal
TOTAL OUTGOING RESOURCES ON OPERATING ACTIVITIES NET OUTGOING RESOURCES BEFORE GAINS AND LOSSES Net Gains / Losses on Investments
TOTAL NET OUTGOING RESOURCES BEFORE GAINS AND LOSSES NET EXPENDITURE OTHER RECOGNIZED GAINS AND LOSSES Actuarial Gains / Losses
NET MOVEMENT IN FUNDS RECONSILIATION OF FUNDS Total Funds brought forward
TOTAL FUNDS CARRIED FORWARD
$
UNRESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
TOTAL FUNDING
2018
2018
2018
75,108
$
220,348
$
72,440
45,000
–
36,23
130,000
–
130,000
188,000
–
188,028
$
4,338,108
$ 220,348
$
56,127
$
–
$
426,698
$
7,068
66,140
2,334
68,472
5,710
–
5,189
15,034
–
1,500
$
143,011
$ 2,334
$
82,229
$
3,278
$
–
$
3,278
$
3,278
$ –
$
3,278
$
1,141
$
–
$
1,141
$
1,414
$ –
$
1,414
$
28,112
$
–
$
28,112
$
25,675
$ –
$
25,675
2018 STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION
ASSETS Cash and Cash equivalents Investments, at fair value Contributions, recievable, net Inventory Prepaid expenses Fixed assets, net
TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS LIABILITIES Accounts payable and accrued expenses Payroll and payroll taxes payable International Secretariat assesment payable Charitable gift annuity obligation
TOTAL LIABILITIES
ACTIVITIES FOR GENERATING FUNDS Gain on Acquisition Sales of Campaign Materials Translation Services
TOTAL ACTIVITIES FOR GENERATING FUNDS OPERATING REVENUES Contributions and Grants Bequests and planned giving International Secretariat assesment payable Donated services Other revenues
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES
2017 $
6,746,822
2018 $
5,270,613
15,500,667
15,350,306
4,140,600
3,581,729
8,319
14,717
432,865
340,455
351,277
327,568
$
27,180,560
$
24,885,388
$
635,188
$
684,697
663,196 1,172,301
857,152 $
3,287,768
– 2,675,421
$
5,758,453
$
4,217,270
$
365,568
$
102,005
27,023
37,000
135,345
$
154,771
$
527,936
$
293,776
$
30,400,304
$
28,703,982
$
5,919,519
8,671,607
2,350,000
300,000
334,156
170,990
27,761
403,455
39,031,740
$
38,250,034
STATEMENTS OF NET ASSETS AND EXPENSES
EXPENSES Program services Management & general Fundraising
TOTAL EXPENSES Increase in net assets before non operating items Change in value of gift annuity obligations Interest, dividends, realized and unrealized gains
CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
2018 PROGRAM SERVICES BREAKDOWN
CAMPAIGNS
FUNDRAISING
MANAGEMENT
Further reports can be found at Amnesty.org, if you or an organization have an inquiry about the financials presented, contact us at Answers@Amnesty.org
2017 $
$
$
29,334,184
2018 $
27,095,831
1,921,507
2,228,322
6,351,570
5,738,420
37,607,261
$ 35,062,573
1,424,479
3,187,461
(1,010,709)
(227,769)
340,219
4,766
753,989
$ 2,964,458
Visit Amnesty.org for the full set of Audited Financial Statements
REVENUES/EXPENSES TREND A view into our projected revenue and expenses trends
40
30
20
10 Program expenses Primary revenue
2016
2017
2018
than 50 years of groundbreaking achieveAmnesty has been through a major transformation, adapting to dramatic changes in the world.
after
more
ments,
We have shifted from a large London base, to open regional offices in cities in Africa, Asia-Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. These offices are major hubs for our investigations, campaigns and communications. The new regional offices strengthen the work of Sections who already work at the national level in more than 70 countries. We can now respond quickly to events wherever they happen, and be a powerful force for freedom and justice. To stay one step ahead, we are also developing tools using the latest technologies. Such as a mobile phone app that acts as a personal ‘panic button’ for activists at daily risk of being arrested or detained. Imagine what we can now achieve standing side by side with activists in every corner of the globe. How many more prison doors will open? How many more people will realize their rights and live in dignity?
How many more torturers will be brough to justice?
OUR TEAM
Credits
Social media: @Amnesty Contactus@amnesty.org 1 Easton Street, London, WC1X 0DW, UK