Women's Views on News |
| Calls for more adequate civil rights safeguards Posted: 22 Jan 2016 10:27 AM PST
The recent appeal court ruling that Schedule 7 incompatible with Article 10 of Human Rights Act has been claimed as a victory for press freedom, but other questions are still open. The Court of Appeal has ruled that the power to stop, search, detain, question and seize documents from anyone travelling through a UK airport under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is incompatible with Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. In a landmark judgment regarding David Miranda's 2013 detention at Heathrow Airport, the Court of Appeal found that Schedule 7 is not subject to adequate safeguards to stop it being used arbitrarily against journalists. This was one argument put forward by human rights organisation Liberty in its intervention in this case. The background to this is the detention of David Miranda for nine hours by police at Heathrow Airport in August 2013. He was on his way back to Rio de Janeiro after meeting filmmaker Laura Poitras – director of Oscar-winning documentary Citizenfour – in Berlin. Miranda was helping the work of journalist Glenn Greenwald, who had recently written several stories about Edward Snowden’s revelations on surveillance for The Guardian. He was questioned under Schedule 7 and freed only when officers reached the legal time limit for either arresting or releasing him. His electronic equipment – which included a hard drive carrying encrypted journalistic material derived from Edward Snowden – was confiscated, and he was questioned for long periods without a lawyer present. Under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, officers – police, immigration or customs – can detain an individual and question them for up to six hours; they may search the individual, or any of their belongings, and may retain those belongings for as long as they may be needed as evidence. And it is a criminal offence if the person detained fails to answer questions, or obstructs the exercise of the functions under the Act. In its intervention, Liberty argued that Schedule 7 is unlawful because it is not subject to sufficient legal safeguards to prevent it from being used arbitrarily against journalists and in such a way that it interferes unjustifiably with the fundamental right to freedom of expression. And in his judgment – with which Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Floyd agreed – in Paragraph 113 Lord Dyson stated that: 'If journalists and their sources can have no expectation of confidentiality, they may decide against providing information on sensitive matters of public interest. ‘That is why the confidentiality of such information is so important.' 'In disagreement with the Divisional Court, I would declare that the stop power conferred by para 2(1) of Schedule 7 is incompatible with article 10 of the Convention in relation to journalistic material in that it is not subject to adequate safeguards against its arbitrary exercise and I would, therefore, allow the appeal in relation to that issue.’ And in Paragraph 119 he said ‘It will be for Parliament to provide such protection.' 'The most obvious safeguard would be some form of judicial or other independent and impartial scrutiny conducted in such a way as to protect the confidentiality in the material,' that Paragraph continued. Liberty has long argued that Schedule 7 is an over broad and intrusive power. It can be exercised without the need for any grounds for suspecting the person stopped has any involvement in terrorism, or any other criminal activity and contains no protection for journalists or their sources. But the Court of Appeal does not have the power, under the Human Rights Act, to change the Schedule 7 power. Instead, it has issued a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, which leaves it to Parliament to decide how to change the law so that it is compatible with Article 10. Rosie Brighouse, Legal Officer for Liberty, said: "This judgment is a major victory for the free press. “Schedule 7 has been a blot on our legal landscape for years – breathtakingly broad and intrusive, ripe for discrimination, routinely misused. Its repeal is long overdue. "It is also a timely reminder of how crucial the Human Rights Act is for protecting journalists' rights. "Once again it [the Human Rights Act] has come to the rescue of press freedom in the face of arbitrary abuse of power by the State." Liberty is raising similar concerns regarding the lack of proper safeguards for journalists in the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill, currently before Parliament. Liberty says the Draft Bill legislates for indiscriminate mass surveillance against the whole population which will include the collection of confidential material by journalists. The Draft Bill also, Liberty says, provides broad powers for the State to intercept and hack individuals' communications. Liberty is concerned that targeted and 'thematic' warrants, interception and hacking warrants can be issued by the Secretary of State – and by chief constables in respect of hacking – subject only to a weak review process undertaken by a Judicial Commissioner; and that the Draft Bill allows access to journalists' communications data to be self-authorised by a large number of public bodies, again subject only to a weak model of judicial confirmation. And given theses issues, Liberty is calling for judicial warrants for all surveillance applications. Liberty is also calling for additional safeguards so that warrants are only issued in respect of surveillance that targets confidential journalistic material where: To read Liberty’s written evidence on the Draft Bill click here.  |
| Posted: 22 Jan 2016 10:02 AM PST
Occupational cancer is the biggest work-related cause of death in the European Union (EU). And occupational carcinogens pose a threat to 1 in 5 workers. To put this in perspective, for every one worker who dies from a work injury, about 20 workers are dying from a work-related cancer. This means that about 100,000 workers or retired workers in the EU are dying every year from a work-related cancer. Hazardous substances continue to be found in the workplace and pose a risk for future disease, although many occupationally-related cancers result from exposures to hazardous agents decades ago. Some substances such as silica and diesel engine exhaust are process-generated, while other work-related cancer risks arise from the way that work is organised – for example night work. Also, new substances like synthetic nano-particles are introduced in many production processes. The burden of work-related cancers is also a threat for the coming generations; for example children of workers exposed to certain substances like endocrine disruptors are at higher risk of cancer. All exposures are preventable. Trade unions in Europe have as a target the elimination of occupational cancer. Trade union safety reps and health and safety committees play a crucial role in pushing for this. At workplaces trade unions are demanding that dangerous substances and processes are eliminated or substituted with less dangerous ones. And trade unions are seeking to improve work organisation in order to avoid or minimise exposures to night and shift work. To reinforce this work trade unions are calling for improvements to the legislative framework at EU level and are seizing the opportunity created by the initiative of the Dutch Presidency. EU legislation is a key instrument because it establishes common minimum requirements for all 28 EU countries. It creates a common playing field avoiding competition between employers of the different EU countries at the cost of workers' lives. The ETUC has six demands in the field of safety, health and welfare at work, for the upcoming Dutch Presidency of the European Union. 1. At EU level, the legislation protecting workers against work related cancers needs to be revised as a matter of urgency. The basic legal provisions were adopted in 1990 in the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive. At that time, it was certainly a positive step forward. However that Directive contains binding occupational exposure limit values (BOELVs) for only three substances. 25 years later there are many gaps. In real life, workers are exposed to hundreds of different substances. Millions of workers in Europe are exposed to dangerous cocktails of three or more different substances. Binding limit values are one of the essential tools for minimising the exposure levels. The ETUC has identified a list of 50+ priority substances for which a limit value has to be included in the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive. We are calling for the Dutch Presidency to ensure that their work programme will update the Directive to include these 50+ priority substances. 2. Workers who have been exposed to carcinogens should be entitled to medical surveillance. It helps to detect as soon as possible a cancer and it may save lives to have rapid treatment at the very beginning of the disease. At present EU legislation entitles workers to health surveillance only for the time during which they are exposed. This is insufficient. A cancer may occur dozens of years after the exposure stopped. The ETUC is calling for the Dutch Presidency to ensure that the Directive is up-dated to provide that workers who have been exposed to carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxic substances or processes should be entitled to a regular health surveillance after, as well as during, their employment period. 3. Endocrine disruptors are also a cause of cancers (in particular breast cancers or prostate cancers). The EU commission had a duty under EU Legislation to provide a definition of endocrine disruptors before the end of 2013 in order to allow a correct implementation of several pieces of legislation relative to pesticides and biocides. Under pressure from employers and manufacturers, the EU Commission did not fulfil its obligation. We want the Commission to adopt, before the end of 2016, the definition of endocrine disruptors on the basis of scientific evidence. 4. Some other pieces of legislation have to be adopted or improved in order to win the battle against work related cancers. Sun radiation has to be included in the scope of application of the directive on artificial optical radiations because it would prevent many skin cancers among workers in sectors like construction or agriculture. The long-term effects of electronic fields should be considered in the specific legislation on that issue. The rules should also limit night work which is a cause of breast cancer. We are calling on the Dutch Presidency to set out a road map of how these essential missing elements will be dealt with. 5. Tens of millions of tonnes of asbestos, the biggest cause of workplace cancer, are still in place in workplaces across Europe, and although there is a ban on the importation or use of asbestos there is no plan to eradicate that which is in place. As a result millions of workers are still being exposed to asbestos every year. We are calling on the Commission to ensure that Member States have in place a national plan for the safe removal and disposal of all asbestos in Europe. 6. Social dialogue between employers and unions is one of the most important ways of ensuring the protection of workers and should be encouraged by governments and the European Commission. The union representing hairdressers in Europe has concluded an agreement with the representative group of employers for a better health and safety framework in their occupation.This agreement would contribute to avoiding cancers among hairdressers. Both sides of industry want the EU to implement it through a binding directive and we are calling on the EU Commission to stop stalling and take the steps to make the Hairdressers Agreement a binding Directive What can you do now? At national level, affiliates and trade unions are asked to: Contact their Ministry of Employment in order to get their governments support for the updating of the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive and to urge support for a stronger enforcement of existing legislation. To be effective this contact needs to be made in January 2016; Contact the Embassy and Consulates of the Netherlands in your country and arrange to meet and outline the trade union demands; Contact your MEPs in order to get their support too and, importantly, make them aware that our lives are more precious than lobbies' interests; Keep the ETUC Health and Safety Committee informed about your actions and what feedback you are getting; Include articles on work-related cancer and how unions are campaigning for improvements in union newsletters and magazines; and Use digital media to inform your networks and raise awareness about this ETUC action for improvement to the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive using #zerocancer. Meanwhile, ensure that you continue to raise the issue with employers to ensure that they take practical levels to remove all carcinogens from the workplace or, where that is not possible, prevent any exposure. Every work-related cancer is avoidable. Trade Union action may make the difference. We know from research that workplaces are safer when they have trade union-led health and safety committees. To can find more information about the issues at stake and the type of jobs that have a high risk of occupational cancer see the ETUC Health and Safety Committee ETUI guide; the Takala report; Risctox; or the TU list of priority substances. Trade unions throughout Europe support the initiative of the Dutch Presidency to update the EU Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive. We need to act now to ensure that the discussions lead to the type of changes that will protect workers from work related cancer in all industries, occupations and countries in Europe.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |