台灣自1967年簽署「公民與政治權利國際公約」與「經濟、社會與文化權利公約」後，今年終於批准並通過國內法，宣示台灣人權往前邁進；但台灣人權促進會7日分析兩大公約通過後的人權保障狀況，卻發現台灣連及格邊緣都未到。

台權會副會長廖福特表示，台權會在每年12月10日國際權日，都會發布台灣十大人權新聞；廖福特指出，3月31日總統馬英九批准施行兩公約至今已9個月，但行政部門施行狀況不如預期，加上缺乏專職機構如國家人權委員會執行，侵害人權狀況依然頻生。

台權會選出包括司法人權、政治公民、原住民、環境、勞動、新移民、性別、媒體與醫療人權方面的新聞，其中政治公民類的「集會遊行自由」已蟬連3 年上榜；日前通過的中科四期爭議引發公民團體批評「環境民主不進反退」；至於莫拉克風災後政府草率遷村作為，也讓原民面臨滅族憂慮。

台權會長林佳範表示，去年因陳雲林來台事件，讓集會遊行法得到修法空間，雖修法版本將許可制改為報備制，但仍限制重重；林佳範不解，政府既然說「把街頭還給人民」，當民眾對集遊法仍有意見時，為何說「再吵、再不滿意就不要修法？」

林佳範指出，公民政治權利公約中規定集會結社是最基本的自由，其中第21條也提到和平集會的權利要被承認，但立院卻於日前通過「行政中立法」，廣泛限制公立學校兼行政職教師及中研院在內所有研究人員不得政治參法；並通過附帶決議要求教育部修改「教育基本法」，以限制所有公立教育工作者的集會自由，根本是向集權國家邁進。

基督教長老教會總會原宣幹事歐密‧偉浪則對風災後政府欲強制遷徙災區部落感到憤怒。歐密‧偉浪指出，這次原民災區佔7成以上，災後政院草率通過重建條例，明訂被劃為特別區域的部落就要強制遷村、降限原民土地使用、主道路不編預算修整，「政府希望一次到位，卻讓族人的原鄉半癱瘓，文化和人權被嚴重侵犯。」

「在地族人根本未充分知情與討論參與的！」歐密‧偉浪批評，族人不斷陳情遊行，抗議政府粗暴訂定政策、忽略原民對家的概念是集體的，將原民全數遷至平地，「會讓族人像吉普賽人一樣流浪，誰也不知道是哪一族！」呼籲政府暫停遷村。

台灣環境行動網秘書長林仁惠痛批環保署破壞環評體制。林仁惠指出，台灣環評政策看似規範得很民主，有委員專家討論、居民陳情最後再定奪；但以中科為例，中科環評前後開了8次、每次都遭到民意反彈、開會時也有環委提出質疑或保留或不同意開發，「但環署官員跟政府單位都在護航！有委員不同意，主席卻說無異議通過！嚴重危害民主程序！」

台權會秘書長蔡季勳說，這10條新聞只是今年人權狀況的冰山一角。兩公約要對台灣人權起功效，需靠公部門整體意識提昇，在提出法案、執行政策的過程，都需以國際人權標準為念；另方面則要靠完整監督機制確保公約落實。

12月10日，馬英九將宣布兩公約施行法生效，民間團體希望社團政府先建立國家人權委員會作為改善人權病症的第一帖藥方，並且立刻停止錯誤政策以避免繼續危害人權。

類型	項目	內容	違法國際公約處
人權政策	簽署國際人權公約	台灣於1967年簽署聯合國「公民與政治國際公約」、「經濟、社會與文化國際公約」，2009年3月31日才由立法院正式批准，全文通過沒有保留。立法院 並同時通過「兩公約施行法」，明定兩公約不必送到聯合國存放即有國內法效力，且要求各級政府機關並應於兩年內檢討法令措施，有不符兩公約規定者必須完成修 法或改進。此施行法以確定將於2009年12月10日生效，法務部也將同時提出一份初步檢視報告，以2011年12月10為期，來完成修法作業。
司法人權	釋字第654號宣告律見時看守所之監聽為違憲	羈押法第23條第2項規定：「看守所長官於准許接見時，應監視之。」第3項則規定「律師接見被告時，亦適用前項之規定。」第28條則規定：「被告在所的言 語、行狀、發受書信內容，可供偵查或審判上之參考者，應呈報檢察官或法院。」簡單的說，在押被告的一舉一動都被監視著，對於被告在所內的不良行為，看守所 甚至可以向檢察官或法官「打小報告」。	ICCPR第14條之3：在判定對他提出的任何刑事指控時，人人完全平等地有資格享受以下最低限度的保證：有相當的時間和便利準備他的辯護並與他自己選擇的律師連絡。
原住民	莫拉克災後重建條例讓原住民面臨滅族	「莫拉克颱風災後重建特別條例」其中第二十條，賦予強制遷村的法源，明定各級政府得就「災區安全堪虞」劃設「特定區域」，「限制居住」或「強制遷居」、「遷村」。	ICESCR一般性評議第21號–參與文化之權利：原住民的文化價值與權利與他們所承襲之土地、與大自然的關係密切相關，因此必須被考量、尊重及保護，以避免傷害其特有的生活方式
環境	中科四期環評案，環境民主不進反退	國科會以發展面板產業為全國「公共利益」之由，將依據「土地徵收條例」第三條強制徵收中科四期二林基地預定地的私有土地，但中科四期是為提供特定廠商擴廠 之土地需求，強制徵收顯然有圖利特定私人廠商之嫌。環評法設置的目的為「預防及減輕開發行為對環境造成不良影響」，但環署審查過程自訂遊戲規則：獨斷制訂 旁聽要點、延續會議等內規，阻礙民眾與環保團體參與環評審議。過程中諸多問題未能釐清，環評卻已強行過關。	ICESCR一般性評議第14號 – 關於享有達到最高建康標準的權利：各國需採取措施，防止環境和職業健康危險，和流行病資料顯示的任何其他威脅。為此，他們應制定和執行減少或消除空氣、水和土壤污染的國家政策，包括重金屬的污染
政治公民	集會及言論自由修法，無法擺脫威權陰影	「集會遊行法」展開修法。然而行政院自第七屆第二會期所提出的條文，雖然取消了集會遊行的刑事刑罰，卻加重了行政刑罰；在禁制區、解散命令、跟強制報備制上，也只是換名稱沒換內容。	ICCPR第19條之：人人有自由發表意見的權利；此項權利包括尋求、接受和傳遞各種消息和思想的自由；ICCPR第21條：和平集會的權利應被承認。對此項權利的行使不得加以限制，除去依照法律以及在民主社會中為維護國家安全或公共安全、公共秩序….而加的限制。
勞工	23萬人休無薪假，政府坐視資方鑽勞基法漏洞	企業實施無薪假，並沒有經過勞工同意，且不同意的勞工仍然被強迫放無薪假或遭裁員所引發的勞資爭議，勞工單位亦未積極介入處理。	ICESCR一般性評議第18號 – 工作權：第六條第一款載有工作權利的定義…包括每個人有權自由決定接受或選擇工作…不以任何方式被強迫作出或從事就業，並有權加入一種保障每個工人就業的制度。它還意味著不被不公平地剝奪就業的權利。
新移民	移民政策小有進步，族群平等仍需加強	7月1日公佈實施《台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例》修正條文，對中國籍配偶與台灣家人權利多了一些保障與尊重，如合法入境的中國籍配偶可有工作權；取得身份證年限從八年縮短為六年，但中國籍配偶取得身份證的年限仍較一般外籍配偶長，集會結社自由亦受限制	ICCPR及ICESCR第二條：本公約所宣布的權利應予普谝行使，而不得有種族、性別….政治或其他見解、國籍或社會出身…或其他身分等任何區分。
性別	社維法罰娼不罰嫖，大法官判違憲	大法官會議11月6日作出釋字第666號解釋，宣告社會秩序維護法第八十條第一項第一款「意圖得利與人姦、宿者，處3日以下拘留或新台幣3萬元以下罰鍰」 條款違憲，已侵害憲法第七條「平等權原則」。長久以來台灣政府「罰娼不罰嫖」，接下來能否對性工作合法化以保障性工作者工作權，形成「娼嫖都不罰」，亦或 轉為「罰娼又罰嫖」、「罰嫖不罰娼」的情況，在大法官這次釋憲文中，還留下不少伏筆。	ICCPR及ICESCR第二條：本公約所宣布的權利應予普谝行使，而不得有種族、性別….政治或其他見解、國籍或社會出身…或其他身分等任何區分。
媒體	記者沒有言論自由還要被告的「年代」	八八水災期間，年代在8月10日晨間時段開放接受災民求救call-in，並向災民表示將會馬上通報相關機構，但卻延遲到當日深夜才通報。經兩名員工反應上級未獲正面回應，轉而在自己的網路部落格抒發心情。豈料，兩名員工竟遭年代予以解雇並提出妨礙名譽之訴。	ICCPR第十九條：人人有權持有主張，不受干涉。有自由發表意見的權利，包括尋求、接受和傳遞各種消息和思想的自由。
醫療科技	醫療法修正，人體試驗受試者權益保障仍待考驗	政府大力推動「生醫科技」，與人體試驗實施尤其相關，受試者的權益保障在其他先進國家發展生技研究為首要之務，過去人體試驗法規未能周全，不論是藥商進入 校園招募受試者，或研究者違反人體試驗研究倫理，都將使經濟弱勢的受試者因此陷入健康受損或權益受損的危險中。今年立法院所通過的醫療法修正，但醫療法僅 限於醫療機構、新醫療器材、新醫療技術、新藥品等研究項目，目前人體試驗卻並不僅限於這些機構及項目，受試者的人權仍需透過全面性的立法	ICESCR第12條：承認人人有權享有能達到的最高的體質和心理健康的標準。

2010 第五屆白色之路青年體驗營 招生中

〈第五屆白色之路青年體驗營〉
反思歷史
推動轉型正義
人權教育世代傳承

2008年5月文建會主辦的人權藝術季活動中，「人權之路青年體驗營」引起熱烈迴響，來自全國各地六十幾位青年在綠島與上百位政治受難者相會，見證了二十多位本省、外省、客籍受難者長輩們半個世紀以前的青春歲月。同年的9月5日到7日，我們又踏上綠島的土地，進行第二屆營隊。2009年1月，我們將場景拉回台北，以更具縱深脈絡的「50-70年代白色恐怖」主題設計，舉辦第三屆營隊。同年七月，再次返回綠島舉辦第四屆營隊。四屆營隊總計約兩百六十位的年輕朋友，先後走入那段被封印的白色恐怖史…

許多學員在親身和受難者長輩接觸前，多對「白色恐怖」的真實性存疑。然而在親眼目睹昔日牢房、埋葬受難者長輩的墓地，以及親耳聆聽長輩們的故事後，在訝異中落淚、相信、並為這段歷史感到錐心之痛。

The 5th Youth Human Rights Camp will be held in Taipei from 2-6 February 2010. The camp is for students to learn about the history of White Terror in Taiwan with a focus on the 1950s to 1970s. The camp is based at the Jingmei Human Rights Memorial which was formerly a military detention centre used to hold political prisoners during the White Terror era. It will also visit other sites associated with White Terror in Taipei. Most importantly it is a chance to learn directly from some of the people who were imprisoned or suffered during the White Terror period.

Foreign students are welcome to apply. However, good listening skills in Mandarin Chinese are essential. I participated in the 4th camp on Green Island in July 2009. It was an incredible and moving experience.

More information about the camp and details of how to apply are in the blog post linked to above. It's all in Chinese. If you can't read it and are interested in attending find someone to help you fill out the application. http://greenislandstory.blogspot.com/

20 years ago, a man who hated women went into Montreal's Ecole Polytechnic, announced he was "fighting feminism", and proceeded to systematically murder as many women he could find as possible before killing himself.

In his extreme expression of hatred, this man prompted us to launch a national discussion of the most pervasive form of gender-based violence, the kind that the average woman is most likely to encounter: Domestic violence.

On December 6th, we think of our sisters who live under the shadow of abuse. And if we are brave, we search the dark corners of our own minds to root out any ways of thinking that make us complicit in this violence.

Police U-turn on photographers and anti-terror laws

Don’t use anti-terror laws to prevent pictures being taken, officers told

By Jerome Taylor and Mark Hughes

Saturday, 5 December 2009

Police forces across the country have been warned to stop using anti-terror laws to question and search innocent photographers after The Independent forced senior officers to admit that the controversial legislation is being widely misused.

The strongly worded warning was circulated by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) last night. In an email sent to the chief constables of England and Wales's 43 police forces, officers were advised that Section 44 powers should not be used unnecessarily against photographers. The message says: "Officers and community support officers are reminded that we should not be stopping and searching people for taking photos. Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether from the casual tourist or professional, is unacceptable."

Chief Constable Andy Trotter, chairman of Acpo's media advisory group, took the decision to send the warning after growing criticism of the police's treatment of photographers.

Writing in today's Independent, he says: "Everyone... has a right to take photographs and film in public places. Taking photographs... is not normally cause for suspicion and there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place."

He added: "We need to make sure that our officers and Police Community Support Officers [PCSOs] are not unnecessarily targeting photographers just because they are going about their business. The last thing in the world we want to do is give photographers a hard time or alienate the public. We need the public to help us.

"Photographers should be left alone to get on with what they are doing. If an officer is suspicious of them for some reason they can just go up to them and have a chat with them – use old-fashioned policing skills to be frank – rather than using these powers, which we don't want to over-use at all."

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act allows the police to stop and search anyone they want, without need for suspicion, in a designated area. The exact locations of many of these areas are kept secret from the public, but are thought to include every railway station in and well-known tourist landmarks thought to be at risk of terrorist attacks.

Many photographers have complained that officers are stopping them in the mistaken belief that the legislation prohibits photographs in those areas. Forces who use Section 44, most commonly London's Metropolitan Police, have repeatedly briefed and guided frontline officers on how to use the powers without offending the public.

But privately senior officers are "exasperated, depressed and embarrassed" by the actions of junior officers and, particularly, PCSOs who routinely misuse the legislation. One source said that an "internal urban myth" had built up around police officers who believe that photography in Section 44 areas is not allowed.

The aberrations have resulted in nearly 100 complaints to the police watchdog. Since April 2008 every complaint made by a member of the public about the use of Section 44 powers, unlike other complaints, must be forwarded to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. In the past 18 months there have been 94 complaints. Eight of these specifically mentioned the fact that the issue arose around photography. Acpo's communiqué has been welcomed by rank-and-file police officers and photographers alike.

Simon Reed, the chairman of the Police Federation, which represents England and Wales's 140,000 rank-and-file officers, said: "I think some new guidance will be welcome."

New orders: The message to officers

This is the message circulated by Andy Trotter, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, to police forces in England and Wales.

"Officers and PCSOs are reminded that we should not be stopping and searching people for taking photos.

"There are very clear rules around how stop-and-search powers can be used. However, there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.

"We need to co-operate with the media and amateur photographers. They play a vital role as their images help us identify criminals.

"We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever.

"However, unnecessarily restricting photography, whether from the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and worse still, it undermines public confidence in the police service."

A personal viewpoint: 'I was reminded why I left the police'

I spent 27 years as a PC in the Met, but it was during a trip to my old police station with a friend late last year that I was starkly reminded why I eventually decided to leave.

Since 2003 I have been living in France, where I coach a children's rugby team not far from Toulouse. But last December my sister needed to see a specialist in Harley Street so I went with her and a rugby friend of mine back to London for the week.

While my sister went to the doctors I suggested to my friend, Will, that we should go and take a look at Albany Street police station near Regent's Park, which was where I spent my first eight years as a copper.

It's the kind of station that looks like something out of Dixon of Dock Green, it has a lovely little blue police light outside the entrance and I asked Will whether he'd take a picture of me standing underneath it. Within seconds we found ourselves approached by two PCSOs who told us that we were not allowed to take photographs of police stations.

I didn't want to be a sad old git by telling stories of my past and the nostalgia I felt for the place. So instead I said: "We're tourists. We want a picture of that Blue lamp, it's iconic and it represents London bobbies." But they didn't want any of it and ordered us to stop taking photographs. The second PCSO started asking Will for his details which he began to give before I informed him that he was under no obligation to do so.

I'd clearly failed what the police call "the attitude test" because they radioed for back-up from inside the police station and we were soon joined by a police constable. Often during my time as a policeman I would hear this policy. If someone was bolshy, argumentative or challenging in any manner, refusing to play by the police rules and not willing to show deference, then they had failed the "attitude test".

I guess I hoped the PC would show more common sense but he repeated the same line, that the police station was in a "sensitive zone" and that we had to stop taking photographs. Eventually we gave up and walked away.