Wednesday, August 5, 2020

Forced Uyghur labour in China: Getting the World attention now

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Syed Ahmed Uzair

Article Title

Forced Uyghur labour in China: Getting the World attention now

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

August 5, 2020

URL

Mihrigul Tursun, former detainee at Uyghur mass internment camps in China, testifying in Washington

Mihrigul Tursun, former detainee at Uyghur mass internment camps in China, testifying in Washington | Source:    D.A. Peterson via Wikimedia

Since 2017 nearly a million ethnic minorities, mostly Uyghur Muslims from the far Western region of the Xinjiang province of China, have been put in  detention centres. The detainees in these camps are forced to renounce their faith and, in some instances, have been subjected to torture.

The Chinese government has termed the program as a combat against “religious extremism” even as it detains members of ethnic minorities from the region and sends them to the so-called “re-education camps”. The experts however believe that these people have been thrust into a systematic program of cultural genocide.

This campaign now appears to be proceeding towards a new direction wherein the Uyghur detainees are being shipped across the country for forced labour in factories.

As per the government officials, these “trainees” have all “graduated” and are being given employment in the form of factory labour to lead a better life. While China has made this their sole criteria to defend the program, there is mounting evidence that suggests that the Uyghurs are being subjected to forced labour and are not allowed to visit their families in Xinjiang.

According to a report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the Uyghurs have been moved under a labour scheme known as Xinjiang aid to factories across the country straight from the detention centers. Many of these factories are a part of the supply chain network for well-renowned brands such as Apple, Nike, and Dell.

At the factories the workers are forced to live in separate rooms and are required to take Mandarin lessons under heavy surveillance. They are not allowed to leave their jobs and go back to their families in Xinjiang either.

John Oliver, host of popular US TV show “Last Week Tonight” recently aired an episode wherein he talked about the Uyghurs. “If this is the first time that you’re hearing about an estimated million people who’ve been held in detention camps – mostly Uighurs but also Kazakhs and other ethnic minorities – you are not alone. And it’s probably because China has done its level best to keep this story from getting out,” says Oliver.

John Oliver further said, “While there is clearly nothing new about horrific practices being hidden deep within the supply chain of global capitalism, what is happening to the Uighurs is particularly appalling”.

Despite China’s attempts at keeping the entire crackdown private, more and more horrifying details have come out in the open about the atrocities meted out to the Uyghurs via testimonies from former detainees.

This has led to an increased pressure on China as well as the big brands utilizing the Chinese supply chain network, to cut ties with factories where human rights are being violated under this Uyghur crackdown.

The US has restricted 11 Chinese companies from buying American goods due to claims of them being linked to the Xinjiang region. A coalition of over 180 organizations also called out dozens of clothing brands and retailers for links to the Xinjiang crackdown and forced Uyghur labour.

While some companies like PVH, the owner of brands like Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger are working on reducing their presence in the Xinjiang region’s supply chain network others like Big W, a discount department store chain operated by Australia's Woolworths group acknowledged that some of their products might be unintentionally coming from the regions of Xinjiang province.

Companies like Nike, Puma, and Adidas have however continued to deny allegations of links to factories with forced Uyghur labour completely. In their statement Nike said, "We have confirmed with our contract suppliers that they are not using textiles or spun yarn from the region."

With the increasing spotlight on the Chinese government’s repressive activities,  international pressure is increasing on the business groups which depend on China for supply change, to come clean on any link of their vendors with Uyghur forced labour. There might be some hope, even if very little, for the plight of the Chinese Uyghurs after all.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:57 PM

India’s Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act: Why the activists are opposing it?

On July 13, 2020 the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment of India notified the release of draft Rules for the much-disputed Transgender (Protection of Rights) Act 2019, and has given citizens 30 days to submit suggestions and objections.

The Ministry first published the draft Rules on April 18, 2020 and asked for comments by April 30, later extended to May 18. Based on the central government’s consideration of the submitted feedback, the updated Rules were once again opened to critique.

As summarised in this analysis by PRS Legislative Research, the Rules lay out the detailed process regarding issuance of Certificate of Identity, and welfare measures, medical facilities and such for transgender people. It also specifies that the National Institute of Social Defence will act as secretariat for the National Council for Transgender Persons.

Analysis

  1. The Act is infamous for claiming to confer the right to self-perceived gender identity, which is also enshrined in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs. Union of India judgement, but continuously neglecting this right thereby going against both a Supreme Court judgement and its own statement.
  2. This manifested once again in Rule 4 of the first draft of Rules which required a psychologist’s report— while paradoxically insisting that it requires “no medical examination”— as part of the application process. This requirement was removed from the recent draft of the Rules after backlash.
  3. Also, as stated in the Act, it is the District Magistrate who will determine the final “correctness” of the application, essentially stripping transgender people of any supposed right to self determination. It is worth noting that this places the District Magistrate, an executive figure, in a judicial position, one of ‘judging’ the ‘authenticity’ of a person’s gender identity.
  4. The above mentioned application will only provide a Certificate of Identity that states a person’s gender identity as transgender. To be able to apply for a revised Certificate of Identity to change one’s gender to male/female as per Rule 6, a person must undergo gender reassignment surgery and on top of that provide a certificate stating this from the Medical Superintendent or Chief Medical Officer from the medical institution which facilitates the surgery.
  5. This is problematic for a large multitude of reasons, including but not limited to: many transgender people not feeling the need for medical or surgical intervention, the policing of transgender people’s identity as only being ‘valid’ if they undergo surgery, and the sky-high costs of surgery contrasted with large numbers of transgender people living in unsupportive environments and/or being unable to finance their surgery.
  6. The right to self-identification continues to be blatantly violated in Rule 8, under which a District Magistrate can reject an application, following which the applicant has a right to appeal the rejection only within 60 days of intimation of the same, as stated in Rule 9.
  7. The right to self-determination was also thrown out the window when the first draft Rules imposed a penalty on “false” applications, once again referring to the arbitrary power of the District Magistrate. This has also been removed following strongly negative reactions.

It is important to compare the two versions of the Rules despite the second one being arguably better and cognizant of some of the demands made by the citizens and other stakeholders.

The first version of the Rules quite clearly depicted the narrowly cisnormative perspective through which transgender lives are seen by the people in power. Despite the many changes as a result of relentless protests, the Act is nowhere near to truly respecting and empowering transgender people.

The decision to give the final say to the District Magistrate- which some argue made the process harder than it used to be before the Act- and the refusal to provide affirmative action or reservations to ensure representation in positions of authority that transgender people have historically been denied access to.

It also does little to counter discrimination, as is seen most clearly in the punishment of sexual assault and rape being much less than for the rape of a cisgender woman. It advocates for plenty of measures but does pitifully little to ensure or enable these changes.  

History of the Act

The history of the Act is a turbulent one. The 2016 Transgender (Protection of Rights) Bill, was almost immediately slammed by activists, NGOs, other human rights organisations, and citizens, for multiple reasons.

The most derided was the provision to set up a ‘District Screening Committee’ which included the District Magistrate, a chief medical officer and a psychiatrist among others, for the sole purpose of scrutinising a transgender person’s body and identity. It also criminalised organised begging, an activity specifically common among the Hijra community.

The Lower House of the Parliament, the Lok Sabha, rejected all the proposed changes by the parliamentary standing committee along with the demands of the transgender community, and passed the bill with some amendments in 2018. A short-lived victory came in the form of the lapse of the bill due to the 2019 general elections.

However, as soon as the NDA government was re-elected, the bill was reintroduced in the Parliament with some more changes, particularly the removal of the section on District Screening Committees, but was still unsatisfactory.

The full text of this bill was not released when it was approved by the Union Cabinet on July 10, 2019, but on the morning that it was tabled in the Lok Sabha, garnering another consecutive year of protest since it was first introduced.

This is the bill as it exists today, having been passed by the Lok Sabha on August 5, 2019. When the motion to refer it to a select committee failed in the Rajya Sabha, it was passed on November 26, 2019, and received presidential assent on December 5, 2019. Recent developments include a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Act.

Despite it becoming the law of the land, transgender citizens and activists such as Esvi Anbu Kothazam and Kanmani Ray continue to criticse it and the insidious transphobic thinking that has always guided it.

Read More