top of page

Human Rights Barometer for G20 Members - Part 2



3.4.2 Australia’s Human Rights Barometer Analysis

 

3.4.2.1 Freedom of Assembly and Association

 

In Australia, freedom of assembly and association are fundamental rights protected by both the Constitution and various laws. While Australia does not have a formal bill of rights, these freedoms are recognised under common law and protected through legislation at both federal and state levels. For instance, the Fair Work Act 2009 protects the right to freedom of association in the context of union membership and collective bargaining.

 

Australians generally enjoy the right to peaceful assembly, including the right to protest. Laws across states and territories regulate the conditions for public assemblies, often requiring permits for large gatherings. However, certain limitations exist, particularly concerning public safety, national security, and public order. In some instances, law enforcement's response to protests has raised concerns, especially in cases involving indigenous land rights, environmental activism, and refugee advocacy.

 

There have also been debates about laws like the Anti-Discrimination Act in Queensland and other states, which criminalise incitement to discrimination and racial hatred but can potentially limit certain forms of protest and speech. Additionally, anti-terrorism laws have led to heightened scrutiny of some groups, raising concerns about freedom of association in particular circumstances.

 

Despite these limitations, Australia’s legal system broadly supports freedom of assembly and association, allowing civil society, trade unions, and other groups to operate freely.

 

Score: 4/5 – "Legal protections exist, but with some restrictions (e.g., permits required for large gatherings). Civil society organisations operate mostly freely, though there may be occasional government scrutiny."

 

References:

 


3.4.2.2 Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process

 

In Australia, the right to a fair trial and due process is protected by both domestic laws and international commitments. While Australia does not have a constitutional bill of rights, principles of due process are embedded in the legal system through common law, statutes, and international agreements, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Australia is a signatory. These principles ensure that individuals are entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court, the presumption of innocence, and access to legal representation.

 

While the legal system generally upholds due process, certain areas raise concerns. Australia’s use of mandatory detention for asylum seekers has been widely criticised by human rights organisations for violating due process rights, as detainees often face long periods of detention without judicial review. Additionally, anti-terrorism laws allow for the detention of individuals without charge for extended periods, raising concerns about the potential erosion of fair trial protections.

 

In conclusion, while Australia has a strong legal framework supporting the right to a fair trial and due process, issues such as access to legal representation and the treatment of asylum seekers and terrorism suspects remain contentious.

 

Score: 4/5 – "Judicial independence is largely upheld, but there may be occasional political influence in sensitive cases. Legal representation is accessible, though certain marginalised groups may face hurdles."

 

References:

 

 

3.4.2.3 Political Participation and Democratic Governance

 

Political participation and democratic governance in Australia are supported by a robust system based on constitutional principles and democratic institutions. Australia operates as a federal parliamentary democracy, with a constitutional monarchy. The political system is grounded in regular, free, and fair elections, with mandatory voting ensuring high voter turnout. Citizens are encouraged to engage in the political process, and elections are held at federal, state, and local levels.

 

Australia's preferential voting system ensures that elected representatives reflect a broader spectrum of the electorate. Political parties, including the dominant Liberal and Labor parties, as well as smaller parties like the Greens and independents, participate actively in the political process. The independent Australian Electoral Commission oversees elections to ensure transparency and fairness.

 

Despite strong democratic institutions, challenges remain, particularly regarding the influence of money in politics and the representation of minority and Indigenous communities. The role of political donations and the influence of corporate interests on policymaking have been subjects of public concern. Additionally, while Indigenous Australians have the right to vote, they remain underrepresented in political institutions, and ongoing debates about constitutional recognition and treaty-making reflect broader issues of governance and inclusion.

 

In conclusion, while Australia’s democratic governance is well-established and generally strong, ongoing debates about political representation, the role of money in politics, and the participation of minority groups continue to shape the country’s political landscape.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Elections are generally free and fair, though there may be some political interference. Political opposition is allowed, but it faces certain challenges or limitations.”

 

References:

 


3.4.2.4 Freedom from Discrimination

 

Freedom from discrimination in Australia is protected by a strong legal framework that includes both constitutional provisions and comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation.

 

Australia has made significant progress in addressing racial discrimination, but challenges persist, particularly for Indigenous Australians and migrant communities. Indigenous Australians face systemic disadvantages in areas like health, education, and employment, and they are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system. The Uluru Statement from the Heart and ongoing debates about Indigenous constitutional recognition highlight the need for deeper structural reforms.

 

Australia has been at the forefront of promoting gender equality, with strong protections under the Sex Discrimination Act. However, gender-based violence, wage inequality, and underrepresentation in leadership positions remain significant issues. Movements like #MeToo and ongoing campaigns for gender equality in the workplace have brought attention to the need for further reforms.

 

LGBTQ+ rights have advanced significantly in recent years, with the legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2017 marking a significant milestone. Despite these gains, LGBTQ+ individuals continue to experience discrimination in certain areas, particularly in healthcare and employment, and there are ongoing debates around religious exemptions that allow discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in some settings.

 

In summary, while Australia has comprehensive anti-discrimination laws in place, enforcement remains uneven, and certain communities continue to face systemic discrimination, particularly Indigenous Australians and marginalised groups.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Anti-discrimination laws exist but are weakly enforced or selectively applied. Significant disparities exist for certain minority groups.”

 

References:

 

 

3.4.2.5 Freedom from Torture and Inhuman Treatment

 

Freedom from torture and inhuman treatment in Australia is protected under both domestic and international law. The Criminal Code Act 1995 criminalises acts of torture, and Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), which prohibits torture in all circumstances. Additionally, the Australian Human Rights Commission plays a role in overseeing and investigating complaints of mistreatment and upholding these protections.

 

Despite these strong legal frameworks, concerns remain regarding the treatment of certain populations, particularly asylum seekers and Indigenous Australians. Australia’s offshore detention of asylum seekers on islands like Nauru and Manus Island has been heavily criticised by human rights organisations for involving inhuman and degrading treatment. Reports of poor living conditions, inadequate medical care, and prolonged detention without clear legal resolution have raised serious concerns about the country’s compliance with international human rights obligations.

 

Indigenous Australians have also reported instances of excessive force and mistreatment, particularly in the criminal justice system. The high rates of incarceration of Indigenous people, alongside documented instances of abuse and mistreatment in custody, underscore the ongoing challenges in ensuring freedom from torture and inhuman treatment for all individuals in Australia.

 

.While Australia has a solid legal framework, issues related to the treatment of asylum seekers and Indigenous Australians highlight the need for ongoing vigilance and reform.

 

Score: 3/5 – "Torture and inhuman treatment are prohibited by law but reports of abuse by law enforcement or security forces are not uncommon. Accountability for violators is inconsistent."

 

References:

 

 

3.4.2.6 Protection of Human Rights Defenders

 

In Australia, human rights defenders are generally able to operate in a supportive legal environment, with constitutional protections for free speech, assembly, and association. However, they sometimes face challenges, particularly when addressing issues related to Indigenous rights, environmental protection, and refugee advocacy. Defenders working on Indigenous issues often encounter resistance, including harassment or legal challenges, when advocating for land rights or addressing the treatment of Indigenous communities in the criminal justice system.

 

Environmental activists have faced increasing scrutiny, particularly those protesting against large-scale infrastructure or mining projects. In some instances, environmental defenders have been subjected to legal action or intimidation by corporations and government authorities, particularly under laws designed to limit civil disobedience.

 

Human rights defenders advocating for refugees, especially those working to highlight the conditions in offshore detention centres, also face challenges. There have been reports of intimidation and restrictions on access to these facilities, limiting the ability of defenders to expose human rights abuses.

 

Despite these challenges, Australia’s legal system provides avenues for defenders to seek protection and address violations, and civil society remains strong. However, defenders in certain sectors continue to face obstacles, especially when advocating against powerful interests or government policies.

 

Score: 3/5 – "Human rights defenders face some harassment or legal challenges, particularly when criticising the government. Protections are weak or inconsistently applied."

 

References:

 


3.4.2.7       Freedom of Expression

 

Freedom of Expression in Australia is largely protected by the Constitution, common law, and various federal and state laws. While the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee free speech, the High Court of Australia has interpreted an implied right to political communication, ensuring the protection of speech related to political and public matters. Additionally, Australia is a signatory to international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which safeguards Freedom of Expression.

 

Despite these protections, there are limitations on free expression, particularly in areas concerning hate speech, defamation, and national security. Australia's defamation laws are among the strictest in the world, with media organisations frequently facing lawsuits for publishing critical or investigative pieces. Although recent reforms have aimed to balance freedom of the press and the protection of individual reputations, concerns remain about the impact of defamation laws on free speech.

 

Laws against hate speech, such as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, prohibit speech that incites racial hatred or vilifies groups based on race, ethnicity, or religion. While these laws aim to protect vulnerable groups from harm, they have raised debates about the balance between preventing hate speech and safeguarding free expression.

 

In the context of national security, legislation such as the Espionage and Foreign Interference Act has broadened the scope of government control over information, raising concerns about the potential suppression of investigative journalism and whistleblowing on sensitive political matters. Journalists and human rights groups have expressed concerns that these laws could be used to limit press freedom and restrict access to information in the public interest.

 

Score: 4/5 – "Freedom of Expression is generally protected, though some restrictions apply, particularly on sensitive topics. The press operates freely, but there may be occasional government pressure."

 

References:

 


3.4.2.8 Freedom of Religion or Belief

 

Australia guarantees freedom of religion, with minimal restrictions on religious practice. Religious communities, including minority groups, generally operate freely, and there are few cases of government interference. Pew Research Center (2024) has classified Australia as having low government restrictions on religious practices.

 

Freedom of religion or belief in Australia is protected by both domestic law and international treaties. While the Australian Constitution does not explicitly guarantee religious freedom, Section 116 prevents the government from making laws that establish any religion, impose religious observance, or prohibit the free exercise of religion. Australia is also a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which reinforces protections for freedom of religion or belief.

 

Australia is home to a diverse range of religious communities, including Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judaism, as well as a significant portion of the population identifying as non-religious. Religious groups generally operate freely without government interference, and religious tolerance is a key feature of the country’s social fabric.

 

However, some challenges remain. Religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Jews, have reported incidents of discrimination, hate speech, and occasional hate crimes. These incidents are often isolated, but they raise concerns about religious intolerance. In response, the government has taken steps to strengthen laws against hate crimes and religious discrimination, particularly through anti-discrimination legislation at the federal and state levels.

 

In summary, while Australia provides strong protections for freedom of religion or belief, ongoing challenges related to discrimination and balancing religious rights with other human rights continue to be discussed.

 

Score: 5/5 – "The country guarantees complete freedom of religion or belief, allowing all individuals to practice their faith or choose no faith without fear of persecution. Religious communities operate freely and equally."

 

References:

 

 

3.4.2.9 Right to Privacy

 

The right to privacy in Australia is protected under various laws, although the Constitution does not explicitly mention privacy rights. Australia has developed a robust framework for privacy protection, primarily through the Privacy Act 1988, which governs how personal information is collected, used, and disclosed by both government and private entities. This law is administered by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), which ensures compliance with the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs).

 

The Privacy Act includes provisions to protect individuals’ data, such as the right to access and correct personal information held by organisations and the right to be informed about how personal data is used. It also covers protections for sensitive information, such as health data and financial records. However, Australia’s privacy protections are not as comprehensive as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), leading to debates about the need for stronger laws, particularly in the digital age.

 

Concerns have been raised about government surveillance, particularly with laws like the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, which allows law enforcement agencies to access communications data under certain circumstances. Australia’s metadata retention laws have also faced criticism for enabling the government to collect and store vast amounts of telecommunications data without adequate oversight, raising fears about privacy violations.

 

In summary, while Australia has solid privacy protections through legislation like the Privacy Act, concerns persist regarding government surveillance and the adequacy of privacy safeguards in the digital era.

 

Score: 3/5 – "Privacy rights are legally recognised, but government surveillance is more common, and protections for personal data are inconsistent. Individuals have limited recourse for violations."

 

References:

 

 

3.4.2.10 Right to Life and Security of Person

 

The right to life and security of person in Australia is protected by various legal frameworks and institutions. While the Australian Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to life, Australia’s commitment to this right is grounded in common law principles and international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Australia is a party.

 

Australia generally enjoys high levels of personal security, but challenges exist, particularly in relation to certain groups. Indigenous Australians face disproportionately high rates of violence, including higher levels of death in custody, and the issue of police accountability remains an area of concern. Despite legal protections, reports of excessive use of force by police, particularly during interactions with Indigenous people and those with mental health issues, have raised concerns about the adequacy of safeguards for the right to security.

 

Australia also faces challenges related to gender-based violence. The country has high rates of domestic violence, with women and children being particularly vulnerable. Efforts have been made to address this through national initiatives, such as the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. However, violence against women, including intimate partner violence, remains a significant issue affecting the right to life and personal security for many Australians.

 

While Australia provides strong legal protections against threats to life and security, issues like police violence, Indigenous rights, and gender-based violence require ongoing attention to ensure that these rights are fully realised for all citizens.

 

Score: 3/5 – "The right to life is legally recognised, but certain populations face systemic violence or abuse. Law enforcement often operates with impunity."

 

References:

 

 

3.4.2.11 Overall Score for Australia: 3.6/5

 

Australia’s overall score reflects a country with strong legal frameworks in place for protecting civil and political rights but with noticeable gaps in enforcement for marginalised groups, particularly Indigenous Australians. While the country upholds free elections, freedom of assembly, expression, and religion, issues such as police brutality, discrimination, and limitations on privacy rights remain concerning. Australia's robust judicial system is offset by challenges in accessibility, especially for vulnerable populations. These combined factors demonstrate that while Australia performs well in several areas, significant improvements are still needed in enforcement and equality across different sectors of society.

 

3.4.3 Brazil’s Human Rights Barometer Analysis

 

3.4.3.1 Freedom of Assembly and Association

 

In Brazil, freedom of assembly and association is enshrined in the Constitution of 1988, which guarantees citizens the right to assemble peacefully and form associations without interference. Article 5 of the Constitution explicitly protects these rights, ensuring that individuals and groups can gather and organise for political, social, or labour purposes without prior authorisation, provided the assembly is peaceful and does not conflict with other constitutional principles.

 

However, in practice, these rights are sometimes restricted. Law enforcement agencies have been criticised for using excessive force during protests, particularly in large cities. Human rights organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented cases of police violence against protesters, especially during demonstrations related to issues such as political corruption, social inequality, and environmental concerns. There have also been reports of arbitrary arrests and intimidation of protestors.

 

Additionally, while trade unions and other associations are legally recognised, Brazil has seen efforts to restrict the activities of labour unions, especially under recent administrations. Strikes and protests organised by trade unions and other civil society groups often face governmental resistance, including legal challenges that limit their effectiveness.

 

Despite these challenges, civil society in Brazil remains vibrant, with numerous social movements advocating for the rights of marginalised groups, environmental protection, and political reforms. Nevertheless, ongoing concerns about police violence and legal restrictions on protests underscore the tension between constitutional guarantees and the reality on the ground.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Legal protections are inconsistent or weak. Protests are often subject to heavy policing or restrictions. Civil society groups face bureaucratic hurdles or occasional harassment.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.3.2 Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process

 

The right to a fair trial and due process in Brazil is protected under the Constitution of 1988, particularly in Article 5, which guarantees equality before the law, the right to legal defence, and the presumption of innocence. These principles are reinforced by Brazil's ratification of international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

 

However, the Brazilian judicial system faces significant challenges that undermine these rights. One of the key issues is the lengthy delays in the judicial process. Brazil’s court system is often overwhelmed, leading to extensive case backlogs and prolonged pretrial detention. Many individuals, particularly those from marginalised communities, spend long periods in detention awaiting trial, which has raised concerns about violations of the right to a timely and fair trial.

 

Moreover, access to quality legal representation is unequal, with wealthier defendants having better legal resources while low-income individuals often rely on an underfunded and overburdened public defender system. Human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have highlighted cases of abuse in the judicial process, such as arbitrary arrests, coerced confessions, and instances of torture, particularly within the prison system.

 

Efforts at reform have been slow, but there have been initiatives aimed at improving the efficiency of the courts and ensuring better legal protections for defendants. Despite these reforms, the judicial system's inefficiencies, coupled with social and economic inequality, continue to pose significant barriers to fully realising the right to a fair trial and due process in Brazil.

 

Score: 2/5 – “The judiciary is compromised by political or executive influence. Arbitrary detention is frequent, and trials are often delayed or unfair.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.3.3 Political Participation and Democratic Governance

 

Brazil is a federal republic with a democratic system of governance, and political participation is constitutionally guaranteed under the Constitution of 1988. Citizens have the right to vote, and voting is compulsory for those aged 18 to 70. Elections at the federal, state, and municipal levels are held regularly, and Brazil has a history of peaceful transfers of power through free and fair elections, overseen by the Superior Electoral Court.

 

The political landscape in Brazil is diverse, with multiple political parties, though it is often dominated by two major blocs: the Workers' Party (PT) and more conservative parties like the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) and Liberal Party (PL). While elections are generally seen as free and fair, the political environment has been marked by high levels of polarisation, especially during recent elections.

 

Corruption remains a significant issue, affecting public trust in political institutions. High-profile corruption scandals, such as the Operation Car Wash investigation, exposed widespread graft involving top politicians and business leaders, which led to several prosecutions but also deepened political divisions. Efforts to address corruption through reforms have been slow, although anti-corruption measures are in place and regularly updated.

 

Social inequality also plays a role in limiting political participation. While formal rights to vote and run for office are guaranteed, the influence of wealth on political campaigns and the underrepresentation of marginalised groups, such as Indigenous communities, women, and Afro-Brazilians, in decision-making positions remains a challenge.

 

Despite these issues, Brazil maintains a strong tradition of civil society engagement, with NGOs, social movements, and advocacy groups actively participating in the political process, particularly around issues like environmental protection, Indigenous rights, and social justice.

 

Score: 4/5 – “Elections are generally free and fair, though there may be some political interference. Political opposition is allowed, but it faces certain challenges or limitations.”

 

References:

 

 

3.4.3.4 Freedom from Discrimination

 

Freedom from discrimination is guaranteed in Brazil under Article 5 of the Constitution of 1988, which prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, age, religion, and other personal characteristics. Brazil is also a party to various international human rights treaties, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

 

Despite these legal protections, discrimination remains a significant issue in Brazil. Racial discrimination is deeply entrenched, particularly against Afro-Brazilians and Indigenous populations, who face social and economic disparities, including limited access to quality education, healthcare, and employment opportunities. Afro-Brazilians are also disproportionately affected by police violence and face higher rates of incarceration.

 

Gender-based discrimination is another major concern. While Brazil has made progress in promoting gender equality, women continue to experience wage gaps, underrepresentation in leadership positions, and high rates of violence. The country has some of the highest rates of femicide in the world, despite the introduction of laws like the Maria da Penha Law aimed at combating domestic violence.

 

LGBTQ+ individuals also face discrimination and violence, despite recent advances in legal protections, such as the legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2013. Transgender individuals, in particular, are frequently targets of violence, and Brazil has one of the highest rates of violence against the LGBTQ+ community globally.

 

Indigenous populations are similarly marginalised, facing discrimination, land rights violations, and inadequate protection from government policies that often favour large agribusinesses and infrastructure projects. Indigenous communities have been vocal in their resistance to encroachments on their lands, but they face significant threats, including violence and political exclusion.

 

Efforts to address these issues are ongoing, with advocacy from civil society groups and international pressure, but systemic discrimination persists across various sectors of society.

Score: 3/5 – “Anti-discrimination laws exist but are weakly enforced or selectively applied. Significant disparities exist for certain minority groups.”

 

References:

 

 

3.4.3.5 Freedom from Torture and Inhuman Treatment

 

Freedom from torture and inhuman treatment is guaranteed under Brazil’s Constitution of 1988, and the country is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). Despite these legal safeguards, there are significant concerns about the use of torture, particularly by law enforcement and within the prison system.

 

Police brutality and the use of excessive force are widespread in Brazil, particularly in low-income, predominantly Afro-Brazilian communities. Human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented numerous cases of torture and ill-treatment, often during arrests or interrogations. Torture is frequently used to extract confessions or to intimidate and punish detainees. The victims are often individuals from vulnerable or marginalised communities, including prisoners and young men from poor urban areas.

 

Brazil’s prison system is notorious for its overcrowding, violence, and lack of adequate medical care, which exacerbates the risk of inhuman treatment. Many prisons are severely overcrowded, with detainees living in unsanitary conditions, and instances of violence between inmates are common. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and local organisations have repeatedly raised concerns about the conditions in these facilities, which have been described as amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment.

 

Despite legal frameworks aimed at preventing torture, accountability remains inconsistent. Law enforcement officials accused of torture or excessive force are rarely prosecuted, and impunity for such acts is a significant issue. Although some reforms have been introduced, including the establishment of torture prevention mechanisms, these measures are often under-resourced and ineffective in practice.

 

In conclusion, while Brazil has strong legal protections against torture, systemic issues such as police violence, impunity, and inhumane conditions in prisons continue to undermine the country’s ability to fully realise freedom from torture and inhuman treatment.

 

Score: 2/5 – "Torture and inhuman treatment are reported frequently, and legal protections are weak or rarely enforced. Law enforcement and security forces often act with impunity."

 

References:

 

  

3.4.3.6 Protection of Human Rights Defenders

 

Human rights defenders in Brazil, particularly those working on environmental and indigenous rights, face significant threats. Amnesty International has documented ongoing violence against activists, especially those opposing illegal deforestation and land seizures in the Amazon. These defenders often receive death threats, and there have been numerous cases of assassination, with little accountability from the state.

 

Furthermore, Human Rights Watch reports that environmental defenders and indigenous leaders continue to be threatened and killed at alarming rates, particularly in rural areas where illegal logging and land seizures are rampant. The Brazilian government's failure to adequately protect these defenders exacerbates the issue, with perpetrators often escaping justice due to weak law enforcement.

 

Further corroborating these claims, Global Witness identified Brazil as one of the most dangerous countries for environmental defenders, particularly those standing up against deforestation in the Amazon. The organisation reported several high-profile cases of violence against indigenous activists and environmental defenders, with many victims receiving little protection from the state[1].

 

Score: 2/5 – “Human rights defenders are frequently persecuted, harassed, or jailed for their work. Legal protections are minimal, and the state often seeks to suppress their activities.”

 

References:

 

 

3.4.3.7 Freedom of Expression

 

While Brazil guarantees Freedom of Expression by law, journalists often face harassment, violence, and legal challenges. In the 2024 RSF Press Freedom Index, Brazil’s score slightly improved from 58.67 to 58.59, yet its global ranking fell from 82nd to 92nd due to ongoing threats to journalists, particularly those covering corruption, organised crime, and deforestation.

 

Under President Lula’s government, relations with the media have improved, but structural issues like concentrated media ownership and violence against journalists persist. Reporters working in rural areas are especially vulnerable to physical attacks and threats.

 

Additionally, Human Rights Watch reports increasing threats and violence against journalists investigating sensitive political issues, with frequent cases of online harassment and attacks on social media platforms.

 

Score: 2/5 – "Freedom of Expression is heavily restricted. The press and media are frequently censored, and individuals face legal consequences or violence for expressing dissent."

 

References:

 

 

3.4.3.8 Freedom of Religion or Belief

 

Brazil guarantees freedom of religion, and religious communities generally operate freely. However, Afro-Brazilian religions such as Candomblé and Umbanda continue to face violence and discrimination, particularly from evangelical groups.

 

While government restrictions on religion are low, according to Pew Research Center (2024), social hostilities based on religion remain a significant issue for minority religious communities.

 

Score: 3/5 – "Legal protections exist but are inconsistently enforced. Religious minorities may face discrimination, and the state may impose limitations on religious practices."


References:

 

 

3.4.3.9 Right to Privacy

 

Brazil’s General Data Protection Law (LGPD) establishes a legal framework for personal privacy and data security. While the LGPD has been praised for providing solid protections, significant concerns persist regarding government surveillance, particularly in the context of organised crime and anti-corruption investigations. Human Rights Watch (2022) has documented instances where Brazilian authorities employed invasive surveillance techniques, often without adequate judicial oversight, leading to violations of citizens' privacy rights.

 

Further concerns arise from the expansion of surveillance technologies. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reported that Brazil's government has continued to expand its surveillance infrastructure, often without appropriate legal oversight. This includes monitoring individuals’ online activities, which raises concerns about the state infringing on civil liberties and personal privacy.

 

Score: 3/5 – “Privacy rights are legally recognised, but government surveillance is more common, and protections for personal data are inconsistent.”

 

References:

 

 

3.4.3.10 Right to Life and Security of Person

 

Brazil continues to face alarmingly high levels of violent crime and police brutality, particularly affecting marginalised communities. Human Rights Watch (2023) reported over 6,145 police killings in 2021, with most victims being Afro-Brazilians from low-income areas.

 

The disproportionate use of lethal force by police, especially in favelas, continues to raise significant human rights concerns. Amnesty International has also highlighted the lack of accountability for such killings, with law enforcement often acting with impunity, making it one of the most pressing human rights issues in Brazil.

 

Score: 2/5 – “The right to life is not consistently protected. Arbitrary killings, state violence, or widespread abuses by security forces are common, and accountability mechanisms are weak.”

 

References:


 

3.4.3.11 Overall score for Brazil: 2.6/5

 

Brazil’s overall score reflects a nation with a strong legal framework for the protection of civil and political rights but significant challenges in enforcing these protections. Systemic issues, such as police violence, discrimination against marginalised groups, and threats to Freedom of Expression, indicate a gap between legal commitments and actual practice. While Brazil upholds international and regional human rights standards, further efforts are needed to address these ongoing enforcement challenges across the country.

 

3.4.4 Canada’s Human Rights Barometer Analysis

 

3.4.4.1 Freedom of Assembly and Association

 

Canada’s Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of assembly and association. Peaceful protests and demonstrations are generally allowed, and civil society organisations operate freely without fear of retribution. However, there are some restrictions, particularly concerning Indigenous land disputes and environmental protests, where police intervention has been heavy at times.

 

Score: 4/5 – "Legal protections exist, but with some restrictions (e.g., permits required for large gatherings). Civil society organisations operate mostly freely, though there may be occasional government scrutiny."

 

References:

 

  

3.4.4.2 Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process

 

Canada's justice system, while independent and generally accessible, still faces challenges, especially for Indigenous and low-income individuals. Human Rights Watch reports that systemic discrimination and delays in court processes create barriers for these groups.

 

Additionally, the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice highlights that many Canadians cannot afford legal representation, which results in a growing number of self-represented litigants. This lack of representation affects the overall effectiveness of the justice system, leading to unresolved disputes with significant social and economic costs.

 

Score: 4/5 – "Judicial independence is largely upheld, but there may be occasional political influence in sensitive cases. Legal representation is accessible, though certain marginalised groups may face hurdles."


References:

 

  

3.4.4.3 Political Participation and Democratic Governance

 

Canada guarantees free and fair elections, and all individuals have the right to participate in the democratic process. Political opposition operates without interference, and the electoral system is transparent and well-managed. However, challenges persist concerning political representation for Indigenous and marginalised communities, despite strong overall voter participation and engagement. According to International IDEA’s Democracy Tracker, Canada continues to maintain a high standard of democratic governance, though some inequalities remain in political representation.

 

Score: 5/5 – "The country guarantees free and fair elections, and all individuals have the right to participate in government. Political opposition is allowed and respected, and there is a transparent process for democratic governance."

 

References:

 

 

3.4.4.4 Freedom from Discrimination

 

Canada has strong anti-discrimination laws in place, with the Canadian Human Rights Act and provincial legislation offering protections against discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and other characteristics.

 

However, according to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, Indigenous communities, Black Canadians, and LGBTQIA+ individuals still face systemic discrimination, particularly in areas like employment, housing, and interactions with law enforcement.

 

Score: 4/5 – "Legal protections against discrimination exist but may be inconsistently enforced. Discrimination is not widespread, though certain marginalised groups may face barriers."

 

References:

 

  

3.4.4.5 Freedom from Torture and Inhuman Treatment

 

Canada has robust legal protections against torture, in line with the Convention against Torture (CAT), to which it is a signatory. However, issues related to police use of excessive force, particularly towards racial minorities and Indigenous peoples, have been highlighted in recent years. Amnesty International reports incidents of excessive force during arrests and protests, often with limited accountability for police officers involved in such abuses. Amnesty International  and Human Rights Watch highlight these issues, particularly during arrests and protests, where accountability for law enforcement misconduct remains inconsistent. The lack of comprehensive accountability measures for officers involved in these incidents, combined with reports of disproportionate policing in marginalised communities, points to ongoing challenges in fully enforcing these protections.

 

The United Nations Committee Against Torture's 2018 Concluding Observations on Canada raised concerns about the disproportionate use of force by law enforcement, especially toward racial minorities and Indigenous populations. The report emphasised the need for Canada to enhance accountability mechanisms for police misconduct. The Committee also acknowledged Canada's positive steps in establishing independent investigative bodies, like the Independent Investigations Office and Bureau des Enquêtes Indépendantes, but it encouraged further measures to address systemic issues.

 

Score: 4/5 – "Legal protections exist and are generally enforced, though there may be occasional reports of abuse by law enforcement. Violators are usually held accountable."

 

References:

 

  

3.4.4.6 Protection of Human Rights Defenders

 

Canada generally protects human rights defenders, allowing them to operate freely and without fear of persecution. However, Amnesty International reports occasional harassment and pressure, particularly for Indigenous and environmental activists who challenge major development projects, such as pipelines. While the legal framework supports human rights defenders, the enforcement of protections can be inconsistent, especially in rural areas.

 

Human Rights Watch highlights that these activists, especially those opposing natural resource projects, often face harassment, legal actions, and disproportionate use of force by law enforcement. The Canadian government has made efforts to protect rights defenders, but ongoing concerns about police actions during protests and the targeting of activists remain.

 

Score: 4/5 – "Human rights defenders generally operate freely, but there may be occasional instances of harassment or government pressure. Legal protections exist, though they may not always be fully enforced."

 

References:

 

  

3.4.4.7 Freedom of Expression

 

Canada has comprehensive legal protections for Freedom of Expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The press operates freely, and dissenting views are tolerated. However, there have been occasional concerns raised about government surveillance and hate speech legislation that could limit free expression in some contexts.

 

Reporters Without Borders (2024) ranks Canada highly on its Press Freedom Index, though Indigenous and community media sometimes face financial and bureaucratic challenges.

 

Score: 4/5 – "Freedom of Expression is generally protected, though some restrictions apply, particularly on sensitive topics (e.g., national security). The press operates freely, but there may be occasional government pressure."

 

References:

 

  

3.4.4.8 Freedom of Religion or Belief

 

Canada guarantees freedom of religion under its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allowing individuals to practice their faith freely. While there are no significant legal restrictions, social discrimination against minority religious groups, such as Muslims and Sikhs, persists.

 

The Pew Research Center (2024) notes that while government restrictions are minimal, there have been instances of social hostility towards certain religious minorities, particularly in the wake of terrorist attacks abroad.

 

Score: 4/5 – "Freedom of religion or belief is largely protected, though there may be some legal or social restrictions (e.g., certain public expressions of faith). Minority religious communities may face occasional challenges."

 

References:

 

  

3.4.4.9 Right to Privacy

 

Canada has a solid legal framework to protect privacy rights, particularly under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). However, there are concerns about potential overreach in government surveillance, particularly in relation to national security measures.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (2023) has raised issues around public perception regarding the balance between privacy and security. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) has raised concerns regarding federal political parties' handling of personal data, arguing that privacy laws should apply to them.

 

The CCLA and other organisations are urging political parties to commit to transparency and accountability in their data collection and usage, which currently operates in a legal grey area. This issue highlights gaps in privacy protections in Canada, particularly in the context of political processes.

 

Score: 4/5 – "Legal protections for privacy exist, but some government surveillance or data collection occurs, particularly in national security matters. Personal data protections are mostly effective."

 

References:

 

 

3.4.4.10 Right to Life and Security of Person

 

Canada generally ensures the right to life and personal security, with relatively low levels of violence compared to other countries.

 

However, Human Rights Watch highlighted concerns regarding the use of force by police, particularly in interactions with Indigenous and racial minority communities.

 

Amnesty International has raised concerns about the violation of the right to life and security of Indigenous people in Canada during police raids on protest encampments in Alberta. The use of force and the lack of accountability for police actions have endangered the safety of protesters, particularly those advocating for land and environmental rights.

 

Score: 4/5 – "Legal protections exist, and violence is generally low, though certain groups (e.g., minorities or marginalised communities) may face occasional threats. Law enforcement generally follows legal protocols but may overstep in some cases."

 

References:

 

  

3.4.4.11 Canada’s overall score: 4.1/5

 

Canada’s strong legal framework for human rights is reflected in its overall score. The country maintains robust protections for civil liberties, including Freedom of Expression, freedom of religion, and democratic governance. However, ongoing issues with systemic discrimination, particularly for Indigenous and racial minority communities, highlight areas where improvement is needed.  Canada also faces challenges in addressing police violence and excessive force, especially in interactions with vulnerable populations. Nonetheless, the country remains a global leader in human rights protection with room for continued progress.



3.4.5 China's Human Rights Barometer Analysis

 

3.4.5.1 Freedom of Assembly and Association

 

Freedom of assembly and association are severely restricted in China, where the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) tightly controls political and social activities. The Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees these rights in theory, but in practice, they are heavily curtailed by strict regulations, surveillance, and crackdowns on dissent.

 

Peaceful assembly, including protests and demonstrations, is rarely tolerated, particularly if it is critical of the government or touches on sensitive topics like human rights, ethnic autonomy, or corruption. Large-scale protests, such as those in Hong Kong in 2019, were met with a forceful government response, including mass arrests, police brutality, and new laws like the National Security Law that further restrict freedoms. On the mainland, protests are often dispersed quickly, and organisers are subject to imprisonment under vague charges such as "subverting state power" or "inciting separatism."

 

Freedom of association is equally restricted. Independent trade unions, political parties, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are not allowed to operate freely. All social organisations must be registered with the government, and unregistered groups are considered illegal. The Overseas NGO Law (2017) has further limited the operations of international organisations by requiring them to be registered and supervised by state authorities, effectively reducing their ability to engage in advocacy or human rights work.

 

China's repression of assembly and association is supported by mass surveillance and digital censorship, with authorities closely monitoring online discussions and swiftly shutting down any attempts to organise protests or critical social movements. This pervasive system of control significantly undermines civil society and individual rights in the country.

 

Score: 1/5 – “There are no meaningful legal protections for freedom of assembly and association. Protests are banned, civil society organisations are disbanded or state-controlled, and activists are routinely imprisoned or persecuted.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.5.2 Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process

 

The right to a fair trial and due process in China faces significant challenges despite legal provisions that theoretically guarantee these rights. The Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the Criminal Procedure Law outline the right to legal representation, public trials, and the presumption of innocence. However, in practice, these guarantees are frequently undermined by the judiciary’s lack of independence, as it operates under the influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

 

Judicial decisions, particularly in cases involving political dissidents, human rights activists, or those charged under state security laws, are often seen as predetermined. Defendants accused of crimes such as "subversion of state power" are frequently denied adequate legal representation, and trials are often closed to the public. For example, many high-profile political cases are marked by secretive proceedings, with lawyers barred from accessing their clients or presenting a proper defence.

 

Pretrial detention is another area of concern, with detainees often held for long periods without trial. Reports of forced confessions obtained through torture, despite being prohibited under Chinese law, are common. Political prisoners and those detained under anti-terrorism or national security charges frequently face arbitrary detention, and their rights are often violated in the process.

 

China's broad security laws, including the National Security Law and Counterterrorism Law, grant sweeping powers to authorities, allowing for the detention and prosecution of individuals without adherence to standard legal procedures. The lack of judicial oversight, combined with the opaque nature of many trials, particularly those involving sensitive political matters, undermines the right to a fair trial and due process in the country.

 

Score: 1/5 – “There is no meaningful judicial independence. Courts are tools of the state, used to silence opposition. Arbitrary detention is routine, and fair trials are virtually non-existent.”

 

References:

 

 

3.4.5.3 Political Participation and Democratic Governance

 

Political participation and democratic governance in China are tightly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which maintains a monopoly on political power. While China is nominally a "people's republic", it does not have a system of open, multiparty elections as seen in democratic countries. The CCP controls all levels of government, from local administrations to national leadership, with no legal avenue for other political parties to challenge its rule.

 

Elections do take place in China, but they are tightly managed by the state. For example, elections for local People’s Congresses occur, but candidates must either be CCP-approved or independent candidates vetted through a restrictive system. These elections offer little genuine political choice, and the higher echelons of government, including the National People’s Congress, are composed overwhelmingly of CCP members. This legislative body functions largely as a rubber-stamp parliament, with limited real influence over state policies.

 

Political dissent is not tolerated, and efforts to promote democratic reforms or challenge the CCP’s authority are met with swift suppression. Activists and advocates for greater political openness are frequently arrested or silenced. High-profile pro-democracy movements, such as those seen in Hong Kong, have faced crackdowns, with leaders imprisoned or forced into exile. The implementation of the National Security Law in Hong Kong in 2020 further eroded the region’s limited autonomy and political freedoms.

 

Additionally, China's system lacks transparency, with decision-making concentrated within the CCP’s elite circles. Public participation in governance is minimal, and there are no independent media or civil society organisations that can freely challenge government decisions or hold officials accountable.

 

Score: 1/5 – “There are no free or fair elections. The state is ruled by an authoritarian regime, and any political opposition is systematically crushed. Democratic governance is non-existent.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.5.4 Freedom from Discrimination

 

China's legal framework theoretically guarantees freedom from discrimination, with the Constitution of the People's Republic of China affirming equality for all citizens regardless of ethnicity, gender, or religion. Additionally, the Labour Law and other legislation prohibit discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, or gender in employment and public life. However, in practice, significant challenges remain in ensuring freedom from discrimination, especially for ethnic minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals.

 

Ethnic minorities, particularly Uyghurs, Tibetans, and other non-Han Chinese groups, face systemic discrimination and repression. The Chinese government has been widely criticised for its policies toward Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, where reports from human rights organisations have documented mass detentions, forced labour, and re-education camps. The Chinese state tightly controls religious practices and cultural expression among minority groups, often framing these restrictions as measures to prevent extremism or maintain national unity.

 

Although China has laws against gender discrimination in employment, women continue to face barriers in the workplace, including unequal pay and discriminatory hiring practices. Many women report being asked about their marital status or plans for children during job interviews. Furthermore, despite laws promoting gender equality, cases of workplace sexual harassment and gender-based violence are underreported, and enforcement of protections is weak.

 

While homosexuality is not illegal in China, there are no comprehensive legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. LGBTQ+ advocacy is heavily restricted, and public discourse on LGBTQ+ issues is often censored. Same-sex marriage remains illegal, and social discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals is widespread, with many facing stigma, family pressure, and workplace discrimination.

 

Although China has made some legislative efforts to combat discrimination, the gap between law and practice remains significant, especially for marginalised groups. Ongoing surveillance, censorship, and suppression of advocacy efforts make it difficult for civil society organisations to address these issues effectively.

Score: 1/5 – “There are no legal protections against discrimination, and the state actively promotes or tolerates discriminatory practices. Marginalised groups are heavily oppressed and face severe inequality.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.5.5 Freedom from Torture and Inhuman Treatment

 

China is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), and the country's Constitution and Criminal Procedure Law officially prohibit the use of torture. However, in practice, the use of torture and inhuman treatment remains a serious issue, especially in the context of political repression and law enforcement.

 

Reports from human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International frequently document the use of torture in Chinese detention facilities, particularly against political dissidents, human rights activists, and ethnic minorities. Common methods of torture include beatings, sleep deprivation, and the denial of medical treatment. These practices are often used to extract forced confessions, which are then presented in court as evidence despite China’s official legal prohibitions on such evidence.

 

The situation in Xinjiang, where Uyghur Muslims and other Turkic minorities have been detained in "re-education" camps, has drawn international condemnation. Numerous reports have surfaced of detainees being subjected to physical abuse, forced sterilisation, and psychological torture. The Chinese government refers to these camps as vocational training centres aimed at combating extremism, but mounting evidence points to widespread human rights abuses, including torture and inhuman treatment.

 

Human rights defenders, lawyers, and activists detained under national security laws are particularly vulnerable to torture. Notable cases include those of human rights lawyers detained during the 2015 "709 crackdown", many of whom reported severe physical and mental abuse while in custody. Activists who criticise the government or advocate for greater political freedoms are often targeted and subjected to inhumane treatment during long pretrial detentions.

 

Despite legal frameworks prohibiting torture, there is little accountability for perpetrators. Judicial oversight is weak, and state authorities rarely investigate allegations of torture. Those who report such abuses often face retaliation, making it difficult to hold officials accountable for their actions.

 

Score: 1/5 – “Torture and inhuman treatment are widespread and systematically used by the state. There are no legal protections, and security forces routinely act with impunity.”

 

References:

 

 

3.4.5.6 Protection of Human Rights Defenders

 

In China, human rights defenders operate in a highly repressive environment where their activities are severely restricted, and they often face persecution. While international human rights norms call for the protection of human rights defenders, in China, the government views activism, particularly on sensitive issues like democracy, Freedom of Expression, and ethnic minority rights, as a threat to state stability. This leads to frequent crackdowns on individuals and groups advocating for human rights.

 

Human rights defenders, including lawyers, journalists, and activists, are regularly subjected to harassment, surveillance, and arbitrary detention. The 709 crackdown in 2015 is a notable example, during which hundreds of human rights lawyers and activists were detained or arrested. Many were tortured, held incommunicado, or subjected to forced disappearances. Those involved in defending political prisoners or advocating for Freedom of Expression face continuous state repression.

 

China’s laws, particularly the National Security Law and Criminal Law, are frequently used to charge human rights defenders with crimes such as "subverting state power" or "picking quarrels and provoking trouble". These vaguely defined crimes allow authorities to target anyone engaged in activism or critical speech, making it extremely difficult for human rights defenders to carry out their work without fear of arrest.

 

Chinese authorities employ extensive surveillance measures to monitor the activities of human rights defenders. Activists and their families are often placed under house arrest, and their communications are heavily monitored. International human rights organisations have condemned the Chinese government for using these surveillance tactics to intimidate defenders and prevent them from engaging with global human rights networks.

 

In some cases, the Chinese government exerts pressure on human rights defenders by targeting their families. Family members of detained activists often face harassment, social isolation, and restrictions on movement, creating further difficulties for human rights defenders to continue their advocacy.

 

Despite international condemnation, the Chinese government has shown little willingness to protect human rights defenders or reform laws that allow their persecution. Many defenders remain imprisoned or under constant threat of arrest, limiting the capacity for civil society to flourish in China.

 

Score: 1/5 – “Human rights defenders are systematically targeted by the state. They face imprisonment, torture, or worse, and there are no legal protections for their work.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.5.7 Freedom of Expression

 

Freedom of Expression in China is heavily restricted, with the Chinese government exerting tight control over media, the internet, and public discourse. Although the Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees freedom of speech, in practice, these rights are severely limited by laws that criminalise dissent, criticism of the government, and the sharing of politically sensitive information.

 

China’s state-run media landscape is tightly controlled by the government, with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) ensuring that all media aligns with its policies and narratives. Independent journalism is virtually non-existent, and media outlets are frequently censored or shut down if they publish content critical of the state. International media are also subject to restrictions, with foreign journalists facing intimidation, surveillance, and expulsions.

 

The Chinese government maintains one of the most comprehensive internet censorship systems in the world, often referred to as the "Great Firewall". Websites, social media platforms, and search engines that allow the free flow of information—such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter—are blocked in China. Domestic platforms like WeChat and Weibo are heavily monitored, with content relating to sensitive topics such as human rights, democracy, or criticism of the CCP swiftly removed. The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) plays a central role in regulating online content and censoring any material deemed harmful to state interests.

 

In addition to censorship, China employs widespread digital surveillance to monitor its citizens' online activities. Individuals who express dissenting views or share politically sensitive content face severe consequences, including arrest, imprisonment, and even forced disappearances. Human rights defenders, journalists, and activists are particularly vulnerable, with many being detained for “subverting state power” or “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”.

 

Laws such as the National Security Law and Cybersecurity Law give the state broad powers to suppress Freedom of Expression in the name of national security. These laws are frequently used to justify the detention of individuals who criticise the government or advocate for reforms.

 

China’s repression of Freedom of Expression extends beyond its borders, with increasing efforts to control the narratives around its policies, such as in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Taiwan, by pressuring international media and corporations to comply with its censorship standards.

 

Score: 1/5 – “There are no meaningful protections for Freedom of Expression. The state controls the media, and dissenting voices are silenced through imprisonment or violence.”


References:

 

  

3.4.5.8 Freedom of Religion or Belief

 

In China, freedom of religion or belief is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 36 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, which states that citizens "enjoy freedom of religious belief". However, in practice, the Chinese government tightly controls religious practices, and religious freedoms are severely restricted, particularly for groups that are not sanctioned by the state.

 

State Control of Religion: The Chinese government officially recognises five religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Islamism, Catholicism, and Protestantism. All religious groups must register with the state and operate under government-supervised bodies, such as the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association and the Three-Self Patriotic Movement for Protestant churches. Religious groups that operate outside state-sanctioned structures are considered illegal and are often subject to persecution. The government's Regulations on Religious Affairs, revised in 2018, further restrict religious activities, particularly those deemed to be foreign influences or linked to separatist movements.

 

Persecution of Religious Minorities: Religious minorities, particularly Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, and underground Christian churches, face severe repression. In Xinjiang, over a million Uyghur Muslims have reportedly been detained in so-called "re-education" camps, where they are subjected to forced indoctrination, restrictions on religious practices, and in some cases, physical abuse. Tibetan Buddhists face restrictions on their religious activities, including the veneration of the Dalai Lama, which is banned by the government. Unregistered or "house" churches, both Catholic and Protestant, are frequently raided by authorities, with congregants facing harassment, detention, and forced closures.

 

Crackdown on Falun Gong: Falun Gong, a spiritual movement combining meditation and qigong, has been the target of a brutal crackdown since 1999, when the government banned the practice. Falun Gong practitioners have been arrested, imprisoned, and reportedly subjected to forced labour and torture. There have also been allegations of organ harvesting from imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners, which has been condemned by international human rights organisations.

 

Increased Restrictions: In recent years, the Chinese government has tightened its control over religious practices, increasing surveillance and repression under the guise of maintaining social stability. The state has promoted “Sinicisation” of religion, which seeks to align religious practices with Chinese socialist values and reduce the influence of foreign religious doctrines. This has led to the removal of religious symbols, such as crosses from churches, and the imposition of state-approved religious doctrine.

 

Score: 1/5 – “There is no freedom of religion or belief. The state enforces a particular belief system, whether religious or secular, and those who practice or promote any dissenting views face imprisonment, violence, or severe discrimination.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.5.9 Right to Privacy

 

The right to privacy in China is highly restricted, with the state maintaining extensive control over personal data, communications, and digital activities. While Article 40 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China guarantees the privacy of correspondence, this protection is limited in practice, particularly in the digital realm. The Chinese government’s extensive surveillance infrastructure and legal frameworks allow for broad monitoring and control over citizens’ private information.

 

China operates one of the most sophisticated and widespread surveillance systems in the world. The state monitors communications through technologies such as facial recognition, AI-based surveillance, and social credit systems, which collect vast amounts of personal data. The Cybersecurity Law of 2017 and the Personal Information Protection Law of 2021 provide legal backing for the collection of personal data under the guise of protecting national security and public safety. However, these laws are also used to justify state overreach into the private lives of citizens. Major tech companies are required to cooperate with the government, sharing data upon request and ensuring that platforms align with government censorship and surveillance policies.

 

The Chinese government exercises significant control over the internet, and the Great Firewall blocks access to many international websites, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Domestic platforms like WeChat and Weibo are tightly monitored, with any content deemed politically sensitive swiftly removed. User data on these platforms is regularly accessed by the state, and online activity is closely tracked, limiting online privacy and free expression.

 

Specific groups, including human rights defenders, ethnic minorities, and political dissidents, are subjected to heightened levels of surveillance. The situation in Xinjiang, where Uyghur Muslims are under constant surveillance, is a notable example. Uyghurs are monitored through high-tech systems that track their movements, communications, and religious practices. Reports indicate that the Chinese government uses facial recognition technology and biometric data to enforce this surveillance regime, raising grave concerns about privacy violations.

 

China's legal and technological framework for monitoring personal privacy has drawn criticism from international human rights organisations, which argue that these practices undermine fundamental privacy rights and grant the state unparalleled control over its citizens.

 

Score: 1/5 – “There are no meaningful privacy protections. The government monitors individuals heavily, and there is no legal recourse for violations of privacy.”


References:

 

  

3.4.5.10 Right to Life and Security of Person

 

The right to life and security of person is theoretically protected under Article 37 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, which prohibits unlawful deprivation of life and personal liberty. However, in practice, significant concerns arise due to state actions, particularly in the areas of extrajudicial detentions, forced disappearances, and the treatment of ethnic minorities.

 

China's extensive use of arbitrary detention, particularly through the Residential Surveillance at a Designated Location (RSDL) system, allows the government to hold individuals for extended periods without formal charges. Political dissidents, human rights defenders, and ethnic minorities are often detained under this system, which has been associated with reports of torture and abuse. There are also concerns about the lack of transparency in police actions, with some individuals disappearing for long periods before any legal proceedings occur.

 

The situation in Xinjiang has been particularly alarming, with reports from international organisations detailing mass detentions, forced sterilisation, and abuses against the Uyghur Muslim population. Human rights groups have described the conditions in the region as amounting to crimes against humanity, with the Chinese government tightly controlling life and personal security in Xinjiang under the guise of countering extremism. Reports of forced labour and severe restrictions on religious and cultural practices further highlight the precarious state of personal security for Uyghur and other ethnic minorities.

 

China remains the world’s leading executioner, although precise numbers are difficult to verify due to state secrecy surrounding death penalty cases. The death penalty is often imposed for a wide range of offences, including non-violent crimes such as drug trafficking, raising concerns about the proportionality of the punishment. International human rights organisations have called for greater transparency in China's use of capital punishment and urged the government to reform its judicial practices.

 

Despite legislative progress, including the Anti-Domestic Violence Law of 2016, gender-based violence remains a significant issue in China. Many victims of domestic violence face barriers in accessing justice, and there is limited state protection or enforcement against such abuses. Cultural stigma, weak enforcement of the law, and inadequate support services further exacerbate the issue, leaving many women vulnerable to continued violence.

 

While China's legal framework includes provisions for the protection of life and security, in practice, the state’s extensive control mechanisms and weak accountability systems create a climate where personal security is frequently undermined.

 

Score: 1/5 – “There is no effective protection for the right to life. State violence, extrajudicial killings, or systematic abuses are rampant, and there is no accountability for perpetrators.”

 

References:

 

  

3.4.5.11 Overall Score for China: 1/5

 

China's legal framework provides nominal protections for civil and political rights, but in practice, these rights are routinely violated. State surveillance, political repression, and systemic abuses, particularly against ethnic minorities like the Uyghurs, severely undermine human rights in the country.




 

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



[1] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). N.d. Treaty body database. [Online] Available at: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?CountryID=85 [Accessed: 3 July 2024].


 
 
 
bottom of page