Solidarity Message to <Anti-War Coalition In Solidarity to Protect Article 9>

People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy(PSPD) has opposed the amendment of peace constitution and rearmament of Japan by Abe administration. We are very concerned about national security bills in a bid to be passed at the National Diet of Japan.

Japan must be prevented from exercising the right of collective self-defense. This will nullify the Japanese peace constitution, particularly article 9, which has served as an anchor of peace in East Asia.

This year is the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII. The memories of the atrocious Japanese colonial rule and aggression in the past in many of its neighboring countries cannot be simply erased.

Japan must stop military buildup and preserve its peace constitution.

We will continue to stand in solidarity with those who are concerned about and marching for peace across Asia-pacific.

Peace & Solidarity

Peace and Disarmament Center, PSPD

Police Raided the Citizen’s Network for General Election of 2016 for alleged violation of Public Official Election Law

21 June 2016

1. Background 
On 16 June 2016, offices and staffs of the Citizen’s Network for General Election of 2016 (Change 2016) were seized and searched by the police, for the alleged violation of Public Official Election Law. The investigated organisations include People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), an NGO with ECOSOC consultative status, and South Korean Civil Society Organizations Network, which consists of more than 500 South Korean NGOs. They were leading organisations of the Change 2016. Below is the list of police confiscation. 

During the General Election of April 2016, more than 1,000 South Korean civil society organizations collectively established Change 2016 to conduct online blacklist campaigns and to encourage voters to participate in the election. Change 2016 conducted online campaign where voters could identify 10 worst candidates and choose 10 most urging pledges during election. Also, Change 2016 held a series of press conferences in front of the offices of the worst candidates selected by the voters. Below is the list of police confiscation.

On 24 April 2016, Seoul Election Commission filed a complaint against Change 2016 for violating Article 93(1) and Article 108(1) of Public Official Election Law. The search and seizure of 16 June were conducted based on this complaint with search warrant. The latest attack on Change 2016 in the form of sudden police search and seizure is rather arbitrary and clearly has the ulterior political motive of threatening and repressing the works of the South Korean civil society. On 21 June 2016, the Commissioner General of Korean National Police Agency, Sin-myeong KANG, said as below at the press briefing: “Regarding allegations of violating Public Official Election Act, it is important to identify conspiracy and joint principal offenders, who actually initiated and instigated such an action. Therefore, we searched and seized relevant people’s house and offices as a minimum measure to find out abovementioned issues.”. 

2. Relevant Domestic Laws 
In the Republic of Korea, freedom of expression offline during the election campaign period (180 days before election) is not fully guaranteed. Initially, the law even prohibited freedom of expression both offline and online, but in 2011, the Constitutional Court ruled that this article is partially unconstitutional, and freedom of expression online during the election campaign period should be guaranteed. The law was then revised according to the ruling, but freedom of expression offline is still restricted. Article 93(1) of the Public Official Election Act reads as follow.

Public Official Election Act Article 93(1) Prohibition of Unlawful Distribution or Posting, etc. of Documents and Pictures
(1) No one shall distribute, post, scatter, play, or run an advertisement, letter of greeting, poster, photograph, document, drawing, printed matter, recording tape, video tape, or the like which contains the contents supporting, recommending or opposing a political party (including the preparatory committee for formation of a political party, and the platform and policy of a political party; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or candidate (including a person who intends to be a candidate; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) or showing the name of the political party or candidate with the intention of influencing the election, not in accordance with the provisions of this Act, from 180 days before the election day (the time when the reason for holding the election becomes final, in case of a special election) to the election day: Provided, That the same shall not apply to acts falling under any of the following subparagraphs: <Amended by Act No. 5412, Nov. 14, 1997; Act No. 5537, Apr. 30, 1998; Act No. 6663, Mar. 7, 2002; Act No. 7189, Mar. 12, 2004; Act No. 7681, Aug. 4, 2005; Act No. 9974, Jan. 25, 2010>
1. Cases where any candidate or any person falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 60-3 (2) (including the chief of an election campaign liaison office, in cases falling under subparagraph 2, and, in such cases, "preliminary candidates" shall be deemed "candidates") personally hands out the name cards of a candidate under Article 60-3 (1) 2 during the election campaign period;
2. Ordinary political party activities under Article 37 (2) of the Political Parties Act during a period, other than the election period.

 

Also, the Public Official Election Act Article 108(1) prohibits a public opinion poll as follows:

Public Official Election Act Article 108(1) (Prohibition, etc. of Publication of Public Opinion Poll)
(1) No one shall publish or report, by quoting, the details or results of a public opinion poll (including a mock voting or popularity poll; hereafter the same shall also apply in this Article) that makes it possible to predict the approval rating of each political party or the successful candidate in an election, during a period between six days before the election day and the closing time of balloting on the election day. <Amended by Act No. 5412, Nov. 14, 1997; Act No. 7681, Aug. 4, 2005>

3. Alleged violations raised by the Election Commission
1) Violation of Article 93(1) of the Public Official Election Law
The Election Commission argues that Change 2016 violates Article 93(1) of Public Official Election Act because we held series of ‘protest’ condemning specific candidates in front of the candidate’s office. However, it was not a protest but a press conference, and we never specified the candidate’s name or used his/her picture during this press conference. To avoid violating this law that prohibits voter’s freedom of expression during the election period, we used a board with a hole replacing the candidate’s name rather than explicitly mention candidate’s name. During the press conference, we used a board with a hole, so that we can effectively express our view without explicitly mentioning the candidate’s name, within the boundaries of law. 

2) Violation of Article 108(1) of Public Official Election Law
Legal and polling experts have confirmed that the online campaign that Change 2016 conducted was indeed not a public opinion poll. Unlike the usual opinion poll targeting specific constituencies, the online campaign on the Change 2016 website allowed people to voluntarily visit the website and reply to the online campaign, and it was a legitimate exercise of voter’s freedom of expression. Therefore, it is not appropriate for Election Commission consider it a public online poll. 

4. Human Rights Violations 
1) Freedom of Expression during Election Campaign Period
Although the Public Official Election Act in its present form severely inhibits voters’ freedom of expression, Change 2016 has been organizing its campaigns within the boundaries of the law in compliance with the opinion of the National Election Commission. Legal and polling experts have confirmed that the online campaign that Change 2016 conducted was not a public opinion poll. Moreover, Change 2016 never displayed the names and photographs of the candidates in front of their campaign offices. Although the present Public Official Election Act restrains voters’ freedom of expression, Change 2016 operated within the boundaries of the law. The latest attack on Change 2016 in the form of sudden police search and seizure is rather arbitrary and clearly has the ulterior political motive of threatening and repressing the works of the South Korean civil society.

2) Collection of information which was not specified in the warrant
While confiscating the office of the South Korean Civil Society Organizations Network, the police extensively collected information, which was not even specified in the search warrant. They seized two hard disks and one external hard drive which were not used during General Election period therefore irrelevant to the current complaint. Also, the police confiscated four bank accounts related to the works of South Korean Civil Society Organizations Network without specifying the search period. Also, the tablet PC of the Secretary-General of South Korean Civil Society Organizations Network was seized as a whole without specifying relevant files. 

GPPAC Northeast Asia Statement Welcoming the 2018 Inter-Korean Summit

Supporting new hope for peace on the Korean Peninsula,

towards a peaceful, nuclear-weapons free Northeast Asia

April 28, 2018

The Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) Northeast Asia, a network of civil society organizations working for peace and dialogue in the region, wholeheartedly congratulates the leaders of the DPRK and the ROK, as well as the Korean people, for the historic achievement of the “Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula” issued following the Inter-Korean Summit of April 27, 2018 at the Peace House on the southern side of Korea's Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The Summit contributed to a significant reduction of tensions and indeed avoidance of the catastrophe of a potential nuclear war. Furthermore, it showed the world the true impact of committed leadership and diplomacy, and the direct, personal meeting between the leaders of both Koreas sent a powerful wave of emotion around the world.

The landmark steps of goodwill and promises for action shown on this day mark a historic moment, and the beginning of a “new era of peace” for the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia. A peaceful resolution of the ongoing tensions on the Korean Peninsula, and a shift from the current Armistice regime to a permanent peace regime, is vital for the security not only of both Koreas, but for the Northeast Asia region as a whole. We strongly welcome the declaration to bring a swift end to the war on the Korean Peninsula, and realize a peace treaty, as well as the concrete steps outlined to end hostilities and encourage active cooperation. Concrete steps including the establishment of a joint liaison office, continued high-level dialogue, and active contacts will mark the historic start of this new area.

Reaffirmation of the common goal of attaining a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula through “complete denuclearization” is greatly encouraging. We also share the view that the DPRK's measures to cease nuclear and missile tests are important steps for reducing tensions. We sincerely hope that these developments will be followed by clear commitments for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and for nuclear disarmament by all related parties. Both Koreas could celebrate complete denuclearization by together signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. We call on other parties in the region to also do so, as a step towards the future establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone in Northeast Asia.

The encouragement of more active cooperation in social, economic and cultural fields is also significant, as are the steps outlined regarding practical implementation of previous agreements. We underline the role played by cultural exchange in creating the positive environment for the Inter-Korean Summit. Having organized regional civil society meetings at joint sites such as Mt Kumgang and the Kaesong Industrial Complex, we can directly testify to their significance as symbolic spaces for interaction between people from both Koreas and internationally, as well as for concrete cooperation and the development of joint inter-Korean institutions – important steps towards eventual unification. We therefore welcome commitments to expand such activities, such as on June 15 and other upcoming events. The clear declaration to restart reunions for tragically separated families, and solve humanitarian issues on the peninsula, are also crucial steps forward.

GPPAC Northeast Asia, with members from throughout the region including both Koreas, pledges to continue to do all we can to support diplomacy and the creation of an environment in which the Panmunjeom Declaration, as well as past agreements and future efforts to build peace, can be realized. In 2018, we will continue to convene the Ulaanbaatar Process, our civil society dialogue for regional peace and stability, to complement official processes towards the development of a peaceful, nuclear-free Northeast Asia.

We call upon the international community to undertake all efforts to support the implementation of the Panmunjeom Declaration, as well as previous joint agreements. The success of this Summit should be carried on to the upcoming US-DPRK discussions, which we sincerely hope will conclude with concrete steps towards denuclearization and a peace treaty for the Korean Peninsula. Space should be ensured for all stakeholders, including GPPAC members, civil society, states and the United Nations, to make utmost efforts to build on this success, and work towards the establishment of regional peacebuilding mechanisms for Northeast Asia.

The Summit is a powerful symbol of a process to overcome conflict and achieve peace through shifting from reaction to prevention. We sincerely believe that the realization of peace on the Korean Peninsula will develop into peace for the Northeast Asian region, and in turn contribute to momentum for building peace and security around the world.

>> Download

한국 자유권 대응 시민사회 활동 보고대회

유엔, 한국 인권에 대해 말하다

2015년 11월 25일(수) 오후 7시, 서울시 시민청 워크샵룸

지난 10/22 ~23, 스위스 제네바에서 한국 자유권 심의가 10년 만에 열렸습니다. 유엔 자유권위원회가 한국의 전반적인 시민적, 정치적 권리 실태를 점검하고, 한국 정부에 권고를 내리는 것이지요. 그리고 지난 11/5 "성소수자들에 대한 차별 철폐, 양심적 병역 거부자 전원 즉각 석방 및 사면, 평화로운 집회결사의 자유 보장" 등을 포함한 유례없이 강력한 최종 권고가 발표되었습니다. 

국제사회에서 바라보는 한국 인권 실태는 어떠할까요? 유엔에서 내린 권고는 국내에서 어떤 의미가 있을까요? 심의 대응을 위해 제네바에 다녀온 권고사냥꾼(!) 한국 NGO 대표단이 그 생생한 이야기를 전하는 자리를 마련했습니다.

흔치 않은 기회, 보고대회를 놓치지 마세요! I. CCPR. U.

프로그램 

사회 : 김태석 (대한변호사협회 국제인권특별위원회 위원)

자유권 대응 시민사회 활동 전반 소개  : 백가윤 (참여연대 국제연대위원회)

자유권 권고 분석

1. 차별금지와 성소수자의 권리 : 류민희 (공익인권변호사모임 희망을 만드는 법, 성소수자 차별반대 무지개행동)

2. 이주민 권리와 인신매매: 정신영 (공익법센터 어필)

3. 표현의 자유와 프라이버시 : 박경신 (오픈넷, 참여연대, 고려대학교)

4. 국가보안법과 북한인탈주민보호센터 : 김기남 (민주사회를위한변호사모임)

제네바 현지에서의 만남들 : 홍승기 (유엔인권정책센터)

참가신청 >> 클릭

주최 : 유엔 자유권 심의 대응 한국 NGO 모임

문의 : 참여연대 국제연대위원회 (02-723-5051, [email protected])

UN 사회권위원회 최종권고, 그 의미와 실현방안

UN 사회권규약위원회 4차 최종견해 평가 및 이행방안 토론회

<2017.11.20. UN 사회권위원회 2차 세션에서 참석자들의 발언이 진행 중이다.>

• 지난 10월 9일, UN 사회권위원회는 한국 정부에 대한 심의 이후 4차 최종권고를 내렸다. 이번 4차 최종권고는 지난 2009년 이후 8년 만에 내려진 것으로, 한국 사회의 사회권 현황을 점검하고 그 개선방안을 구체적으로 제시했다는 것에서 큰 의미가 있다. 이에 UN 사회권위원회의 심의 과정에 참여한 국가인권위원회와 NGO들이 사회권위원회 심사와 최종권고의 의미를 공유하고, 핵심 권고를 중심으로 각 정부 부처의 이행계획와 실현방안을 확인하는 자리를 마련하고자 국회 토론회를 개최하였다.

• 토론회는 이성호 국가인권위원회 위원장, 홍영표, 노회찬, 권미혁 의원의 인사말(1부)로 시작하였다. 2부에서는 김남희 참여연대 복지조세팀장이 4차 사회권 심의 관련한 한국 NGO의 활동을 소개하며 최종권고 이행과 관련한 한국 정부(행정부, 입법부, 사법부)의 적극적인 노력을 촉구하였으며, 이동우 국가인권위원회 사무관이 국가인권위원회의 활동을 소개하였다.

• 3부는 신혜수 UN사회권위원회 위원의 사회로 진행되었으며 류민희 희망을만드는법 변호사가 ‘포괄적 차별금지 제정 및 성소수자 인권 개선 방안’을 주제로 발표하였다. 비범죄화, 사회복지권이 혼인을 중심으로 되어 있어 동성커플에게 차별적인 점을 개선해야 한다는 점, 성소수자의 정신건강 문제 등을 지적하였으며, 사회권이 차별없는 보편적 권리로 작동하고 있는지를 점검해야 한다고 주장하였다. 이어 발제를 맡은 박영아 공감 변호사는 세모녀 사건과 같이 한국 열악한 사회보장권의 현실을 보여주는 실제 사례를 설명하고 최종권고를 구체적으로 설명하면서 정부에 대하여 부양의무자기준 폐지를 위한 구체적 로드맵, 의료급여 사각지대, 외국인의 사회권 문제, 홈리스 탈출을 위한 장기적 대책, 사회권 이행에 관한 인권지표 개발 및 적용 계획 등 관련 정책에 대한 질의를 하였다.
  토론을 맡은 이준일 교수는 헌법 제11조의 평등권이 법앞의 평등을 넘어 실질적 평등을 추구해야 한다는 내용으로 개헌 과정에 반영되어야 한다고 지적하였으며, 차별금지 관련 혐오표현(hate speech) 문제도 제기하였다. 또한 사회권의 최우선 보장 주체는 경제적 약자임을 강조하며 개헌 과정에서 사회권의 체계화와 추가가 필요하고 한국 헌법재판소가 사회권을 권리로서 인정하지 않는 문제를 지적하였다. 오유진 법무부 국제인권과장은 국제인권기구에서 주제별로 권고가 나오고 있어서, 정부가 기능 중심으로 편재되어 있어 이행확인이 어렵다고 하였으며, 차별금지법을 어떻게 다시 추진할 것에 대하여 논의를 하며 방안을 모색하겠다고 하였다. 황승현 보건복지부 복지정책과장은 문재인 케어 등 보장성 확대 방안, 치매국가책임제, 아동수당 신설, 기초노령연금 인상, 부양의무자 단계적 폐지 등이 계속 발표가 되고 진행 중이라고 하며 최종권고와 맥락을 같이 하고 있다고 하였다. 또한 정부 정책의 방향성을 소득주도 성장, 사람중심 성장으로 포용적 복지로 잡고 있으며, 사회보장권을 실질적 권리로 실현하기 위한 노력을 하고 있다고 하였다. 예산확보의 문제와 사각지대 해소 및 권리성 보장 사이의 균형 문제에 대해도 얘기하였다.

• 4부는 조영선 국가인권위원회 사무총장의 사회로 진행되었다. 발제를 맡은 류미경 민주노총 국제국장은 한국에서 노조할 권리가 일상적으로 침해되고 있다는 점을 지적하고 200만 명이 넘는 특수고용노동자 등 모든 사람이 누려야 할 노조할 권리가 보장되지 않은 점을 강력하게 전달하였다. 기업이 비용을 줄이기 위해 비정규직 고용 등을 늘려온 상황을 지적하면서 기업이 어떻게 이에 대하여 책임을 지게 할 것인지 법 개정이 필요하다는 점을 강조하였다. 또한 노동권 앞에 중립은 없으며, 정부는 모든 사람이 누려야 할 노동권을 누리기 위해 적극적으로 역할을 해야 한다는 점을 지적하였다. 다음 발제를 맡은 나현필 국제민주연대 사무국장은 한국 정부가 노동자가 아니라 기업을 보호하는 태도를 가지고 있다는 점을 지적하면서, 인도네시아에서 한국 기업이 노동자 몰래 폐업을 하고 사라지는 사례, 방글라데시에서 라나 플라자 공장 붕괴 참사 이후 공장의 안전기준을 통과하지 못하면 EU에 수출하지 못하는 규제가 발생하였으나 한국 기업들이 이에 적응하지 못하는 상황 등 국제 사회에서 한국 기업의 인권 문제가 중요하게 부각된다는 점을 설명하였다. 또한 UN사회권위원회 최종 권고의 핵심 권고와 같이 정부가 기업의 인권 이행 상황에 대하여 개입을 해야한다는 의무가 국제적으로도 인정되고 있으며, 한국 정부도 시급하게 대응해야 할 상황이라는 점을 지적하였다.
  토론을 맡은 강성태 교수는 한국 정부가 규범적 판단보다는 애국적 판단, 특히 단기적인 이익에 집착하여 왔다는 점을 지적하였으며, 김지은 고용노동부 사무관은 ILO 핵심협약 내용 이행 등 향후 노력하겠다고 답변하였다.

▶ <UN 사회권위원회 최종권고, 그 의미와 실현방안> 토론회 자료집 (링크)

토론회 개요

-일정 : 2017. 11. 20(월). 09:30-13:00

-장소 : 국회 제1소회의실

-주최: 국가인권위원회, 홍영표(더불어민주당, 환경노동위원회), 노회찬(정의당, 법제사법위원회), 권미혁(더불어민주당, 보건복지위원회) 국회의원, UN사회권심의대응 NGO모임

토론회 순서

<개회식>

-인사말: 홍영표, 노회찬, 권미혁 의원, 이성호 국가인권위원회 위원장

-축사: 참석의원 및 주요인사

<세션1. UN 사회권 규약 제4차 최종견해에 대한 평가>

-좌장: 이경숙 국가인권위원회 상임위원

-발표1: UN 사회권 심의 NGO 대응활동 소개 | 김남희 참여연대 복지조세팀장

-발표2: UN 사회권위원회 제4차 최종견해 분석 및 향후 과제_국가인권위의 대응을 중심으로 | 이동우 국가인권위원회 국제인권과 사무관

<세션2. 포괄적 차별금지법 제정과 사회보장권 개선 방안>

-좌장: 신혜수 UN 사회권위원회 위원

-발표1: 포괄적 차별금지 및 성소수자 인권 개선 방안 | 류민희 희망을만드는법 변호사

-발표2: 사회보장권 개선방안 | 박영아 공익인권법재단 공감 변호사

-토론: 이준일 고려대 법학전문대학원 교수 | 법무부 인권정책과장 | 보건복지부 복지정책과장

<세션3. 노동권 보장 및 기업의 인권이행의무 실행방안>

-좌장: 조영선 국가인권위원회 사무총장

-발표1: 노동권 보장 방안 | 류미경 민주노총 국제국장

-발표2: 기업의 인권이행의무 강화 방안 | 나현필 국제민주연대 사무국장

-토론: 강성태 한양대 법학전문대학원 교수 | 고용노동부 국제협력담당관