Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education Conveys Alarm at Violent Crackdown on Peaceful Demonstrators at Universities Calling for a Ceasefire in Gaza

The Human Rights Council this afternoon began an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to education. It also concluded an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

Farida Shaheed, Special Rapporteur on the right to education, said since last October, multiple mandate holders had repeatedly issued joint statements regarding the situation in Israel and Gaza. In April, they sounded the alarm on the systematic attacks on schools, universities, teachers, and students that suggested an intentional effort to comprehensively destroy the Palestinian education system, known as ‘scholasticide’.

Ms. Shaheed said she had officially visited the United States this year. Her visit coincided with anti-war demonstrations at universities, including encampments on campus premises, calling for a ceasefire and for universities to review investments with Israel. Ms. Shaheed said her report on the visit would be presented next year but she had already conveyed her alarm at the violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators. Student protests expressing solidarity with the suffering civilians in Gaza and denouncing Israeli military actions took place in many other countries, receiving similar treatment. What was alarming was the unequal treatment of those expressing themselves, with pro-Palestinian protesters, including Jewish students, being confronted with disproportionately harsh responses, allegedly for anti-Semitic views, with criticism of the State of Israel conflated with anti-Semitism. The expression of a critical political opinion was not, and never would be, a legitimate ground to restrict freedom of expression.

Presenting her report on the right to academic freedom, Ms. Shaheed said it called for acknowledging academic freedom as being as crucial as a free press or independent judiciary. The worldwide submissions received, available online, showed that in every region, people exercising their academic freedom faced harassment, retaliation, repression, imprisonment and sometimes even death. Ms. Shaheed was especially worried by how curtailments of institutional autonomy; increasing surveillance of students and staff; new public management techniques; and digitalisation and artificial intelligence impacted academic freedom. Prohibiting specific subjects and banning books in schools and libraries also deserved attention.

Ms. Shaheed spoke about her visit to Finland and Finland took the floor as a country concerned.

In the discussion on the right to education, some speakers, among other things, stressed the importance of academic freedom as an integral part of the right to education. States needed to recognise and uphold the right to academic freedom. Speakers expressed concern about growing harassment and surveillance of academics and censorship of academic texts.

A number of speakers discussed the impact of the actions of Israel in occupied Palestinian territory on the right to education for Palestinian children. Systematic targeting of education infrastructure by Israel continued with impunity, and around 90 per cent of schools and all universities had been destroyed. Some speakers expressed concern about the violent repression of university students in the United States who protested the conflict in Gaza. One speaker said the report of the Special Rapporteur dangerously misrepresented the definition of anti-Semitism and distorted the realities faced by Jewish students and scholars since 7 October. In 2023, there was a 235 per cent rise in anti-Semitic incidents. Universities had become hotbeds of Jewish hate.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, which began this morning. A summary can be viewed here.

In concluding remarks, Tlaleng Mofokeng, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, said harmful practices by pharmaceutical companies blocked access to medicines and the right to health, and provided incentives to doctors to prescribe certain medicines. This practice needed to be addressed by the international community. Young people with drug addictions needed support in most cases rather than punishment. Criminalisation should be a last-resort measure. Resources being devoted to punishments needed to be rediverted to support mechanisms.

In the discussion on the right to health, some speakers, among other things, welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur, which focused on a human rights-centred, intersectional equality and non-discrimination approach to drug use. Some speakers said harm reduction programmes needed to be part of the central focus. Evidence-based harm reduction strategies had been shown to reduce the transmission of effective diseases, decrease overdose deaths, and encourage people to seek treatment. Some speakers described the Special Rapporteur’s report as “controversial “and expressed regret that the recommendations were not based on reliable scientific sources, including the recommendation to decriminalise drug use, possession, purchase and cultivation for personal use. A fundamental flaw of harm reduction was that it was not geared to preventing drug abuse, a speaker said.

Speaking in the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to health were Algeria, Belgium, Bangladesh, Iraq, Ethiopia, United States, Saudi Arabia, China, Djibouti, Colombia, Indonesia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Russian Federation, Bahrain, Malaysia, Belarus, Pakistan, Côte d'Ivoire, Georgia, Viet Nam, Albania, Panama, Brazil, Senegal, Bulgaria, Togo, Cuba, Jamaica, Singapore, South Africa, Paraguay, Yemen, Switzerland, United Nations Population Fund, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Afghanistan, Kenya, Venezuela, Angola, Mali, State of Palestine, Sudan, Malawi, Thailand, Mexico, Eswatini, Bolivia, Namibia, Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, Cambodia, Australia, Oman, Barbados, India and Ukraine.

Also speaking was Commission nationale indépendante des droits de l'homme (Burundi), as well as the following non-governmental organizations: IDPC Consortium, United for Human Rights, Iran Autism Association, Harm Reduction International, AKAHATÁ Equipo de Trabajo en Sexualidad y Géneros Asociación Civil, Bachehaye Asemane Kamran Rehabilitation Institute, Conectas Direitos Humanos, Centre for Reproductive Rights, Inc., payamavaran hamyari (chatra) and iuventum e.V..

Speaking in the discussion on the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education were Qatar on behalf of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, European Union, Egypt on behalf of the Group of Arab States, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Cabo Verde on behalf of a group of countries, Gambia on behalf of a Group of African States, Bahrain on behalf of a group of countries, Malaysia on behalf of a group of countries, Lesotho, Lithuania, Portugal, Iran, Sierra Leone, Kuwait, Czechia, Ireland, Morocco, Armenia, Luxembourg, Nepal, Israel and Egypt.

Speaking in right of reply were Rwanda, Israel and State of Palestine

The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here. All meeting summaries can be found here. Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s fifty-sixth regular session can be found here.

The Council will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 25 June, to conclude the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, before commencing the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health

The interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health started in the previous meeting and a summary can be found here.

Discussion

In the continuing discussion, some speakers, among other things, welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur, which focused on a human rights-centred, intersectional equality and non-discrimination approach to drug use. The findings and recommendations in the report were a significant contribution to the debate on the right to health and human rights. It was a critical and objective analysis which took many factors into account. The scourge of drug abuse was incompatible with the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of mental and physical health, some speakers said. States were called on to recognise the right of every person to enjoy the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health.

Some speakers said harm reduction programmes needed to be part of the central focus, and were essential in addressing the needs of individuals who used drugs, not only to reduce the negative health impacts associated with drug use but also to connect them to a broader range of social care services. It was important for States to ensure that all drug control efforts were human rights based. Evidence-based harm reduction strategies had been shown to reduce the transmission of effective diseases, decrease overdose deaths, and encourage people to seek treatment. The recommendation to design gendered harm reduction services so that they provided suitable environments for women were welcomed.

Some speakers described the Special Rapporteur’s report as “controversial “and expressed regret that the recommendations were not based on reliable scientific sources, including the recommendation to decriminalise drug use, possession, purchase and cultivation for personal use. A fundamental flaw of harm reduction was that it was not geared to preventing drug abuse, a speaker said. On the contrary, under this concept, drug abuse was not only recognised as a societal norm but was for all intents and purposes, encouraged. This was not in line with achieving the highest standard of physical and mental health.

A number of speakers underscored the importance of ensuring access to and availability of controlled medicines without discrimination, which was severely hampered, notably in the current context of multiple global crises. One speaker said unilateral coercive measures created barriers for medical supplies, and implored the Special Rapporteur to study how this issue impacted the right to health.

Among questions asked to the Special Rapporteur were: how could States overcome the stigma that harm reduction programmes encouraged drug use? Given the good practices outlined in the report, what measures would the Special Rapporteur suggest for developing countries to face the growing drug problems and ensure there was access to the drugs people needed? How could developing countries be supported to develop effective harm reduction strategies? Did the Special Rapporteur think encouraging someone to use drugs would help them realise their rights to the highest standard of physical or mental health?

Intermediate Remarks

TLALENG MOFOKENG, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, said that in terms of national implementation and in the context of universal health coverage, it was important to devise a policy funding framework that enabled human rights principles to come alive and supported the operationalisation of the right to heath. There needed to be meaningful participation of affected rights holders in developing this framework. Transparency that enabled accountability and redress when things went wrong were important. It was important for rights holders to know about processes available for them to seek redress.

Member States needed to enable mental health programmes through solidarity, mutual support and trust. Many communities were providing support programmes that promoted trust and cultural diversity. States needed to shift the focus away from residential institutionalisation and coercive treatment toward support schemes that placed the needs of affected persons at the centre, respecting their decision-making rights.

By 2022, the number of people who had been forcibly displaced worldwide had surpassed 100 million. Within the context of humanitarian crises, displacement could lead to mental health problems that required targeted support. Some people were unable to seek care for fear of criminalisation.

Health structures were often targeted in conflict settings. International norms needed to consider the availability of health services and medicines in conflict settings. The continuation of care was very important. Persons who could not receive treatment in conflict situations were faced with discrimination and stigma. States needed to support the training of health care workers. Data needed to be collected on the needs of the people on the ground.

The report provided examples of good practices and what was possible. Since 2019, at least six countries had decriminalised drug use and the possession of drugs for personal use at a domestic level; at the federal level, 66 federal states had decriminalised drug use. All needed to be responsive and creative in developing measures to promote the rights of persons affected by drugs and cease all “wars on drugs”. It was also important to pay attention to the undue influence of corporations in policy making related to drugs and medical care.

Discussion

In the continuing discussion, some speakers, among other things, thanked the Special Rapporteur for her comprehensive report and the important approach it placed on harm reduction strategies to minimise drug use. Some speakers also welcomed the different topics explored within the report, including the impact of drug laws and policies on persons from marginalised groups, and explicit de-colonialist and anti-racist approaches. They agreed with the assessment of the Special Rapporteur that the right to health for everyone was an important part of a sound human rights framework.

Drug use was a complex phenomenon, deeply intertwined with socioeconomic, psychological, and cultural factors, some speakers said. There were differing approaches from one region to another. Better cooperation was necessary, bearing in mind the different situation in different countries. The international system needed to find a better response to the problem of drugs.

Some speakers viewed harm reduction as an effective approach to mitigating the negative health, social and legal impacts associated with drug use. Harm reduction alternatives were necessary tools in the intersection of health and human rights. Punitive drug policies had a disproportionate effect on those in vulnerable situations. Harm reduction was an effective, evidence-based approach. Several speakers emphasised the importance of drug-related harm reduction programmes which offered access to health care, social services and treatment.

Some speakers reaffirmed their commitment to implementing evidence-based harm reduction measures that prioritised the health and well-being of people who used drugs. States were urged to ensure access for harm reduction programmes for all. Unfortunately, harm reduction remained underfunded in low- and middle-income countries, a speaker said. States should expand harm reduction services and remove barriers to access.

Some national steps being taken in this regard included a national drug council; being a party to international drug control conventions; community-based needle and syringe programmes; opioid maintenance therapy; national guidelines on drug use prevention; public systems for the care of addiction; the implementation of awareness-raising campaigns; and early warning systems to detect dangerous substances within the community.

A number of speakers noted that the world drug problem was complex with no one size fits all solution. It was important to respect each State’s unique domestic circumstances and its unique solutions. Harm reduction strategies should not be prioritised over prevention and an anti-drugs approach. Some speakers said their countries had a “zero-drug tolerance” approach.

A human rights approach should not be used to challenge national and international legal instruments on drugs, one speaker said. There was no place to legalise psychotropic substances. Drugs remained a danger to health and safety and there was no “safe level” of consumption.

Concluding Remarks

TLALENG MOFOKENG, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, in closing remarks, said harmful practices by pharmaceutical companies blocked access to medicines and the right to health, and provided incentives to doctors to prescribe certain medicines. This practice needed to be addressed by the international community.

Young people needed support to transition into adulthood and it was important to provide them with information about drugs and drug abuse. Unnecessary use of legal force and the death penalty as a punishment for drug trafficking had an adverse impact on young people’s rights. Young people with drug addictions needed support in most cases rather than punishment. Criminalisation should be a last resort measure. Resources being devoted to punishments needed to be rediverted to support mechanisms.

Ms. Mofokeng thanked Luxembourg and Costa Rica for hosting her country visits, and Chile for hosting an upcoming visit. She said she would also coordinate with Thailand regarding a future visit to the country. In closing, she said that the right to health needed to be realised to ensure that no one was left behind.

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education

Reports

The Council has before it the reports of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, Farida Shaheed, on academic freedom (A/HRC/56/58) and on her visit to Finland (A/HRC/56/58/Add.1).

Presentation of Reports

FARIDA SHAHEED, Special Rapporteur on the right to education, presented her thematic report on the right to academic freedom. Since last October, multiple mandate holders had repeatedly issued joint statements regarding the situation in Israel and Gaza. They unequivocally condemned targeted and deadly violence directed at civilians in Israel and violent indiscriminate attacks against Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including indiscriminate and disproportionate killing of children, women and men of all ages and the weaponisation of humanitarian assistance and essentials.

In April, they sounded the alarm on the systematic attacks on schools, universities, teachers, and students that suggested an intentional effort to comprehensively destroy the Palestinian education system, known as ‘scholasticide’. Demands for an immediate cease-fire, and for ending blockades and restrictions on the delivery of life-saving aid to civilians were not heeded, illustrating the lack of capacity, as human rights monitoring mechanisms, to protect people in the most vulnerable situations.

Ms. Shaheed said she had officially visited the United States this year. Her visit coincided with anti-war demonstrations at universities, including encampments on campus premises, calling for a ceasefire and for universities to review investments with Israel. Ms. Shaheed said her report on the visit would be presented next year but she had already conveyed her alarm at the violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators. Student protests expressing solidarity with the suffering civilians in Gaza and denouncing Israeli military actions took place in many other countries, receiving similar treatment. What was alarming was the unequal treatment of those expressing themselves, with pro-Palestinian protesters, including Jewish students, being confronted with disproportionately harsh responses, allegedly for anti-Semitic views, with criticism of the State of Israel conflated with anti-Semitism. All States should prohibit the advocacy of any views that constituted incitement to violence, hostility or discrimination. The expression of a critical political opinion was not, and never would be, a legitimate ground to restrict freedom of expression.

The current report called for acknowledging academic freedom as being as crucial as a free press or independent judiciary. The worldwide submissions received, available online, showed that in every region, people exercising their academic freedom faced harassment, retaliation, repression, imprisonment and sometimes even death. Ms. Shaheed was especially worried by how curtailments of institutional autonomy; increasing surveillance of students and staff; new public management techniques; and digitalisation and artificial intelligence impacted academic freedom. Prohibiting specific subjects and banning books in schools and libraries also deserved attention. There were multiple actors: Governments, religious or political groups, armed and terrorist groups, but also sometimes the educational institutions themselves, school boards, staff and students, and parents’ associations.

Academic freedom was the freedom to access, disseminate and produce information; to think freely; to develop, express, apply and engage with a diversity of knowledge within or related to one’s expertise or field of study, regardless of whether it took place inside the academic community or outside it. Academic freedom should not be politicised. Ensuring academic freedom required institutional autonomy; so academic, research and teaching institutions themselves must respect academic freedom. Academic freedom was intrinsic to the entitlement to receive and provide quality education and needed to be protected at all levels of education. This should be followed even on controversial issues. Ms. Shaheed called on the Principles for Implementing the Right to Academic Freedom to be endorsed and implemented by all.

She had visited Finland in November 2023 and thanked the Government for facilitating the visit and its strong spirit of cooperation. Finland’s public educational system enjoyed a well-deserved reputation for excellence. The education system was designed to accommodate diverse needs and circumstances, support individuals to achieve their full potential, and lifelong learning with no dead ends. Ms. Shaheed commended Finland’s firm commitment to international human rights standards. However, the system faced some critical challenges. For example, there was an increasing shortage of teachers, especially in early childhood education and care, special needs education, and education in minority languages.

Ms. Shaheed recommended developing targeted teacher-retention policies. She applauded Finland as a global leader in developing and implementing anti-bullying programmes, including preventative measures, and for strengthening social, emotional and interactive skills, school community work, and promoting mental well-being. Finland was also commended for efforts to support migrant students, persons with disabilities, speakers of minority languages, including sign language, and those whose mother tongue was not Finnish or Swedish. Despite this, learning support, including individual learning paths, should be increased to address gaps. Finally, digitalisation in education required a robust discussion of all stakeholders to safeguard against negative health implications for children and youth.

Statement by Country Concerned

Finland, speaking as a country concerned, said Finland attached great importance to the work of the Special Procedures mandate holders. The Special Rapporteur’s visit provided for an important opportunity to exchange views and examine the State’s education policies. Finland noted the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations and would give them due consideration.

Finland was devoted to protecting the rights of the most vulnerable. Finland’s education system was designed to account for various needs, including those of the most vulnerable. It promoted lifelong education. The minimum graduating age had recently been increased to 18 years, and upper secondary education and transport to and from school had been made free of cost. The Government had further increased minimum teaching hours while not adding new content to the curriculum. This allowed for more time to be devoted to teaching each subject. The Government was also reforming special education to better meet the needs of children with disabilities.

Teachers in Finland were professional and well-trusted. The Government had greatly increased funding for university courses on teaching in recent years to promote increased enrolment. Finland strongly supported the work of the Special Rapporteur and her mandate.

Discussion

In the ensuing discussion, some speakers, among other things, stressed the importance of academic freedom as an integral part of the right to education. States needed to recognise and uphold the right to academic freedom. Safeguarding education was critical for preventing violence and promoting development. The academic community needed to be free to conduct research and disseminate the results of research. Speakers welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s attention to limitations on academic freedom and the need to address them. All States needed to develop more modern education systems able to address issues such as the climate crisis, digitisation and artificial intelligence. The right to protect and receive education needed to be fulfilled. States needed to work together to ensure academic freedom and truth seeking for the benefit of all.

Some speakers expressed concern about growing harassment and surveillance of academics and censorship of academic texts. Such actions needed to cease. Some speakers called for academic freedom to be recognised as an autonomous right. A global legal framework was needed to meet the needs of society and ensure the full exercise of academic freedoms. Ethical, standardised rules on academic freedom needed to be developed. One speaker said non-governmental organizations needed to be supported in carrying out their roles as educators.

A number of speakers presented national measures to increase children’s access to education, increase the quality of education, strengthen the governance of the school system, increase access to study materials and school meals, promote self-governance by universities, and support displaced children and children affected by conflict to access education. One speaker presented plans to propose a draft Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on children’s right to free early childhood, primary and secondary education. One speaker said youth needed to be included in political dialogues related to education. Another speaker called on the international community to provide increased support to bolster education and reduce the digital divide in Africa.

Children affected by armed conflict needed to be provided with protection and education. One speaker called on States to implement the Bahrain Declaration and ensure the right to education for children affected by conflict.

A number of speakers discussed the impact of the actions of Israel in occupied Palestinian territory on the right to education for Palestinian children. Systematic targeting of education infrastructure by Israel continued with impunity, they said. Around 90 per cent of schools and all universities had been destroyed. These actions dismantled the future of Palestinian society. A permanent ceasefire was needed in Gaza and perpetrators of violations of children’s rights to education needed to be held accountable. Some speakers expressed concern about violent repression of university students in the United States who protested the conflict in Gaza.

One speaker said the report of the Special Rapporteur dangerously misrepresented the definition of anti-Semitism and distorted the realities faced by Jewish students and scholars since 7 October. In 2023, there was a 235 per cent rise in anti-Semitic incidents. Universities had become hotbeds of Jewish hate. Protests in universities were not calling for the protection of the rights of the Palestinian people, they were calling for the destruction of Israel. Academic freedom and freedom of speech could not be used as an excuse for anti-Semitism.

Some speakers asked about what States could do to protect the right to academic freedom and protect academics from harassment and reprisals; how States should support non-governmental organizations providing education for children; and about measures to protect academic freedom in the context of the increasing use of digital technologies. One speaker called on the Special Rapporteur to, in a future report, focus on the effects of Israel’s actions on Palestinians’ right to education.