United Nations Special Rapporteur Research Articles

Final Draft of the Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, Submitted by the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights

People living in extreme poverty are often neglected or overlooked by politicians, service providers and policy-makers due to their lack of political voice, financial and social capital and their chronic social exclusion. They are disproportionately affected by many human rights violations. Discrimination against people living in poverty is widespread and widely tolerated.The Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights are the first global policy parameters focused specifically on the human rights of people living in poverty. They are intended for use by governments to ensure public policies, including poverty eradication efforts, reach the poorest members of society, that they respect and uphold the rights of the poor, and take into account the significant social, cultural, economic and structural obstacles to human rights enjoyment faced by them.The Human Rights Council adopted the “Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights” by consensus through its resolution 21/11, in September 2012. The process for the development of the Guiding Principles had been initiated by the former Commission on Human Rights in 2001, and their content refined over more than a decade of consultations with States, civil society organisations, United Nations agencies and communities living in poverty. This final draft was written by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Magdalena Sepulveda Carmona, and presented in her report to the Human Rights Council 21st session (A/HRC/21/39).

Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights: Participation of People Living in Poverty in Decision Affecting Their Lives

In this report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights focuses on the right to participation of people living in poverty. Participation is a basic human right in itself, a precondition or catalyst for the realization and enjoyment of other human rights, and of fundamental importance in empowering people living in poverty to tackle inequalities and asymmetries of power in society. The report presents the human rights approach to participation and a framework based on human rights for how to include people living in poverty in the design, implementation and evaluation of policies and programmes in a meaningful and effective way, taking into account the obstacles they face.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights: Unpaid Care Work and Women's Human Rights

In this report unpaid care work is positioned as a major human rights issue. Focusing on women caregivers, particularly those living in poverty, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights argues that heavy and unequal care responsibilities are a major barrier to gender equality and to women’s equal enjoyment of human rights, and, in many cases, condemn women to poverty. Therefore, the failure of States to adequately provide, fund, support and regulate care contradicts their human rights obligations, by creating and exacerbating inequalities and threatening women’s rights enjoyment. The report analyses the relationship between unpaid care and poverty, inequality and women’s human rights; clarifies the human rights obligations of States with regard to unpaid care; and finally provides recommendations to States on how to recognize, value, reduce and redistribute unpaid care work. Ultimately, it argues that State policies should position care as a social and collective responsibility, in particular through improving women’s access to public services, care services and infrastructure.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights: Penalization of People Living in Poverty & Human Rights

In the present report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights analyses several laws, regulations and practices that punish, segregate, control and undermine the autonomy of persons living in poverty. Such measures have been adopted with increasing frequency over the past three decades, intensifying in recent years owing to the economic and financial crises, and now represent a serious threat to the enjoyment of human rights by persons living in poverty. The ways in which States and social forces penalize those living in poverty are interconnected and multidimensional, and cannot be analysed in isolation. For the purpose of this report, the Special Rapporteur identifies the following four areas of concern: (a) laws, regulations and practices which unduly restrict the performance of life-sustaining behaviors in public spaces by persons living in poverty; (b) urban planning regulations and measures related to the gentrification and privatization of public spaces that disproportionately impact persons living in poverty; (c) requirements and conditions imposed on access to public services and social benefits which interfere with the autonomy, privacy and family life of persons living in poverty; and (d) excessive and arbitrary use of detention and incarceration that threatens the liberty and personal security of persons living in poverty.

Indigenous Rights as Tactics of Neoliberal Governance

Indigenous rights are being increasingly recognised globally. This article argues that this recognition does not reflect radically changed positions on the part of states and other actors but rather a development indicating the cost-effective operation of neoliberal governance. The biopolitical aspect of that governance regulates the life of indigenous populations as collectivities, with rights used tactically in this process. The material for this article consists of reports of the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. The approach of governmentality is used to study how the rapporteur’s expert interpretations make indigenous peoples governable in particular ways, that is, through specific practices of power. The research identifies three such practices bearing on indigenous rights: indigenous peoples as exceptional – the necessity to intervene; indigenous rights – uncertain and calculated and indigenous peoples as claimants – the right to remedies. Expertise and legality function to depoliticise the language of indigenous rights, with states and other actors seemingly governing indigenous peoples less, yet, in recognising their rights, governing them more cost-effectively. These power effects go beyond the stated aims of safeguarding indigenous peoples and should be considered when indigenous rights are negotiated.

Examining the Practice of Developing Human Rights Indicators to Facilitate Accountability for the Human Right to Water and Sanitation

Flowing from the evolution of international legal obligations for water and sanitation, human rights practice has shifted to address state accountability for a human right to water and sanitation through the development of human rights indicators. This policy note focuses on efforts to develop indicators for state reporting to human rights treaty bodies, with human rights norms framing national reports and treaty bodies employing indicators to monitor the progressive realization of the human right to water and sanitation. In supporting evidence-based treaty monitoring through the United Nations (UN), both the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation have sought to develop indicators. This process of developing indicators for the human right to water and sanitation seeks to draw on previous indicator development practices, looking to these practices in framing, identifying and reviewing indicators. As part of a larger drive to facilitate rights-based accountability, there arises an imperative to study the political process of developing indicators, looking to past models in structuring future processes to assess the realization of the right to water and sanitation. Exploring the development of indicators for the human rights to health and education, this policy note analyses the indicator development process, proposing an indicator development process model as a basis for developing indicators that reflect the attributes of the right to water and sanitation, enlist key stakeholders in the policymaking process and have political relevance for state reporting to treaty bodies.

Human Rights to Culture, Family, and Self-Determination: The Case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

The well-being of indigenous children is a subject of major concern for indigenous peoples and human rights advocates alike. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not prevent the adoption of a Cherokee child by a non-Indian couple. This occurred over the objections of her Cherokee biological father, extended family, and Tribal Nation. After the decision, Baby Girl’s father and the adoptive couple contested the matter in a number of proceedings, none of which considered the child’s best interests as an Indian child. The tribally-appointed attorney for Baby Girl, as well as the National Indian Child Welfare Association and National Congress for American Indians, began examining additional venues for advocacy. Believing that the human rights of Baby Girl, much like those of other similarly situated indigenous children, were being violated in contravention of the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights, and other instruments of international law, they asked us to bring the matter to the attention of the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Peoples Rights (“UNSR”). We prepared a “statement of information” to alert the UNSR of the human rights violations occurring in the case. With the permission of the attorneys and organizations involved, this chapter introduces the Baby Girl case, contextualizes the claims in international human rights law, and then reproduces the statement of information and portions of the UNSR’s subsequent public statement. It concludes with an update on the Baby Girl case and broader discussion about the potential for using international law and legal forums to protect the human rights of indigenous children.

Three years after Tunisia: thoughts and perspectives on the rights to freedom of assembly and association from United Nations Special Rapporteur Maina Kiai

Roughly three years after the creation of his mandate, United Nations Special Rapporteur Maina Kiai reflects on the global state of assembly and association rights. Although the mandate was created against the backdrop of shrinking space for civil society, a massive and growing global protest movement has grabbed most of the headlines since 2011. Kiai argues that the mandate has made a measurable impact – it has helped raise awareness of repressive NGO laws, provided technical assistance to governments to strengthen assembly and association rights and developed soft law. But perhaps, the most important work of the mandate has been its contribution to a better understanding of just how important the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association are. Assembly and association rights are a powerful tool to promote dialog, pluralism, broadmindedness, tolerance and civic participation; they satisfy people's fundamental desire to take control of their own destinies. And if anything, the past few years have taught us that the worst turmoil comes when this desire is suppressed. When people are denied something so fundamental, rage inevitably follows. When people have no outlet for that rage, it can ultimately manifest itself as something much more chaotic than a street protest.

EPA-1396 – Patients’ rights: ethical and clinical issues of psychiatry

Particularly for patients with mental disorders, the bioethical principles respect for the patient's autonomy and beneficence often come into conflict. On the one hand, physicians have the legal and ethical duty to treat patients only with their informed consent. On the other hand, physicians have the duty to help patients. Many patients with severe mental or neurological disorders cannot give valid consent since their ability for autonomous decision making is temporarily reduced. In some cases, (compulsory) treatment might be the only way to restore the mental capabilities underlying autonomous decision making. To hold back treatment by referring solely to the autonomy principle runs the risk of acute or chronic health damage for patients. Furthermore, this position is based on a narrow understanding of respect for the patient's autonomy, which overlooks the duty to enhance or restore the disease-limited capability for autonomy, if possible. An example for a narrow understanding of autonomy is the Special Report on Torture in Psychiatry by Juan Mendez (United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture). Positions which exclusively emphasize autonomy tend to overlook the right for adequate help. Ethical dilemmas cannot simply be solved by prohibiting involuntary treatment in psychiatry without exception. Rather a solution has to consist of respect of the patient's autonomous will (possibly formulated in a psychiatric advance directive), effective help to restore reduced capabilities for autonomy, and beneficence.

A COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE IN AFRICA

This article provides a brief study of the constitutional protection of the right to life in Africa. This entails looking at the provisions on the right to life contained in various constitutions of African States, as well as jurisprudence on the matter of the right to life, and a comparison with the relevant international standards (United Nations and African Union). This article is based on a clinical group led by Prof Christof Heyns, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The focus of the clinical group was issues surrounding the right to life as envisaged in his mandate.

State use of unmanned military aircraft: a new international order?

In October 2013, CNN reported that 400 civilians had been killed in Pakistan by unmanned aircraft (UA) (Unmanned aircraft are sometimes referred to in this article as drones) since President Obama took office in 2009. Transnational legal theory suggests that such attacks are illegal and, in 2009, the United Nations special rapporteur on extra judicial killings suggested that the use of drones by the Obama administration in Afghanistan and Pakistan was untenable and contrary to international law. The underlying concerns with regard to legal issues are state sovereignty, responsibility, and liability. One of the contentious issues would be whether unmanned aircraft flying outside their permitted areas violate state sovereignty, and if so—what can be done to prevent future UA violations of sovereignty of the airspace. Another would be, as earlier mentioned, whether the killings carried out by drones amount to extra judicial killings. The focus of this article is on legal challenges and whether military functions of UA can be brought under international regulation. Despite the inherent advantages of this relatively new mode of aviation—such as camouflage, low cost, and the avoidance of risk to the pilot on board in UA operations—serious concerns abound, which go to the heart of the law of humanity. This article addresses these concerns from a legal perspective.

The Minimum Human Rights Principles Applicable to Large-Scale Land Acquisitions or Leases

In June 2009, Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, put forward a set of 11 principles to address ‘the human rights challenge’ of large-scale acquisitions and leases of land. This article briefly outlines the main elements of the Minimum Principles, their objective, as well as the context in which they were released. It also presents a critical analysis of their impact, based on the controversies that they sparked among various stakeholders. En junio de 2009, Oliver de Schutter, el ponente especial de las Naciones Unidas sobre el derecho al alimento, propuso una serie de once principios para tratar sobre “el desafío a los derechos humanos” de las adquisiciones a gran escala y los contratos de arrendamiento de tierra. La llamada por el ponente especial para disciplinar el acaparamiento de tierras, vino en un momento en que no había ninguna directriz clara de la comunidad internacional, en cómo tratar el fenómeno naciente de acaparamiento de tierras. También estaba poco claro si se necesitaban las normas, o si las leyes nacionales existentes y los estándares internacionales, eran suficientes para regular lo que algunos observadores veían como un simple resurgimiento típico de inversiones de la era colonial. 2009年6月，联合国粮食权利特别报告员Olivier De Schutte提出了有十一项原则，来强调大规模购并和租赁土地带来的“人权挑战”。用于规范土地掠夺的此项特别报告员呼吁发生在国际社会尚未存在治理正在出现的土地掠夺现象的清晰指针。同样不清楚的是，是否需要新的规范，或者现存的国际法与国际标准是否足够管理一些观察者所视为的殖民地时代投资典型的一种简单再现。 في عام 2009، طرح أوليفر دي شوتر، مقرر الأمم المتحدة الخاص المعني بالحق في الغذاء، قائمة تتضمن أحد عشر مبدأً تعالج "تحدي حقوق الإنسان" الذي تمثله عمليات الاستحواذ والإيجار واسعة النطاق للأراضي. وقد جاءت دعوة المقرر الخاص إلى ضبط عمليات الاستيلاء على الأراضي في وقت كان يشهد الافتقار إلى مبادئ توجيهية واضحة من جانب المجتمع الدولي بشأن معالجة هذه الظاهرة الناشئة. كما لم يكن واضحاً مدى الاحتياج إلى القواعد الجديدة، وما إذا كانت القوانين الوطنية والمعايير الدولية القائمة كافية لتنظيم ما يعتبره بعض المراقبين مجردة استعادة لنمط الاستثمارات في الحقبة الاستعمارية. 2009년 유엔 식량권 특별 보고관 올리비에 드 슈터는 대규모 토지 매임과 임차가 지니는 “인권 도전”을 다루기 위해서 11개의 원칙을 제시했다. 당시 토지 매임을 규제하기 위하여 특별 보고관의 요구는 새로운 토지 매입 현상을 다루기 위한 국제 사회의 분명한 가이드라인이 없던 때였다. 또한 새로운 규범이 필요한지 혹은 일부는 식민지 시대 전형적이었던 단순한 투자의 부활로 보았던 것을 규제하는데 기존의 국가 법률과 국제법 기준이 충분한지 불분명했었다. В июне 2009 года Оливье де Шуттер, Специальный докладчик ООН по праву на питание, выдвинул ряд из одиннадцати принципов для решения «проблем в области прав человека» в крупномасштабных приобретениях и аренде земли. Призыв Специального докладчика упорядочить захват земель прозвучал в тот момент, когда еще не было четкого руководства со стороны международного сообщества в решении возникающего явления захвата земель. Было также неясно, необходимы ли новые нормы, или существующих национальных законов и международных стандартов было достаточно, чтобы регулировать то, что некоторые наблюдатели рассматривают как простое возобновление инвестиций типичное для колониальной эпохи.

Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights

In the present report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights presents fiscal policy, and particularly taxation policies, as a major determinant in the enjoyment of human rights. Taxation is a key tool when tackling inequality and for generating the resources necessary for poverty reduction and the realization of human rights, and can also be used to foster stronger governance, accountability and participation in public affairs. She outlines relevant human rights obligations to guide and inform State revenue-raising practices, including the duty to use the maximum available resources for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights. She also analyses the questions of how the principles of non-discrimination and equality and the duty of international cooperation and assistance should inform taxation policies at the global and national levels. After assessing how revenue-raising policies and practices can be strengthened through a human rights-based approach, she makes recommendations for fiscal and tax policies that are grounded in human rights and can lead to poverty reduction, sustainable development and the realization of transformative rights.

Evaluating the Impact of Human Rights Work: The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Reduction of Extrajudicial Executions in Colombia

Introduction by Philip Alston, John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law, New York University School of Law and former United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, 2004–2010. The least well developed dimension of human rights practice and scholarship is evaluation. Human rights practitioners will often assert that their actions or interventions – ranging from mere advocacy, through attempts to embarrass or shame perpetrators, to major campaigns to ensure that prosecutions are brought and wrongdoers are punished – have been ‘successful’. But two questions always arise in response. The first is how to define success, and the second is how to demonstrate some degree of causal link between the actions of the practitioners and the response on the part of the relevant governmental or other actors who are said to have changed their attitude or conduct. Neither question is easy to answer convincingly, which explains why so few sustained and sophisticated attempts have been made at evaluation. Christian Salazar's study of the impact of the extended and intensive efforts by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Colombia to expose and at least reduce, if not eliminate, extrajudicial executions by the Colombian armed forces stands as a clear and important exception to this reluctance to engage in evaluation. In this case it is self-evaluation, which raises another standard problem in the area. Evaluation is ideally undertaken by objective and impartial external experts. But all too often the outsiders have neither the requisite expertise nor the access to enable them to do other than a superficial assessment. The insiders, for their part, generally do not have the incentive or the necessary degree of detachment, to enable them to undertake a compelling evaluation of the work with which they have been engaged. While there is generally no perfect solution to this dilemma, two principles can assist. The first is that internal and external evaluations both have an important place. Whether they reinforce, complement, or contradict one another, they nonetheless make it easier for observers to arrive at their own conclusions based on the available evidence. The second is that neither an internal nor an external evaluation is guaranteed to be convincing, and the real test lies in the strength of the methodology used, of the research undertaken, and of the degree of persuasiveness of the conclusions reached when measured against all available evidence. Seen in this light, Salazar's study is exemplary. As Director of OHCHR's largest field office in the world from 2009 to 2012 he was uniquely placed to understand and be able to situate what was going on. By adopting a carefully nuanced methodology based around a concept of causality that he describes as ‘plausible attribution’ he provides a deeply insightful analysis of the Office's impact in relation to one of the most troubling episodes in Colombia's long-running internal conflict. Even more importantly, his study arrives at a number of conclusions which must be taken very carefully into account by all those engaged in establishing and maintaining international human rights field presences in the future. Many important stakeholders who participated in the fight against extrajudicial executions in Colombia have repeatedly mentioned that the presence and the interventions of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) were crucial to their reduction. Hence, the question the present study will try to answer is: What role did OHCHR play in the reduction of extrajudicial executions and what was its impact? For the purpose of this study, ‘impact’ was defined as a plausible attribution to the work of OHCHR in Colombia of certain outcomes within the fight against extrajudicial executions. The study tries to establish these ‘plausible attributions’ based on an analysis of OHCHR's relations with the government and references to the influence of other actors. Important sources for this study are 22 interviews with key stakeholders who participated in the fight against extrajudicial executions since 2002. The interviewees were direct witnesses, close observers, or decisive actors. Thus, the words of these insiders are fundamental for the endeavor to establish OHCHR's role and impact in the process.

Foreword

IDS BulletinVolume 43, Issue s1 p. vii-ix Foreword Olivier De Schutter, Olivier De Schutter United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food.Search for more papers by this author Olivier De Schutter, Olivier De Schutter United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food.Search for more papers by this author First published: 08 July 2012 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2012.00339.xAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. Volume43, Issues1Special Issue: Standing on the Threshold: Food Justice in IndiaJuly 2012Pages vii-ix RelatedInformation

Trans- Bodies in/of War(s): Cisprivilege and Contemporary Security Strategy

This article explores a gendered dimension of war and conflict analysis that has up until now received little attention at the intersection of gender studies and studies of global politics: queer bodies in, and genderqueer significations of, war and conflict. In doing so, the article introduces the concept of cisprivilege to International Relations as a discipline and security studies as a core sub-field. Cisprivilege is an important, but under-explored, element of the constitution of gender and conflict. Whether it be in controversial reactions to the suggestion of United Nations Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin that airport screenings for terrorists not discriminate against transgendered people, or in structural violence that is ever-present in the daily lives of many individuals seeking to navigate the heterosexist and cissexist power structures of social and political life, war and conflict is embodied and reifies cissexism. This article makes two inter-related arguments: first, that both the invisibility of genderqueer bodies in historical accounts of warfare and the visibility of genderqueer bodies in contemporary security strategy are forms of discursive violence; and second, that these violences have specific performative functions that can and should be interrogated. After constructing these core arguments, the article explores some of the potential benefits of an interdisciplinary research agenda that moves towards the theorisation of cisprivilege in security theory and practice.

Food for Thought: Exploring the Right to Food in Theory and Practice

The Fight for the Right to Food: Lessons Learned is written by the first United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and his team at the Research Unit on the Right to Food, which was founded in 2001 at the Graduate Institute of Development Studies in Geneva with the remit of providing research support to the Special Rapporteur in collaboration with staff at the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The book documents the work undertaken by the first Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food during his eight-year mandate and combines legal, theoretical and conceptual ideas of the right to food with an operational understanding of the right in practice. Although there have been a number of notable texts published previously on the human right to food (see Kent, 2005; Eide and Kracht (eds), 2005), this book is important as it offers more than a discussion of the legal provisions for the right to food: the authors not only examine the right to food under human rights law, but explore the wider context in which the right to food operates. This includes an essential examination of the concept of food security and its relationship with the right to food as well as analysing the impact of international political and economic phenomena, such as globalization, international trade liberalization and armed conflict, on the realization of the right.

The Continuum of Violence against Women and the Challenges of Effective Redress

Globally violence against women is a systemic and widespread problem. Despite the recognition of such violence as a violation of human rights, its numerous manifestations and increasing prevalence rates are a source of concern. The mandate of the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences has over the eighteen years of its existence examined the phenomena both conceptually and in practice, through thematic reports and country mission reports, respectively. This article focuses on 4 aspects of violence against women. (1) It provides an overview of the evolution of violence against women as a human rights issue. (2) It examines the different manifestations of violence against women. (3) It examines the interpretation by States of their obligation to exercise due diligence in responding to and preventing violence against women. (4) It proposes a holistic approach to dealing with the issue of Violence against Women.

Armed Conflict and Human Rights in Colombia

Armed Conflict and Human Rights in Colombia

Māori Issues

Māori Issues Margaret Mutu (bio) Since 2008 Māori have started clawing back a few hard-earned rights. We had hoped that the Pākehā majority generally supported these. But our hopes were dashed over the past year as first the media and then the government launched racist attacks on various segments of the Māori community as part of its ongoing agenda to maintain Pākehā hegemony, that is, the retention of control of the country's resources, wealth, and privilege in Pākehā hands. Māori managed to withstand the onslaught and stand firm in the face of determined efforts to undermine our leadership. However, along the way we lost several important leaders, including our entertainer extraordinaire, Sir Howard Morrison, with his beautiful voice, dazzling showmanship, and unique Māori sense of humor. We lost him in September 2009. Then in May 2010, our internationally renowned film-maker, Merata Mita, who produced a number of outstanding television and film documentaries on the Māori struggle against Pākehā oppression and racism, passed away. Much of the Pākehā media animosity toward Māori in the past year focused on the Māori Party members of Parliament (MPS), and one in particular. The media had been sniping for some time with headlines such as "Māori Activists on Warpath" (Sunday News, 28 June 2009) and "MP'S Uncle to Lead Māori Sovereignty Protests" (NZPA, 28 June 2009), referring to Māori Party MP Hone Harawira; "Government Scuppers Māori TV's Bid for Rugby Rights" (NZH, 13 Oct 2009); and "Luck Running Out for Gaffe-prone Sharples" (NZH, 17 Oct 2009), referring to the party's co-leader, the Honorable Dr Pita Sharples. Late in October unauthorized MP spending came under parliamentary and media scrutiny, and several members were targeted. At the time, Hone Harawira was part of a parliamentary delegation to Geneva for a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the world organization of parliaments. During that meeting he sought and was given permission for leave to go to Paris for a day with his wife, a private trip that he paid for himself. On 3 November he reported the visit, and the permission to go, in his weekly column in the Northland Age. Pākehā media immediately dropped its investigation of unauthorized spending by other members of Parliament and turned their sights on Harawira's trip to Paris, attacking him for using New Zealand taxpayers' money, when in fact he had not. The Māori Party issued a press statement answering [End Page 227] the media questioning (Māori Party 2009a), and the matter should have ended there. However, among the numerous threatening and abusive private e-mails Harawira received on the matter (pers comm, 10 Nov 2009) was one from an individual known for his attacks on his own Māori people (Mutu 2007). Most unwisely, Harawira dashed off an angry but private response in which he used English expletives to remind the individual of the widely published history of ongoing stealing, raping, and pillaging by Pākehā of Māori and our lands and resources. For an unscrupulous and unprincipled person this presented an opportunity for media exposure, which some elements of Pākehā media in this country could be relied on to fully exploit. After his visit in 2005, Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, had issued a damning report in which he stated, "Public media should be encouraged to provide a balanced, unbiased and non-racist picture of Māori in New Zealand society" (Stavenhagen 2006). But that advice has been ignored, and Māaori who raise the issue of Pākehā atrocities committed against Māori are still typically vilified by members of the Pākehā media. So the unscrupulous opportunist immediately released the private e-mail from Harawira to the media and then exploited the resulting frenzy, giving numerous interviews to Pākehā media. However, Māori media were much less tolerant of his behavior. He had miscalculated the level of support for Harawira in the Māori community, and particularly in his...