By Clement Voule, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association.
As UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association I am often called upon to respond to situations of repression of the right to peaceful protest around the world. I deal with cases of disproportionate use of force by security forces, cases of intimidation or criminalization of protestors or cases in which Governments, contrary to international law, order blanket bans on peaceful protests. After two years, as UN Special Rapporteur, I thought I had seen it all.

Yesterday, I was informed that the United Nations Secretariat has in effect banned their staff from taking part in the peaceful protests for Black Lives Matter, following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The United Nations sent a circular to UN Staff notifying them that given their obligations under the staff regulations “participation in public demonstrations in the current circumstances may not be consistent with the independence and impartiality required of (them) as international civil servants”. According to the UN, staff should not take part in these peaceful protests because “international civil servants do not have the freedom of private persons to take sides or to express their convictions publicly on controversial matters, either individually or as members of a group”.

Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes the right to peaceful assembly and clarifies that “no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.

In the case of the United Nations, while I understand the need to ensure the impartiality of its international civil service, it is clear that internal UN rules cannot override broad international human rights norms applied in every nation. My predecessors and I have consistently underlined that the right to peaceful assembly applies equally to national and foreigners in a country, regardless of their status.

The UN explains to staff that “impartiality implies tolerance and restraint, particularly in dealing with political or religious convictions” and hence adds that unlike private persons UN Staff should not “express their convictions publicly on controversial matters.” Staff are also advised that “expression of a particular political opinion or opinion about a particularly sensitive political matter in public may not be compatible with that status.”

This begs the question: is peacefully protesting against racism and for “Black Lives Matter”, for equality and for justice “a controversial matter”? Are human rights too “politically sensitive” for UN staff to stand up publicly for? I have heard this argument from some Governments but would never expect it from the UN.

The issues at the heart of the protests that have unfolded since the killing of George Floyd, are the same fundamental issues that the UN has been fighting for since its establishment.
The UN Charter reaffirms its “faith in fundamental human rights, and dignity and worth of the human person” and the UN has been at forefront of the fight against racism and discrimination. This is the reason why people have taken to the streets and why UN staff should be able to join them.

The UN circular advising staff against participating in the protests recognizes that as international civil servants, staff are “called upon to uphold and respect the principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations, including faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women”.

I encourage the UN to allow their staff to publicly join this important and historical movement to end institutional and other forms of racism and violence. To allow their staff to exercise their right to peaceful protest like thousands of others fighting for justice, dignity and equality. Beyond the events which have unfolded in the United States, this is a movement of global proportions taking on global issues.

Like the NFL the UN should realize it time to change.

The UN’s ban on its staff can be badly misinterpreted as the UN turning its back on this struggle. In the words of Desmond Tutu, the risk is that “if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”.

END