SEMINAR ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

"The freedom of expression enjoyed by parliamentarians depends to a great extent on the freedom of expression enjoyed in society in general. As legislators, parliamentarians have a special responsibility for ensuring an environment favourable to free expression" said Mr. Emile Guirieoulou, President of the Committee on General and Institutional Affairs and member of the National Assembly of Côte d'Ivoire, and Rapporteur of the Seminar on Freedom of Expression, Parliament and the Promotion of Tolerant Societies, held from 25 to 27 May 2005, at the House of Parliaments.

Given the chilling effect of defamation suits, parliamentarians should respond publicly to criticism rather than resorting to the justice system. The Seminar's Rapporteur stressed that while diversity of the media is important, such diversity is only meaningful if it allows for the expression of a diversity of opinions. Mr. Guirieoulou underlined the importance for parliamentarians of access to information and pointed out that by the same token, parliaments too were required to provide access to the information they held.

He stressed that by fighting hate speech, parliamentarians were pursuing the basic aim of ensuring respect for equality, and that they should play a much more active role in this field, explaining that "the problems of hatred and discrimination with which all countries are confronted must be tackled by means of a comprehensive strategy to promote equality and respect for others and their difference". The Seminar, organized by the IPU and Article 19, the Global Campaign for Free Expression, an expert organization in the field of freedom of expression, recommended that all parliaments set up human rights committees, and invited the IPU to continue holding parliamentary workshops on human rights issues. It was designed specifically for chairpersons and members of parliamentary human rights committees, and was thus the second seminar organized by the IPU for this specific audience, the first one having taken place in March 2004.

Freedom of expression is the main working tool of members of parliament. Its exercise, however, is not always easy, as it is not an absolute right and requires respect for certain limitations. The approximately 100 members of parliaments from over 40 countries who attended the Seminar discussed in a very open and frank manner issues related to defamation and the right to privacy, access to information, freedom of the press, the risks created by increasing media concentration, the limits within which criticism of the judiciary should be allowed, parliamentary immunity and hate speech.

PROTECTING MIGRANTS

Looking for win-win solutions

Although it is a human right to leave one's own country, there is no corresponding right to enter others. This point, made at a panel discussion on migration and development held during the Manila Assembly, served to trigger a discussion on some of the wider issues surrounding migration. Two panellists presented the topic from their respective standpoints: Mr. Jan Karlsson, Co-Chair of the Global Commission on International Migration, and Mr. Tomas Achacoso, former Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.

Mr. Karlsson pointed out that the Global Commission on International Migration had been set up to seek a coherent response to migration issues. Using demography, development and democracy as the three main indicators, the Commission's remit had been to identify the principal reasons for migration. For example, poor employment prospects in countries of origin were often powerful stimuli, and unfilled jobs in some developed countries with ageing populations and low birth rates offered attractive opportunities. In many cases, people were driven to migrate by the desire to live where thedemocratic framework went beyond formal democracy andprovided a genuinely free and fair society that was well governed, secure and free from conflict. An important part of the Commission's remit had been to review the whole problem of human trafficking, in particular its effect on the growing number of women involved and on countries' development processes. Another of its tasks had been to develop a win-win strategy that would enable the shared interests of countries with ageing populations and low fertility rates and those with young workforces to be fully realized.

Migration could have a significant impact on poverty alleviation, and consequently on the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals. In the year 2000, the remittances of overseas workers to their countries of origin had come to twice the amount of official development assistance. However, remittances alone would not guarantee an increase in countries' overall well-being. India provided an excellent example of a "virtuous circle" where the economy benefited greatly not only from remittances from its citizens overseas, but also from investment, capital formation and job creation by returnees from abroad. On the other hand, Africa continued to lose the majority of its health professionals, mainly to the West, with a resultant negative impact on development.

Mr. Achacoso agreed that there was a growing awareness that many developed countries would face the dual problem of declining birth rates and ageing populations, while the majority of developing countries with young and growing populations would continue to remain poor and politically unstable. In the prevailing climate, the developed countries, whose demographic reality required them to bring in migrant workers, in fact adopted immigration policies that prevented them from doing so. Such a situation necessitated research into win-win solutions for both labour-sending and labour-receiving countries, bearing in mind that in many developed countries birth rates had fallen low enough to generate concerns about a demographic collapse.

The time had come, added Mr. Achacoso, for the labourreceiving countries to consider playing a more active role in the development of skills and qualifications in potential laboursending countries. For example, the educational systems of labour-surplus economies could benefit from financial input to enable them to accommodate both domestic needs and international demand. Such financial assistance might also serve to compensate laboursending countries for the possible negative effects of the "brain drain" on their economies. In fact, the World Bank had called for developed countries that recruited skilled workers from developing countries to compensate those countries for their lost investment in human capital.

The Philippines was one of the largest suppliers of migrant workers to the world. It was also admired for the innovative mechanisms it had developed to promote and protect the interests of its workers. National legislation was designed to extend justice to aggrieved workers on their return to the Philippines, even when contractual violations might have occurred in the country of employment. It was also significant that the whole cabinet, including the President, took collective responsibility for the management of the migration programme.

International organizations such as the IPU could encourage governments to support institutional changes that would benefit migrant workers. The management of international migration should be the responsibility of both labour-sending and labourreceiving countries. The challenge for parliamentarians was to implement legislation that would provide an enabling and protective environment for the establishment of a migration framework. The meeting agreed that the most significant contribution that parliaments could make towards achieving positive outcomes from migration for the international community as a whole would be to require their government ministries to introduce coherence and coordination between their respective policies and to ensure that migration was fully integrated in those policies.