Protocols for Human Right Intervention - Creating Commons

  1. What is the existing target protocol you are hoping to improve or enhance? Eg: hand-washing, traffic system, connector standards, carbon trading.

From the experience as a human right defender and a public art practioner, “Lack of a support network” is a frequently mentioned problem for an oppressed individual experiencing human right violations, that is, the inability to effectively connect various charities, governments, cultural institutions, scientific research institutions and the public to provide support. There are more and more human right focused charities that are providing services to the public. However, with the isolated mode of operation, human right violations often remain unsolvable.

At the same time, the implicit competitions for donor income appeared in the charities prohibited from the ecology of cooperation further. This report means to respond to the protocol of human right intervention in solving daily structual issues, such as homelessness, street violence, discrimination, public safety issue, and environmental violence, also to the international human right issues such as immigrant violence, border violence, military enforcement, by suggesting to building infrastructures of coordination between different people and organizations.

2.What is the core idea or insight about potential improvement you want to pursue?

Instead of blaming this disconnection to a failure to build relationships, I propose that the process of relationship building was also largely depending on infrastructure that allowed such connections to occur.

There infastructures may include:

  • Common Data Base 共同域数据库
  • Shared Platform of public activities and contacts 公共活动与联系方式的共享平台
  • Common Space 共同空间

Cultural institutions/provide entry points for public participation and ensure effective links to relevant institutions at every event. Agencies don’t have to do all the work of organizing public engagement,

This also requires the study of interdisciplinary cooperation and the conversion of disciplinary thinking, which can help both sides to do more in-depth on the issue of human rights and ethics. Government agencies and scientific organizations deal primarily with large amounts of data and theory, and if they just publish data online in a generic way, passively waiting for the public to read and understand, the information lacks visibility and readability. In this way, even if there is publicity, it is not really connecting with the public, but arrogantly treating the public as an object that can only be passively received. In fact, as is the nature of archives, information can have real impact only if it is actively activated. Working with cultural institutions, we are able to activate this data and policy information in a number of ways: For example, our All Work No Pay screening looked back at some of the policies related to women’s work and pay in the last century, and also invited the head of the Cross Road Women’s Pay organization to share recent data and policies.

Cultural institutions can develop more sophisticated forms of public engagement based on a deeper understanding of policies and issues. For example, when a social organization doesn’t have enough houses for a homeless person, they can work with a social screening organization to organize a fundraising screening of screen with the homeless, and the fees raised from the screening can briefly provide a few days of accommodation for the homeless, or even enough to rent an apartment for a short period of time (in fact, We collected 300 pounds for our Screen With Homeless in London. There is more that can be done, such as a Brick Workshop, which invites the public and homeless people to build a house together.

It is worth noticing that the research in CA(Competition Analysis) by Edwards’(1955)showed that organizations working in multiple fields and markets are less motivated to compete with each others than working in only one field. Therefore, we believe that actively linking organizations with infrastructures will help reducing the vicious cycle of operating as capital.

  1. What is your discovery methodology for investigating the current state of the target protocol? Eg: field observation, expert interviews, historical data analysis, failure event analysis*
  • Case Study: homelessness in London and Chengdu
  • Data Analysis of charities and governmental institutions

4.In what form will you prototype your improvement idea? Eg: Code, reference design implementation, draft proposal shared with experts for feedback, A/B test of ideas with a test audience, prototype hardware, etc.*

We will create draft proposal for a workshop inviting people from charities, research institutions, policy makers, and the public to join together. In fact, we have already been practicing two workshops in London.

5.How will you field-test your improvement idea? Eg: run a restricted pilot at an event, simulation, workshop, etc.*


6.Who will be able to judge the quality of your output? Ideally name a few suitable judges.*

7.How will you publish and evangelize your improvement idea? Eg: Submit proposal to a standards body, publish open-source code, produce and release a software development kit etc.*

Activate public awareness using exhibitions.

8.What is the success vision for your idea?*

Build open source community and interlinkedness between human right defending organizations and individuals.

1 Like