DOCSLIB.ORG

Shared Space Under Pressure: Business Support for Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders Guidance for Companies September 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shared Space Under Pressure: Business Support for Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders Guidance for Companies September 2018 SHARED SPACE UNDER PRESSURE: BUSINESS SUPPORT FOR CIVIC FREEDOMS AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS GUIDANCE FOR COMPANIES SEPTEMBER 2018 Shared Space Under Pressure: Business Support for Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders | 01 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This guidance is authored by Bennett Freeman with Sif Thorgeirsson, Adele Barzelay and Brooks Reed, and advised by Phil Bloomer, Mauricio Lazala, Ana Zbona and Joe Bardwell of Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), Michael Ineichen of International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), and Annabel Lee Hogg of The B Team. The guidance was commissioned by the Business Network on Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders.1 BHRRC and ISHR thank DLA Piper for its pro bono contributions and the Open Society Foundations for its funding support. 1 The Business Network on Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders is an informal network of companies, convened and facilitated by Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, the B Team and ISHR. Founded in 2016, it explores the role of companies in helping to protect civic freedoms and human rights defenders, enables discussion and mutual learning, and may be used flexibly to initiate individual or collective action around the world. 02 | Shared Space Under Pressure: Business Support for Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������6 INTRODUCTION ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������13 THE PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDANCE �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������16 1� BUSINESS AND CIVIL SOCIETY: SHARED SPACE AND COMMON THREATS ����������18 1.1. Shared Civil Society Space and Business .....................................................................................................19 1.2. Pressures on Civic Freedoms ........................................................................................................................19 1.3. Attacks on Human Rights Defenders ..........................................................................................................21 1.4. A Legacy of Mistrust to Overcome ............................................................................................................. 23 2� SUPPORTING CIVIC FREEDOMS AND HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS: THE NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK, BUSINESS CASE AND MORAL CHOICE ���������������������������� 25 2.1. The Normative Framework ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27 2.2. The Business Case ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������31 2.2.1. Securing the Shared Space ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32 2.2.2. Managing Operational and Reputational Risk ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 32 2.2.3. Building Competitive Advantage .................................................................................................... 33 2.2.4. Overcoming Mistrust; Gaining the Social License to Operate .............................................. 34 2.3. A Moral Choice ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 35 2.3.1. The "Do No Harm" Principle .......................................................................................................... 36 2.3.2. The "Good Samaritan" Principle .................................................................................................... 37 2.3.3. From Individual to Corporate Responsibility ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 37 3� WHETHER AND HOW TO ENGAGE: DILEMMAS AND DECISIONS, ACTIONS AND RISKS �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������38 3.1. Step 1: Establish the reality and severity of the harm to a civic freedom/HRD, including the veracity of the allegations and credibility of the source ................................................................................. 40 3.2. Step 2: Establish the degree of company involvement – cause, contribute or other linkage to the threat or the harm.........................................................................................................41 3.3. Step 3: Identify the form(s) of action that maximize the positive potential impact on civic freedoms/HRDs ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 45 3.3.1. What to Do: The Flexible Forms of Action ............................................................................... 46 3.3.2. Long-term Actions and Policies .................................................................................................... 47 Shared Space Under Pressure: Business Support for Civic Freedoms and Human Rights Defenders | 03 3.4. Step 4: Identify the relative risks of action and inaction to the civil society/rights holders and to the company relative to the issue or situation..................................................................................... 48 3.4.1. Risks of Action ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 49 3.4.2. Risks of Inaction .................................................................................................................................51 3.5. Who Decides? ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 52 CONCLUSION ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������53 4. SPOTLIGHTS ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������54 4.1. Country Spotlights ........................................................................................................................................... 55 4.1.1. Cambodia ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 55 4.1.2. Myanmar .............................................................................................................................................. 57 4.1.3. Guatemala ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 58 4.1.4. United States ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������61 4.2. Sector Spotlights .............................................................................................................................................. 63 4.2.1. Extractives (Oil/Gas and Mining) .................................................................................................. 63 4.2.2. Agriculture, Food and Beverage ................................................................................................... 67 4.2.3. Apparel and Footwear ..................................................................................................................... 70 4.2.4. Digital Technology ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 72 4.3. Initiative Spotlights ........................................................................................................................................... 75 4.3.1. LGBTI Commitments ....................................................................................................................... 75 4.3.2. Mega-Sporting Events ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 77 4.4. Critical Actors Spotlights ............................................................................................................................... 79 4.4.1. Responsible Investors ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 79 4.4.2. CEO Activists .................................................................................................................................... 81 ABOUT THE AUTHORS ..........................................................................................................................................84 ANNEX 1: INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED ....................................................................................................86 ANNEX 2: KEY SOURCES AND RESOURCES............................................................................................93 ANNEX 3: RELATED ORGANIZATIONS .......................................................................................................97 ANNEX 4: INDEX OF COMPANY AND INVESTOR ACTIONS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Status Report 2019 Table of Contents Status Report 2019
    A HIGH PRICE Status Report 2019 Table of Contents Status Report 2019 Table of Contents Introduction 3. Azerbaijan 4. Burma 5. Cuba 6. Ethiopia 7. Turkey 8. 2. Introduction Status Report 2019 A High Price for Important Journalism Across the globe, an increasing number of states are cracking down on freedom of expression. In many places, it is virtually non-existent. Writing, speaking or in any way expressing opposing views on a given topic entails enormous risks. Threats, persecution, arrest, imprisonment and torture are only a few of the horrors facing those who speak out. This status report addresses the situation in five countries in which freedom of expression is limited. In it, journalists and human rights defenders will testify to how severe the consequences are. What unites them is the high price they have had to pay for doing their job. Not only have they been arrested, imprisoned and threatened with their life; they have been rejected by their friends and families, slandered and harassed. The consequences of their work and dedication have severely impacted their social lives. Living in constant fear has pushed journalists and opinion makers toward self-censorship. The silencing of these voices is harmful to a democratic society. We must work together to change this. Anders L Pettersson Executive Director Civil Rights Defenders 3. Azerbaijan Status Report 2019 More Dangerous Than Ever To openly report about the situation in Azerbaijan has never been as dangerous as it is right now. The government’s control over the media and civil society has increased. As a result, the situation for journalists is becoming more and more dangerous and vulnerable.
    [Show full text]
  • Norwegian Nobel Committee, the Norwegian Nobel Institute NO-0255 Oslo, Norway
    Norwegian Nobel Committee, The Norwegian Nobel Institute NO-0255 Oslo, Norway 12 Sept 2018 Dear Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, 9 December 2018 will mark the 20th anniversary of the UN’s Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) 1. It is an ideal and opportune moment to recognise and celebrate the efforts of these extraordinary individuals who despite threats of violence and unlawful imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, torture and assassination, continue to peacefully challenge injustice and call for the implementation and strengthening of the rule of law. Since 1998, over 3000 human rights defenders have been killed for defending the fundamental values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN. In recognising the increasingly hostile environments globally, in which human rights defenders must work, the late Former Secretary-General to the United Nations, Kofi Annan, recently said: “To stand up for human rights requires courage, perseverance, vigilance and a strong foundation of knowledge and evidence. We need to be vigilant in the protection of human rights defenders, for when the defenders’ rights are violated, all our rights are injured.” 2 In the same vein and emphasising the critical role that human rights defenders play in promoting and fostering stable democracies and sustainable peace, Permanent Representative of Norway to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Ambassador Steffen Kongstad said: “Threats and attacks against human rights defenders may hamper the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, undermining social cohesion, and ultimately stability and development.” 3 Despite this recognition and respect at the highest levels of the international community, human rights defenders are killed every day.
    [Show full text]
  • Living Through Nigeria's Six-Year
    “When We Can’t See the Enemy, Civilians Become the Enemy” Living Through Nigeria’s Six-Year Insurgency About the Report This report explores the experiences of civilians and armed actors living through the conflict in northeastern Nigeria. The ultimate goal is to better understand the gaps in protection from all sides, how civilians perceive security actors, and what communities expect from those who are supposed to protect them from harm. With this understanding, we analyze the structural impediments to protecting civilians, and propose practical—and locally informed—solutions to improve civilian protection and response to the harm caused by all armed actors in this conflict. About Center for Civilians in Conflict Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) works to improve protection for civil- ians caught in conflicts around the world. We call on and advise international organizations, governments, militaries, and armed non-state actors to adopt and implement policies to prevent civilian harm. When civilians are harmed we advocate the provision of amends and post-harm assistance. We bring the voices of civilians themselves to those making decisions affecting their lives. The organization was founded as Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict in 2003 by Marla Ruzicka, a courageous humanitarian killed by a suicide bomber in 2005 while advocating for Iraqi families. T +1 202 558 6958 E [email protected] www.civiliansinconflict.org © 2015 Center for Civilians in Conflict “When We Can’t See the Enemy, Civilians Become the Enemy” Living Through Nigeria’s Six-Year Insurgency This report was authored by Kyle Dietrich, Senior Program Manager for Africa and Peacekeeping at CIVIC.
    [Show full text]
  • Facilitating Peaceful Protests
    ACADEMY BRIEFING No. 5 Facilitating Peaceful Protests January 2014 Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Geneva Académie de droit international humanitaire et de droits humains à Genève Academ The Academy, a joint centre of ISBN: 978-2-9700866-3-5 © Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, January 2014. Acknowledgements This Academy Briefing was written by Milena Costas Trascasas, Research Fellow, and Stuart Casey-Maslen, Head of Research, at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights (Geneva Academy). The Academy would like to thank all those who commented on an earlier draft of this briefing, in particular Anja Bienart and Brian Wood of Amnesty International, and Neil Corney of Omega Research Foundation. The Geneva Academy would also like to thank the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAE) for its support to the Academy’s work on facilitating peaceful protests, especially the Human Security Division for its funding of the publication of this Briefing. Editing, design, and layout by Plain Sense, Geneva. Disclaimer This Academy Briefing is the work of the authors. The views expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of the project’s supporters or of anyone who provided input to, or commented on, a draft of this Briefing. The designation of states or territories does not imply any judgement by the Geneva Academy, the DFAE, or any other body or individual, regarding the legal status of such states or territories, or their authorities and institutions, or the delimitation of their boundaries, or the status of any states or territories that border them.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Shell.Reviews@Ceaa‐Acee.Gc.Ca
    Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Shell.Reviews@ceaa‐acee.gc.ca October 1, 2012 Dear Joint Review Panel Secretariat, Re: Shell Jackpine Mine Expansion We are submitting this as a request to present evidence to the Joint Review Panel hearings. This letter documents our serious concerns regarding the proposed project. One of us (Anna Zalik) was born in Alberta, lived and worked in Edmonton through her late 20s and received her first degree from the University of Alberta. The other (Isaac ‘Asume’ Osuoka) was born in Nigeria’s Niger Delta where he later devoted most of his adult life to working with communities impacted by the oil industry. This letter is informed by our individual experiences and academic research on oil industry socio‐ecological practices since 1997 (Osuoka) and 2001 (Zalik) respectively, and collaborative research since 2008. From 2000 to the present Zalik conducted extensive field work in oil‐producing regions of Nigeria and Mexico. From 2005 onward she initiated research on the sociology of the oil and gas industry in the US and in Canada from onward, with field research visits conducted in Northern Alberta and British Columbia since 2008. This work has included interviews with community members, government agencies, NGOs and industry representatives. Both of us have presented research in various international fora. With regard to precedents set through previous Shell Jackpine EIA processes, several of which are now in the JRP public materials and analysed by the Pembina Institute and Ecojustice, Shell did not fulfill its earlier commitment to the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition (OSEC)1 to mitigate CO2 emissions.
    [Show full text]
  • Holding Corporations to Account for Land and Human Rights Violations
    Making a Killing Holding corporations to account for land and human rights violations Making a Killing: Holding corporations to account for land and human rights violations is published by Trócaire as part of its programme of Policy, Research and Advocacy Acknowledgements: A sincere thank you to all Trócaire partners and human rights defenders who shared their experiences, insights and analysis for this report. Trócaire would like to thank the external and internal reviewers for their valuable inputs on the paper. FRONT COVER: Women from San Pedro Ayampuc & San Jose del Golfo, La Puya, resisting the El Tambor gold mine. Photo: Daniele Volpe. Making a Killing: Holding corporations to account for land and human rights violations | 1 CONTENTS PAGE Foreword 03 Executive Summary 04 Chapters 1. Why a focus on corporate accountability? 07 2. Communities at the frontline 13 3. Corporations: the accountability challenge 29 4. The way forward: legislative and policy opportunities 35 5. Recommendations: action on accountability 45 2 | Making a Killing: Holding corporations to account for land and human rights violations LIST OF ACRONYMS CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women CESCR UN Committee on Economic and Social and Cultural Rights CETIM Europe-Third World Centre CFS Committee on World Food Security CIDSE Coopération Internationals Pour le Développement et la Solidarité CRC UN Committee on the Rights of the Child CSW Commission on the Status of Women ENNHRI European Network of National Human Rights Institutions
    [Show full text]
  • Effect!Report!2015!
    ! ! ! ! ! EFFECT!REPORT!2015! ! ! Civil!Rights!Defenders!is!an!independent!expert!organisation!founded!in!Stockholm,!Sweden!in!1982,! with!the!aim!of!defending!human!rights,!and!in!particular!people’s!civil!and!political!rights,!and!to! support!and!empower!human!rights!defenders!at!risk.! ! ! 1.!What!does!your!organisation!want!to!achieve?! ! Civil!Rights!Defenders!is!a!nonBprofit!expert!human!rights!organisation!with!over!30!years’!experience! of!supporting!civil!society!and!strengthening!human!rights!defenders!(HRDs)!in!repressive!countries.! We!defend!people’s!civil!and!political!rights,!and!empower!HRDs!at!risk!in!Sweden!and!globally.!We! believe!a!strong!civil!society!is!crucial!for!an!independent!scrutiny!of!government!and!authorities!to! ensure! a! positive! development.! Therefore,! we! combine! human! rights! lobbying! and! advocacy! with! empowerment!of!our!partners.!! ! Together! with! partners,! we! monitor! human! rights! developments,! demand! reform,! justice! and! accountability.! We! support! HRDs! at! risk! by! providing! trainings,! technical! and! financial! assistance,! networking!platforms!and!peer!support.! ! Vision&and&long+term&targets& Civil!Rights!Defenders!overall!objective!is!to!improve!people’s!access!to!freedom!and!justice!through! improved!respect!for!their!civil!and!political!rights.!To!achieve!this!we!work!towards!the!following! goals:! ! People&are&empowered&to&claim&their&human&rights.& • People!get!increased!access!to!legal!aid.! • People!get!increased!access!to!information.! ! States&take&responsibility&for&the&fulfilment&of&human&rights.&
    [Show full text]
  • 20201110 Cuban Hrds –No Improvements
    CUBAN HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS: “NO IMPROVEMENTS SINCE AGREEMENT WITH THE EU” Results from a survey with 110 Cuban Human Rights Defenders on how the human rights situation has evolved since the Political Dialogue and Cooperation agreement between Cuba and the European Union was signed in 2016, and what the European Union should do now. Published by: CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENDERS Stockholm 2020-11-11 We defend people’s civil and political rights and partner with human rights defenders worldwide. Östgötagatan 90, SE-116 64, Stockholm, Sweden +46 8 545 277 30 [email protected] www.crd.org Org. nr 802011-1442 Pg 90 01 29-8 TABLE OF CONTENTS THE SURVEY ............................................................................................................................ 3 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 3 1. ....... ALMOST EVERYONE WOULD LIKE TO BE PART OF THE DIALOGUE, BUT ONLY A FEW HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ENGAGE ................................................................... 3 2. ....... THE HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IS DETERIORATING ........................................ 4 3. ....... CUBA IS NOT COMPLYING WITH THE POLITICAL DIALOGUE AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT ............................................................................................. 5 4. ....... THE EU NEEDS TO ACT .......................................................................................... 6 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Invitation: Virtual Roundtable Presentation of Issues Related to Human Rights and Youth in the Western Balkans and Turkey
    Invitation: Virtual Roundtable Presentation of Issues Related to Human Rights and Youth in the Western Balkans and Turkey Irena Joveva MEP (Renew - Slovenia) and Civil Rights Defenders (CRD) cordially invite you to the second roundtable “What Worries Youth in Enlargement Countries: Human Rights and Youth in the Western Balkans and Turkey vol. 2” which will happen online. Date & Time: 28 January 2021, 10:30am-12:30pm CET Location: Zoom, event link to be sent after registration at this link Summary: Civil Rights Defenders (CRD) is an international human rights organisation based in Stockholm, which has been working in the Western Balkans for over 20 years, supporting the rule of law, freedom of expression, and anti-discrimination initiatives. On 28 January 2021, CRD is organising a virtual roundtable entitled “What Worries Youth in Enlargement Countries: Human Rights and Youth in the Western Balkans and Turkey vol. 2”, hosted by Irena Joveva MEP (Renew – Slovenia). During the event, youth activists from the Western Balkans and Turkey will present short policy papers, each on a human rights topic they believe affects youth in their respective countries. The policy papers highlight important issues such as affirmative action as a pathway to human rights, right to education for youth with disabilities, and constitutional challenges to the LGBTI+ movement. Topics by country: o Kevin Jasini (Albania): Challenges of the LGBTI+ Cause in Albania: From the Lack of Implementation to Violence and Rising Immigration o Sonja Kosanović (Bosnia and Herzegovina):
    [Show full text]
  • Globalising Chinese Business Firms: Where Are They Coming From, Where Are They Headed?
    Globalising Chinese Business Firms: Where are They Coming from, Where are They Headed? Yeung, Henry Wai-chung and Olds, Kris National University of Singapore Full reference below Yeung, Henry Wai-chung and Olds, Kris (2000), 'Globalizing Chinese business firms: where are they coming from, where are they heading?', in Henry Wai-chung Yeung and Kris Olds (eds.), The Globalisation of Chinese Business Firms, London: Macmillan, pp.1-28. Chinese-owned businesses in East Asia, the United States, Canada, and even farther afield are increasingly becoming part of what I call the Chinese commonwealth (Kao, 1993: 24; original italics). In his widely-read Harvard Business Review article, Professor John Kao (1993) concluded that Chinese business and its "worldwide web" will become a major force in the global economy in the next millennium. Similarly, Joel Kotkin argued in Tribes: How Race, Religion and Identity Determine Success in the New Global Economy that by the early twenty-first century, "the Chinese global tribe likely will rank with the British-Americans and the Japanese as a driving force in transnational commerce" (Kotkin, 1992: 9). Despite the 1997/1998 Asian economic crisis, it appears that current thinking in global business reveals a serious reappraisal of the economic potential of Chinese business and its associated organisations and institutions. The Weberian thesis on the inherent limits to the growth of Chinese business and societies has been subject to fundamental challenges by recent studies (e.g. Hamilton, 1996a; Whyte, 1996; Olds and Yeung, 1999). Scholars of Chinese business begin to recognise the economic success of the "overseas Chinese"1 and their business firms in 1 The term "overseas Chinese" may be contentious to some scholars of ethnic Chinese who are living outside mainland China.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, Maina Kiai*
    United Nations A/HRC/26/29 General Assembly Distr.: General 14 April 2014 Original: English Human Rights Council Twenty-sixth session Agenda item 3 Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai* Summary The present thematic report is submitted to the Human Rights Council pursuant to Council resolutions 15/21 and 24/5. In sections I and II of the report, the Special Rapporteur provides an overview of the activities he carried out between 1 March 2013 and 28 February 2014. In section III, he assesses the threats to the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association for groups most at risk. The Special Rapporteur outlines his conclusions and recommendations in section IV. * Late submission. GE.14-13475 A/HRC/26/29 Contents Paragraphs Page I. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1–2 3 II. Activities ................................................................................................................ 3–6 3 A. Communications ............................................................................................. 3 3 B. Country visits .................................................................................................. 4 3 C. Participation in various events .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The State and Migration of Nigerians Into the European Union to Live in Spain
    The State and Migration of Nigerians Into the European Union to Live In Spain Matthew OKIRI OKEYIM The State and Migration of Nigerians Into the European Union to Live In Spain BY Matthew OKIRI OKEYIM BSc (Political Science) Ibadan Nigeria MSc (International Relations) Ibadan Nigeria DEA (social Welfare and Inequality) Alicante, Spain University of Alicante – Sociology II Department Doctorate Thesis Submitted to the University of Alicante, Spain Sociology October 2012. Professor La Parra, Daniel University of Alicante Department of Sociology II Spain. This thesis is dedicated to the Almighty God, Patrick OKEYIM, Janet OKEYIM and ZULINA ANGELA OKEYIM for their endless support and encouragement. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Professor Roberto ESCARRE and Andrew OJO encouraged me to enroll in the PhD Program in the University of Alicante. I remain ever grateful to them for facilitating my admission into the Program in 2006. Prof. Oscar SANTACREU, and Prof. Eva ESPINAR, Prof. Marie OSE, Anna MERCEDES, Fernando DIAZ ORUETA, Professor Marie OSE chemical Sciences, Alicia WYNNARD of the library services, Anna in the department office and other Professors in the Department especially during my first year of the Program I am very grateful to them. Professor Daniel LA PARRA who kindly agreed to supervise me from 2009 during my period of investigation has been excellent and wonderful. Prof. Daniel introduced me to the International Doctorate which resulted to my going to the Queen Mary University of London where I spent 3 months from September 2010 - December 2010 for a jointly International Doctorate Supervision. Prof. Nair, Director of Hispanic and Migration studies, Queen Mary University of London, who kindly accepted in spite of her tight schedule for a jointly supervision of this International Doctorate was also very wonderful during my 3 stays in the United Kingdom.
    [Show full text]