the Index on Censorship has warned that the government’s heavy pursuit of tougher internet regulation may come at the cost of freedom of expression. Read the full article.
Crimes motivated by misandry — a contempt for men — ageism and prejudice against certain alternative cultures, such as goths or punks, may soon be added to hate crime legislation in England and Wales. The Law Commission, the independent body that recommends legal reforms, has for the past month been considering expanding such legislation to include prejudice against women, but it has now emerged that many more characteristics are up for debate.
Index on Censorship CEO Jodie Ginsberg discussed these issues with former chief crown prosecutor Nazir Afzal on BBC Breakfast.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”89549″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]After five years the president of the Maldives may be on his way out — but no one is celebrating yet.
The Indian Ocean island nation voted on Sept. 23, 2018 to oust sitting president Abdulla Yameen in favor of challenger Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, who won 58 percent of the vote. The message? They were done with Yameen’s increasingly authoritarian rule.
Yameen came into power in 2013 and has jailed or forced many of his political opponents into exile. He’s restricted protests and reduced media freedom, all while boosting corruption in the government with bribes, embezzlement and human rights abuses.
The Maldives Independent, winner of the 2017 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Journalism Award, is one of the few independent news organisations left in the country. In 2014, Maldives Independent journalist Ahmed Rilwan, known for criticising the government, went missing. He has still not been found. Many believe Yameen’s hand played a role in his disappearance and the subsequent lack of investigation.
Two years later, Yameen signed a criminal defamation law that created fines and jail sentences for slander or defamatory speech, speech threatening “social norms” or national security, and remarks against Islam. The law was criticised by the United Nations and the United States, both calling it a move against freedom of expression.
Yameen’s biggest accomplishments have been in development, building an extension to a public hospital in the capital, new airports, and the country’s first overwater bridge. But behind these projects was even more corruption, critics say.
In 2016, Al Jazeera exposed a major scandal in which Yameen and then vice-president Ahmed Adeeb leased islands to tourism companies and embezzled the money for themselves. Zaheena Rasheed, then editor-in-chief of the Maldives Independent, appeared in Al Jazeera’s investigative documentary. Hours after the documentary went online, police raided the news organisation’s offices. Rasheed has since fled the country.
Addressing the embezzlement at a debate a week before the election, Yameen pointed his finger at the former vice president and “the system” as the cause behind the corruption, denying any wrongdoing.
With a platform based on restoring democracy and freeing Yameen’s political prisoners, Solih represents a new leaf for the nation.
Riazat Butt, current editor of the Maldives Independent, called the two candidates “night and day.” And though Solih may want to make significant changes in the government, Butt said three out of four of the parties in the coalition backing Solih have shown little interest in democracy.
“The opposition alliance has not said what will happen if the coalition falls apart,” Butt said. “There is an agreement they have to sign about steps to be taken in such an event, but the agreement has not been made public and the president-elect’s spokeswoman is refusing to answer questions on it.”
On top of the issues Solih may face within his coalition, Yameen is not going down without a fight.
The leader of Yameen’s party, the Progressive Party of the Maldives, launched an investigation into complaints regarding the authenticity of the ballots cast, citing “systematic irregularities.” The party has asked the Elections Commission to delay publishing the final results and has reportedly told their supporters to submit electoral complaints to the commission.
The move has been denounced by the opposition party and the Human Rights Watch, who say it is an attempt to annul the election.
“Yameen has too much to lose to just step aside,” Butt said. “He may find a non-violent way to steal the election after all….he just needs to do it in a way that avoids sanctions and military action against him.”
On Oct. 10, Yameen challenged the election results in the Supreme Court. If the Court finds proof of irregularities, the election could be annulled.
Meanwhile, members of the Elections Commission have received anonymous threats due to their dismissal of the ruling party’s claims of fraud.
If Solih is able to secure the presidency and move his coalition government into power, it may not result in much change regarding journalism in the country. Butts called the coalition manifesto “fantastically vague” about press freedom. Though journalists have asked for specifics, like if the anti-defamation law will be repealed or if background checks for foreign journalists will end, they have not received answers.
“There is no detail, and that’s not good enough,” she said. “I honestly think it is too soon for anyone to relax or believe that their job will become easier or safer.”
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1539606582611-fd540886-18b2-7″ taxonomies=”9028″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”103235″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Global Partners Digital, Index on Censorship and Open Rights Group are concerned about recent government proposals and announcements related to the regulation of online content, which could have significant adverse impacts on human rights, and particularly freedom of expression. It is well established and accepted that human rights should be protected online as they are protected offline, however proposals and announcements from the government relating to online content in recent months have focused almost entirely on ‘safety’ with little or no consideration for their potential impacts on freedom of expression and other rights.
As well as our concerns over the substance of the proposals and announcements, we also believe that greater coordination among government departments, and collaboration with other interested stakeholders, including civil society, would be beneficial and help achieve more effective policies.
We fully acknowledge the importance of dealing effectively with unlawful and harmful online content, however we are concerned that the failure so far to properly consider the impacts upon human rights when developing legislation and other policies risks undermining internationally agreed human rights laws and standards, especially those relating to freedom of expression.
In particular, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, working with the Home Office, is expected to publish a White Paper on Internet Safety in the winter. The White Paper is expected to contain details of a binding social media code of practice and make mandatory transparency reporting by social media platforms with the aim of allowing the government to monitor and evaluate efforts made by social media companies to ensure online safety. Existing drafts of the Code of Practice and transparency reporting guidelines, however, contain no recognition or reference to the importance of freedom of expression. The government is also considering establishing a new regulator of online content however no details have been provided on its potential remit, powers or degree of independence.
These proposals, and others that have been announced, will all have significant impacts on the enjoyment and exercise of human rights online. Given the potential risks, we therefore consider that it essential that human rights considerations be at the heart of the policymaking process, and would urge a ‘human rights by design’ approach be taken towards all legislation and regulation ultimately proposed.
In particular, we call for:
QUOTES:
Jodie Ginsberg, CEO at Index on Censorship:
“Any future regulatory framework for online platforms must be designed with freedom of expression in mind, not just safety. Protecting freedom of expression should be a guiding principle, including in the proposed code of practice for social media companies. It is a major failing that freedom of expression has been ignored completely in the code of practice.”
“The transparency reporting template must be amended to include information about safeguarding users’ freedom of expression. It is extremely surprising that this has been ignored in the current draft version and it confirms that the government is not paying attention to freedom of expression when developing online regulation”.
Charles Bradley, Executive Director at Global Partners Digital:
“Across the world, from Malaysia to Germany, China to South Africa, we are seeing concerning proposals from governments seeking to regulate online content – and the internet more broadly – in ways that pose real risks to human rights. It is therefore especially critical that the United Kingdom government, whose proposals will be watched closely elsewhere, addresses the legitimate challenges it has identified in a way which fully respects international human rights law and standards. Any proposals should also encourage businesses to comply with their human rights responsibilities under the UN Guiding Principles.
“This means that any legal or regulatory frameworks which are proposed should enable and encourage companies to design and implement terms of service relating to online content with which are fully compatible with the right to freedom of expression. They should also ensure that there is accountability and meaningful transparency by these companies when they make decisions relating to online content. By doing so, the UK government has the opportunity to enhance the protection of freedom of expression online, rather than undermine it.”
Jim Killock, Executive Director at Open Rights Group:
“If legal material is censored or incorrectly removed, the result will be that laws are not seen as fair and legitimate. The government says it wants the same rules online as offline: this must include the right to a fair decision, and to assert your right to publish, just as you have in the offline world.
“We hope the government takes this opportunity to discuss with us and others how Britain can get this right.”[/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1553267832735-54b2dc9e-3f72-7″ taxonomies=”16927, 4883, 6507″][/vc_column][/vc_row]