Saudi Arabia must implement UPR recommendations protecting freedom of expression

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Dear Mr./Ms. Foreign Minister,

We, the undersigned, are writing to you concerning Saudi Arabia’s upcoming 3rd Cycle Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in November 2018 and ahead of the 39th Session of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council (HRC 39) in September. The UN HRC and the kingdom’s UPR review are important opportunities to raise concerns about Saudi Arabia’s abysmal human rights record and to press for urgently needed reforms. We thus call upon your government to publicly engage with Saudi Arabia during the forthcoming HRC as well as the UPR in November, to call for the release of detained writers and activists, and to issue strong recommendations to end restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.

During Saudi Arabia’s 2nd UPR cycle in October 2013, the kingdom received nine recommendations pertaining to protecting and promoting the right to freedom of expression out of 225 total recommendations. Saudi Arabia fully accepted three of these freedom of expression-related recommendations and partially accepted the remaining one. Despite this commitment, the kingdom has failed to implement the recommendations, and we remain concerned over the continued criminalization of the right to freedom of expression and opinion as Saudi Arabia’s UPR approaches in November.

Fundamentally, the Saudi government does not recognize the right to freedom of expression and opinion. Rather, the kingdom’s de facto constitution – the Basic Law – grants authorities the power to “prevent whatever leads to disunity, sedition and division,” including peaceful criticism. It likewise proclaims that “mass and publishing media and all means of expression shall use decent language and adhere to State laws. Whatever leads to sedition and division, or undermines the security of the State or its public relations, or is injurious to the honor and rights of man, shall be prohibited.” Subsequent laws have enshrined further limitations on free speech, including the 2000 Press and Publications Law, the 2007 Anti-Cybercrime Law, the 2014 Law on Terrorism and Its Financing, the 2015 Law on Associations, and most recently, the November 2017 Penal Law for Crimes of Terrorism and Its Financing which explicitly criminalizes expression critical of the King and the Crown Prince.

This web of legislation empowers Saudi officials to arrest activists, journalists, writers, and bloggers who are accused of crimes related to religion, including blasphemy, atheism, and apostasy, as well as crimes filed under the counter-terror law related to speech critical of the royal family, government, or ruling structure.

Among those currently in prison for speech crimes related to religion and critical expression of the government are:

– Blogger Raif Badawi, arrested in June 2012 on atheism charges for his writings and sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes;
– Palestinian poet Ashraf Fayadh, arrested in January 2014 on charges of atheism and apostasy for his poetry and serving a sentence of eight years in prison and 800 lashes– reduced from an initial death sentence;
Saleh al-Shehi, a columnist for al-Watan, arrested on 8 February 2018 and sentenced to five years in prison after he discussed corruption and the royal court on television;
At least 15 other journalists, including Nadhir al-Majid, who was charged on 18 January 2017 with “slandering the ruler and breaking allegiance with him,” and Wajdi al-Ghazzawi, the owner of religious satellite broadcaster Al-Fajr Media Group, who was sentenced on 4 February 2014 to 12 years in prison after he criticized the government and accused it of corruption.

The Saudi government has also arrested several women activists over their speech, including a number of prominent women human rights defenders arrested on 15 May 2018. According to nine UN Special Rapporteurs, although many of the women had advocated for gender equality and the lifting the ban on women driving, “reports state they were accused of engaging in suspicious communications with foreign groups allegedly working to undermine national security, and of trespassing against the country’s religious and national foundations.” In a demonstration of the kingdom’s attempt to silence women and activists, reports recently emerged that the government was seeking the death penalty against activist Israa al-Ghomgham, who was arrested in 2015 for her role in organizing protests and for calling for the release of political prisoners and an end to anti-Shia discrimination.

Saudi Arabia’s suppression of free expression demonstrates the kingdom’s failure to implement its 2nd Cycle UPR recommendations. We therefore see both the UN HRC session in September and the kingdom’s UPR in November as important and significant opportunities to raise concerns not only about ongoing restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, but also the kingdom’s failure to abide by its commitments to reform. To that end, we call upon your government to publicly urge Saudi Arabia to lift restrictions on free expression, call for the release of activists, journalists, and writers, urge implementation of its 2nd Cycle UPR recommendations, and offer serious follow-up recommendations during the 3rd Cycle UPR in November.

Signed,

Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB)
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression (AFTE)
Bytes for All (B4A)
Cartoonists Rights Network International (CRNI)
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) 
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Freedom Forum
Fundamedios – Andean Foundation for Media Observation and Study
Independent Journalism Center (IJC)
Index on Censorship
Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey
International Publishers Association (IPA)
Mediacentar Sarajevo 
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
Norwegian PEN
PEN American Center
South East Europe Media Organisation 
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression (SCM)
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State

AlQst
Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC)
Association for Human Rights in Ethiopia (AHRE)
Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD)
Caucasus Civil Initiatives (CCIC)
Center for Civil Liberties (Ukraine)
CIVICUS
European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR)
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Karapatan (Philippines)
Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED)
Odhikar, Bangladesh[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1536591904030-5e1deab8-708b-0″ taxonomies=”6534″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Hungary’s deteriorating press and media freedom

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”102023″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President, European Commission

Mariya Gabriel, Commissioner, European Commission

Tibor Navracsics, Commissioner, European Commission

Antonio Tajani, President, European Parliament

 

7 August 2018

 

OPEN LETTER – Media freedom in Hungary and the case of Hir TV

The undersigned media freedom organisations are writing to draw your attention to the deteriorating situation of press and media freedom in Hungary, in particular the recent case of Hir TV.

Hir TV was the last domestically-owned independent TV company in Hungary. On 1 August 2018 a sudden change in ownership resulted in dismissals of outspoken leading journalists and an abrupt change of editorial policy. Programmes that had previously reflected independent views were cancelled and replaced with government-friendly programmes. One cancelled talk show was replaced with a broadcast of a speech that Viktor Orbán had made some days earlier.

The case of Hir TV has been reported to Index on Censorship’s platform Mapping Media Freedom, which monitors threats, limitations and violations related to media freedom in Europe.

The loss of independence of the last remaining domestically owned TV company in Hungary is deeply discouraging. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for media freedom and shows how far Hungary has distanced itself from European values.

We ask you to condemn these developments in the strongest possible terms.

We strongly urge the European Union to strengthen the link between eligibility for funding under the next Multiannual Financial Framework and respect for media freedom.

 

European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)

Index on Censorship

International Press Institute (IPI)

South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)[/vc_column_text][vc_separator][vc_column_text]

Hungarian media freedom violations reported to and verified by Mapping Media Freedom since May 2014.

[/vc_column_text][vc_raw_html]JTNDaWZyYW1lJTIwd2lkdGglM0QlMjI3MDAlMjIlMjBoZWlnaHQlM0QlMjIzMTUlMjIlMjBzcmMlM0QlMjJodHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRm1hcHBpbmdtZWRpYWZyZWVkb20udXNoYWhpZGkuaW8lMkZzYXZlZHNlYXJjaGVzJTJGODUlMkZtYXAlMjIlMjBmcmFtZWJvcmRlciUzRCUyMjAlMjIlMjBhbGxvd2Z1bGxzY3JlZW4lM0UlM0MlMkZpZnJhbWUlM0U=[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1533629513035-b3d8ca8c-d3a9-4″ taxonomies=”6534″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Cartoonist Zunar holding Malaysia’s government accountable on free expression

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Malaysian cartoonist Zunar is facing charges under a colonial era Sedition Act. (Photo: Sean Gallagher/Index on Censorship)

Malaysian cartoonist Zunar is facing charges under a colonial era Sedition Act. (Photo: Sean Gallagher/Index on Censorship)

Nine banned books. Nine charges of sedition carrying the maximum penalty of 43 years imprisonment. Countless attacks, raids and arrests. These were the consequences of Malaysian cartoonist Zunar’s cartoons and tweets decrying government scandals and misdealings under former prime minister Najib Razak.

Under Razak, Malaysia’s “Man of Steal,” Zunar published volumes of cartoons criticising the prime minister and his wife for their lavish lifestyle and corrupt rule at the expense of the Malaysian people. The government justified its crackdown on his works early on, reasoning that they “influence the public to revolt against the leaders and government policies” and are “detrimental to public order” in 2010.

A travel ban was placed on Zunar on 24 June 2016. In 2015, he was charged under Malaysia’s Sedition Act, a 1948 remnant of British colonial rule used by the Malaysian government to silence dissenting voices like Zunar’s. He now awaits four days in court, starting 30 July.

The cartoonist was still in the process of mounting a constitutional challenge to the Sedition Act for these charges when opposition leader Mahathir Mohamad toppled PM Najib Razak in national elections on 9 May 2018. The same day, the new government lifted the travel ban on Zunar and has placed one on the former PM while investigating his role in Malaysia’s global corruption scandal, 1MDB.

For the first time in two years, Zunar could travel to London last week, where he met with ARTICLE 19 and Amnesty International officials. He continues to challenge his travel ban because the old government cited “special reasons,” not law, to justify it. With his challenge active until the travel ban trial on 22 October, Zunar emphasised “I want to do this because I think I am being victimised but I also want the court to make a ruling that no government can use this [justification] anymore, including the new government. [Otherwise] they may use this again in the future for the activists the government doesn’t like.”

The government has faced ongoing international pressure from organisations like Index and ARTICLE 19 as well as UN Special Rapporteur on cultural rights, Karima Bennoune, to drop the sedition charges against Zunar. On 13 July, the Malaysian Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) announced that they will begin a review of all ongoing sedition cases, citing the strength of the cases and evidence as determinants of whether the charges will be upheld.

In the meantime, Zunar has vowed to continue cartooning and advocating for the repeal of the very laws that silence him and other government critics in Malaysia: the Sedition Act, the Printing and Press Act and the Fake News Act. Despite national celebration of the new government, he remains skeptical. “It’s too early to put any hope on what they say because I think new governments always makes good promises but they need to abolish [the Sedition Act] because this is what the promise during the election campaign was” he said.

Zunar spoke with Index’s Shreya Parjan about the current status of his case.

Index: You’ve faced the current set of sedition charges since 2015. How have you appealed and challenged them since then? How does your current appeal differ from that of your case in 2010?

Zunar: It was started in 2010, yes, I was arrested around that time but they didn’t charge me for that so 2010 is different. I have few other sedition charges, okay so 2010 one, 2015, 2016 two times but the only one they charged was in 2015. This is the one they’ve got me in court for. The others they just investigated and arrested and I spent time in police lockup for other cases but only one they are really bringing to court.

The [2015] charge is still going on, the next court date is 30 July. This is very long, from March 2015 until now, the court is still unable to start because at the same time when they brought me to court, my staff and several activists who have been charged with sedition, we filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the sedition act. The separate court had to deal with that first.

And finally, early this year, the court has made a decision that our challenge is irrelevant and so there’s no issue. So finally, now the court is going to start and also now its a new date: on 30 July. But we have to also understand that politically, and now we have a new government, all my charges were brought by the old government, so we’ll see what happens on the 30 of July.

Index: Since the Attorney General’s Chamber announced on 13 July that they will be reviewing all ongoing sedition cases, what expectations do you have for your own case?

Zunar: Now, the new parliament session just started today [16 July] and I have to wait and see. It’s too early to put any hope on what they say because I think new governments always make good promises but they need to abolish [the Sedition Act] because this is what the promise during the election campaign was. But just a few days ago, another activist was challenged under Sedition so this is why I say it’s important to see the action rather than the words now.

Index: What changes in the environment for free expression do you anticipate seeing under PM Mahathir Mohamad?

Zunar: I have to say that until they [abolish] it, I’m still concerned. If they’re really serious, they will abolish this law and several laws. If they really want to abolish the Sedition Act together with other laws related to freedom of expression, freedom of speech, they at least need to suspend it first before they continue. They have to show that “we are really serious, that we have to do it, but for the time being, why don’t we suspend theis law first.” For me, if you really have a political will to do it, you have to show it. But I don’t know, it’s too early to say. Until they do it, I cannot say anything about it and there’s no positive sign for it.

The other law also involved in this is the Printing and Press Act, the law the government widely used to control the media. There’s also the Fake News Act, which was introduced just before the previous election, and the Official Secrets Act. Two of these laws were used against me and the other two were used against activists who tried to expose or tried to reveal corruption or wrongdoing by the government so the government has to, if they’re serious about freedom of expression, they have to abolish these laws.

There’s some talk of review, but I say no, there’s no excuse, they have to go for it. We have to wait for the parliament, whether this will be done in this parliament session which is going to make their decision over one month. We have to wait for this to see whether this new government is really serious about it or if they might use it again.

Index: What has the former government’s crackdown on those you worked with (publishers, webmaster) looked like? What implications could the new government’s review of your case have for them?

Zunar: There was an incident where the police arrested me when I did an exhibition in October 2016 and they took all the artwork and also 1300 books. I filed a suit against them and the case will be heard during the trial which is over four days: 30 July-2 August. At the same time, two of my assistants have been charged and their charges still continue and there’s no sign that the government will drop the charges. They have been charged with obstructing the police officers from carrying out their job. I think they had one court session last week so they still continue. There’s no sign that the government will drop the charge.

Previously, three of my printers have been raided under the Printing and Press Act and they were given a very strong warning that if they print my book again, they will be charged under Sedition and their licenses will be revoked. Also, my webmaster was investigated under the Sedition Act, my office has been raided several times and my sales assistants have been arrested.

What the police did is use a culture of fear. They create fear. They go and they didn’t really bring these guys to court, but they use harassment and the law that they will be charged if they continue, to scare people. But because we have a new government, so far there are no cases like that, so I think that the situation is maybe changing, I don’t know.

Index: What role do you see your cartoons playing in your advocacy for the repeal of the Sedition Act and other legislation that has constrained your work in the past?

Zunar: I think in my recent trip to London [last week] I spoke to ARTICLE 19 and Amnesty International and I hope for them to make a statement. It’s good for international organisations to give pressure to the government during the parliament session to abolish these outdated laws.

My cartoons reflect the issues of a country during that time, any time. If I want to do the same level of cartooning, the one I did during the previous government is a different type of cartoon. Now I can do more reminding and giving pressure to the government in a positive manner. Because in Malaysia right now, we just chose a new government, everyone is very happy, the people are very happy, this is what they expect and at the same time, civil society and activists like me have to remind the government that winning doesn’t mean you win everything or everything already changed.

So many things need to be done to keep the promises [that were made during the election]. As a cartoonist, we simply have to wait for the issues. Like during the parliament, if they don’t act, we have to come up with a cartoon to show that this is what you promised and you are not fulfilling your promise.

Talking about levels, previously what I did was to fight through cartoon. This is one level up from what normal cartoonists do around the world. Normal cartooning around the world is to criticise the government of the day. That is for those who think that the government is a bit undemocratic. Last time, what I did was fight through cartoon. But now, the people of Malaysia did win and there’s so much hope for this new government and they’re very positive about it. I cannot simply come and fight through cartoon again at this time.

Now I have to do positive cartoons reminding and being a watchdog for the government. I think changing the mindset is very important also. It’s not about changing individuals, you have to change the mindset in the society, to show that cartoons can do the job too. In terms of what I’m going to do, I think I need to go along with this achievement and be a watchdog to the government, which is a totally different role of cartooning compared to the one I did with the last government.[/vc_column_text][vc_media_grid element_width=”3″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1532428297196-711fc435-d06c-1″ include=”101641,101640,101642,101636,101635,101639,101638,101637″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content”][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Malaysia” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”130″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Nadine Strossen: Humane speech is the best way to lead people away from hate

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Additional reporting by Shreya Parjan, Nicole Ntim-Addae and Sandra Oseifri.

“The only effective and durable way to resist racism and discrimination is through speech and other non-censorial measures,” said Nadine Strossen at the launch of her new book, Hate: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship, at the London School of Economics on Monday 2 June.

Strossen, a professor of constitutional law at the New York Law School, was joined by Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship, and Joanna Williams, author, academic and the associate editor of the online magazine Spiked. The panel was chaired by Peter Ramsey, professor of law at LSE.

“The bedrock principle of our [the US’s] legal system is viewpoint neutrality, that governments can’t restrict speech even if it is despised by the majority of the population,” Strossen said. According to the First Amendment, the US government cannot prevent or censor the speech of a group due to the nature of its content. The American Civil Liberties Union, where Strossen served as president from 1991 to 2008, has had a long history of defending the rights of groups that would otherwise not be able to voice their opinions due to censorship. For example, in 1978, in a landmark Supreme Court case, National Socialist Party v. Skokie, the ACLU successfully defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to march through Skokie, Illinois, where many Holocaust survivors lived.

Strossen, whose father was a Holocaust survivor, expressed her deep loathing for Nazism and commitment to resisting hate and racism, describing it as “a very serious and rising problem, not only in the US but all over the world”. At the same time, however, she does not believe that the way to resist such sentiments is through censorship and regulations aimed at banning hate speech. She explained that hate speech laws enforced against Nazis would backfire: in the Weimar Republic, where hate speech laws were rigorously enforced, “the Nazis loved it – it became a propaganda platform for them”. The same phenomenon is observable in the US, where alt-right provocateurs such as Milo Yiannopoulos “love when there are attempts to suppress them or when there are disruptive protests against them”. Censorship would merely lead to more attention for hate groups.

Strossen believes, as Judge Wendell Holmes did, that a more effective way to resist hateful and racist speech is through more speech and counter-speech. “I celebrate effective, humane speech, not only because it is consistent with individual liberty,” she said, “but because it is the best way to lead people away from hate”. A more effective way to combat the hateful sentiment of a provocative speaker on campus is to “have your own separate event in a different part of campus … in an affirmative celebration of diversity”.

After the ACLU successfully defended the right of the neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, there was an outpouring of support for Holocaust survivors. The survivors realised that they could no longer remain silent, but must rather combat hate with education. The Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center, opened in 2009, is one demonstration of the positive results that came out of dialogues and discussions after Skokie. Strossen noted that “all of that might have been impossible without Skokie”.

Ginsberg raised three questions to keep in mind when considering whether hate speech regulations should be put in place: “Is freedom of expression a fundamental right? Would you agree that there are certain speakers that should not be allowed to speak on university campuses? Would you accept any limitations on your own speech?” She suggested that “much of what we say and do depend on context”, and that “if we buy into the narrative that it’s all getting worse, people get afraid and allow restrictions on their own freedom of speech”.

Williams, the author of the 2017 book Women Versus Feminism: Why We All Need Liberating from the Gender Wars, cited the case of a controversial Youtuber who was prevented from speaking at the University of Sussex. According to Williams, this was a case of censorship based on viewpoint restriction. Williams disagrees with Strossen, however, on the point that there needs to be a separate student event to reaffirm diversity: “There is no point in hosting a separate event but instead the students should be in the same room, challenging what the speaker says.”

Williams noted that political activism in the modern age is driven by identity politics – that is, it is based on finding things offensive and calling for things to be banned. It is, therefore, according to her, “fundamentally opposed to free speech.” Thus, Williams called for a reconsideration of the category of “hate speech” as it currently stands. “Defining hate speech is not something I am able to do,” she said, “the problem with hate speech laws lies in the law itself, there is no such thing as hate speech.” As the case of the Youtuber Count Dankula illustrates, one man’s hate speech could be another man’s joke. We cannot decide what is objectively right and wrong through education, either: “Educating makes it seems like we as a privileged elite have defined objectively correct speech.”

On the question of whether there are more meaningful ways to combat hate speech, Ginsberg points out that one of the positive effects of social media is that “it helps people find supportive communities”. “It is important for people to realise they’re not alone,” she added. At the same time, however, she raised concerns around the potential ability of big technology companies to censor content: “The duty of care is interesting but problematic: unelected companies shouldn’t have the authority to remove content.” This is an important consideration right now in the UK, where the proposed counter-terrorism bill could potentially put further limitations on freedom of expression, meaning technology companies could “blanket-remove totally legal speech because there is no oversight whatsoever”.[/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:1531238430673-ea06dafb-36eb-10″ taxonomies=”737″][/vc_column][/vc_row]