Apr 12, 2019 | Advocacy, News, Open letters
The ICJ sent a letter urging Singapore’s government to refrain from passing into law the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill 2019 (‘Online Falsehoods Bill’) in its current form.
The letter was sent to Singapore’s Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, Minister for Law and Speaker of the Parliament.
The bill is reportedly expected to be adopted and come into force in the second half of 2019.
The ICJ acknowledged the efforts of Singapore’s government to attempt to counteract potential infringements on human rights and fundamental freedoms which may emerge from abusive communications involving the spread of misinformation. It noted however that the bill may, contrary to the object and purpose of its introduction, result in far-reaching limitations on the rights to freedom of expression, opinion and information.
The ICJ indicated that its provisions present a real risk that it can be wielded in an arbitrary manner to curtail important discussion of matters of public interest in the public sphere, including content critical of the government. Critical dissent, free exchange and development of opinions, and free access to information are necessary to maintain an informed society and ensure transparency, accountability and informed debate on crucial matters of public interest.
The letter included a legal briefing highlighting the ICJ’s concerns regarding provisions of the bill which contravene international human rights law and standards.
Singapore-online regulation bill letter-advocacy-open letter-2019-ENG Letter (PDF)
Singapore-online regulation bill briefing-advocacy-open letter-2019-ENG Briefing (PDF)
See also
ICJ, ‘Singapore: Parliament must reject internet regulation bill that threatens freedom of expression’, 4 April 2019, https://www.icj.org/singapore-parliament-must-reject-internet-regulation-bill-that-threatens-freedom-of-expression/
Apr 11, 2019 | Advocacy
Today the ICJ joined twenty organizations in calling for Myanmar’s new Constitutional Amendment Committee to fully protect the right to freedom of expression in the Constitution, in line with international law and standards including Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The statement reads:
“20 expert organisations urge Myanmar to fully guarantee the internationally protected right to freedom of expression in the Constitution
11 April 2019 — A new parliamentary committee tasked with reviewing Myanmar’s constitution is an opportunity for the government to guarantee the democratic rights to free expression, media freedom, and access to information.
We welcome the government’s creation of the Constitutional Amendment Committee, established to review and propose amendments that will support Myanmar’s transition to democracy.
Myanmar’s 2008 Constitution does not include the guarantees required in a democracy to protect freedom of expression. Those that it does include do not meet relevant international human rights standards. This threatens the transition to and quality of Myanmar’s democracy as can be seen for example in the wide range of laws used to prosecute journalists and human rights defenders.
We call on the Constitutional Amendment Committee to recommend:
- Replacement of the current heavily prescribed guarantee for freedom of expression in Articles 354(a) and 365 with a single article that guarantees the right to freedom of expression in accordance with international standards, so that it fully reflects the requirements of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
- A new separate article guaranteeing the right to access information held by public authorities.
- A new separate article guaranteeing media freedom, which should prohibit prior censorship of the media or licensing of the print media and individual journalists, and should protect journalism as well as the independence of the Myanmar Press Council, Myanmar Broadcasting Council, and any future public service media.
- Each guarantee should include only those limitations that are provided by law and are necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.
We are committed to supporting Myanmar’s transition to democracy and would be happy to provide further information and guidance as the Committee conducts its review.”
Signed by 20 organizations with the support of 13 other organizations.
Full statement and list of organizations available in English and Burmese here: Myanmar-Joint Statement on FoE and Const Ref-Advocacy-2019-BUR
Apr 4, 2019 | News
Today, the ICJ urged Singapore’s Parliament not to pass the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill 2019 (‘Online Falsehoods Bill’), which was tabled on Monday, 1 April.
The ICJ said that the bill, if passed into law, would result in far-reaching limitations on freedom of expression, opinion and information in Singapore, and could be wielded to curtail important discussion of matters of public interest, including content critical of the government.
“This bill, if passed, would make the government the sole arbiter of what information is permissible online and what is not, creating a real risk that the law will be misused to clamp down on opinions or information critical of the government,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ Director for Asia and the Pacific.
The bill authorizes ministers to direct individuals, owners or operators of online platforms, digital advertising and internet intermediaries to remove, make corrections to, disable or block access to a “false statement of fact”, if such action is deemed to be “in the public interest”. Such ministerial directions can be made even if a false statement “has been amended or has ceased to be communicated in Singapore”.
The bill does not provide any real definition of “false statement of fact” and does not clarify what constitutes “public interest”. The bill also fails to provide for exceptions or defences such as honest mistake, parody, artistic merit, or public interest. Executive discretion is also not subject to judicial review or oversight under its provisions.
Criminal penalties for non-compliance with the law are severe, and include hefty fines and up to ten years’ imprisonment for violations.
These may be imposed on individuals and/or owners or operators of online platforms, as well as intermediaries who facilitate the communication of such statements, including social networking services, search engine services, internet-based messaging services and video-sharing services.
The bill is also clear that communications through SMS (Short Message Service) and MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service) fall under its remit.
“The spread of misinformation online is a complex problem that cannot be effectively addressed by simply granting broad discretion to government officials to censor online expression,” said Rawski.
“A multi-pronged approach that protects the rights to free expression, opinion and information is required, beginning with better media literacy education and free access to information, including to opinions critical of the government,” he added.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Singapore-fake news bill-News-web story-2019-ENG (full story with additional information, in PDF)
Apr 2, 2019 | News
The ICJ raised serious human rights concerns following the announcement by the Government of Brunei of the third phase of implementation of the 2013 Syariah Penal Code with its entering into force on 3 April 2019.
This week, the Syariah Penal Code will come into full effect, which means the imposition of horrific punishments – including the severing of limbs, whipping, and stoning to death – on those found to have committed acts such as rape, adultery, sodomy, and to have engaged in extramarital sexual relations.
“There are no circumstances under which punishments such as stoning, amputation or public flogging are acceptable under international law,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
“They are blatant violations of the prohibition on all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” he added.
Stoning, amputation and public flogging are contrary to the commitment that Brunei made when it became a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), including its obligations to take all necessary measures to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women.
Those punishments also violate the Convention on the Rights to the Child (CRC) to which Brunei is a party.
The ICJ also notes that consensual sexual activities, such as sodomy, adultery and other extramarital and premarital sexual relations, as much as consensual same-sex sexual conduct, do not constitute recognizably criminal offences under international human rights law and standards and should therefore not be criminalized at all.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has stated that “any form of corporal punishment is contrary to the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”, and cannot be considered a “lawful sanction” under international law.
When Brunei’s Syariah Penal Code was adopted in October 2013, the ICJ condemned it for violating international human rights law and standards.
The Syariah Penal Code will also effectively reintroduce the death penalty, which has generally been viewed as having been de facto abolished, as it has not been imposed since 1957.
“The re-introduction of the use of the death penalty in the Syariah Penal Code is out of step with the global trend towards the abolition of capital punishment and the establishment of a moratorium on executions,” said Rawski.
In addition, the ICJ is concerned about the disproportionate and discriminatory impact of the Code on women and girls and on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals in the country.
Although the 2013 Syariah Penal Code states that the penalty of stoning to death applies regardless of whether the offender is male or female, women face a greater risk of being convicted and sentenced to death because they are more likely to be found guilty of adultery or of otherwise having engaged in extramarital sexual relations.
“In addition to imposing penalties that are in clear violation of international law, the underlying ‘offenses’ are themselves discriminatory,” said Rawski.
“The Code is particularly regressive coming at a time when other Commonwealth countries are taking steps to de-criminalize same-sex consensual relations, and end discrimination and violence against women,” he added.
The ICJ strongly urges the Government of Brunei to withdraw the 2013 Syariah Penal Code, and take steps to ensure that its laws comply with international law and standards, consistent with Brunei’s obligations under international human rights instruments, including the CEDAW and the CRC.
Contact:
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, t: +66 840923575, e: emerlynne.gil(a)icj.org
Additional information:
On 17 December 2018, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a global moratorium on the death penalty, with the support of a 120 countries.
According to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights more than 160 UN member countries have either abolished the death penalty or introduced a moratorium on its use in law or practice.
The ICJ considers the imposition of the death penalty to be a violation of the right to life and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Apr 1, 2019 | News
As military courts in Pakistan once again cease to have jurisdiction over civilians for terrorism-related offences, the Government must bring reforms to strengthen the country’s criminal justice system, the ICJ said today.
Perpetrators of terrorist attacks and other serious crime must be brought to justice fair trials before competent, independent and impartial courts as required under international law, the ICJ added.
“The lapse of the jurisdiction of military courts over civilians is a step in the right direction, but unsurprisingly – even four years after military courts were empowered to try civilians – there is no sign of the promised reforms to strengthen the ordinary criminal justice system to effectively and fairly handle terrorism-related cases,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
The 23rd Amendment and corresponding amendments to the Army Act, 1952, lapsed on 30 March 2019, as their respective two-year sunset clauses expired. So far, the Government has failed to get support from opposition parties for a constitutional amendment to once again extend the jurisdiction of military courts to conduct trials of civilians.
“The Government must not re-enact legislation to continue secret military trials of civilians, nor resort to more short-term, short-sighted security measures that are contrary to Pakistan’s obligations to protect human rights,” Rawski said.
“Instead, the Government should urgently invest in enhancing the capacity and security of judges, investigators and prosecutors to make the regular criminal justice system more effective in conducting fair, credible terrorism trials, and bringing perpetrators to account without imposing the death penalty.”
According to military sources and ICJ’s monitoring of military trials in Pakistan since January 2015, military courts have convicted 617 people for terrorism-related offences, out of which 346 people have been sentenced to death and 271 people have been given prison sentences. At least 56 people have been hanged. Only four people have been acquitted.
The ICJ has documented serious fair trials violations in the operation of military courts, including: denial of the right to counsel of choice; failure to disclose the charges against the accused; denial of a public hearing; failure to give convicts copies of a judgment with evidence and reasons for the verdict; and a very high number of convictions based on “confessions” without adequate safeguards against torture and ill treatment.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia Pacific Regional Director (Bangkok), e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Reema Omer, ICJ International Legal Adviser for Pakistan (London), t: +447889565691; e: reema.omer(a)icj.org
Additional information
Military courts were first empowered to try civilians for certain terrorism-related offences in January 2015 through the 21st Amendment to the Constitution and amendments to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, which were in operation for a period of two years.
The expansion of the jurisdiction of military tribunals was a key part of the Government’s 20-point National Action Plan, adopted following the attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar in December 2014. NAP envisioned military courts to be a short-term “solution” to try “terrorists”, to be operational only for a two-year period during which the government would bring about necessary “reforms in criminal courts system to strengthen the anti-terrorism institutions”.
Despite promises that military courts were only temporary, after the expiration of the 21st Amendment, on 31 March 2017, Parliament enacted the 23rd Amendment and amendments to the Army Act to renew military courts’ jurisdiction over civilians. The amendments were given retrospective effect from 7 January 2017, and were due to lapse two years after their date of “commencement”. The expanded jurisdiction of military courts lapsed on 30 March 2019 (even though earlier reports suggested the amendments would expire on 6 January 2019) — two years after the date of “operation” of the 23rd Amendment).
The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as a form cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and an arbitrary denial of the right to life. The ICJ recalls that the UN General Assembly has by overwhelming majorities repeatedly called on all states the retain the death penalty to place a moratorium on the practice with a view to abolition. Pakistan previously had such a moratorium from 2008 to 2014.
