Oct 4, 2020
An opinion piece by Jenny Domino, Associate Legal Adviser, ICJ Asia-Pacific Programme.
If Myanmar needs a guide in its fight against COVID-19, it need look no further than what human rights law already demands of it.
As COVID-19 cases surged in Rakhine State in late August, State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi affirmed that government responses to the pandemic would not discriminate based on faith or ethnicity. No one would be left behind in the fight against COVID-19, she promised.
These words carry particular weight in northern Rakhine, where an ethnic-based armed conflict persists. Fighting between the Myanmar military and the Arakan Army has led to the death, rape, psychological trauma and mass displacement of thousands of inhabitants caught in the crossfire, be they ethnically Rakhine, Rohingya, Daingnet, Chin or Mro. Women and children have been the victims of shelling, heavy artillery and landmines. And despite the surge in local transmission of COVID-19, a mutual ceasefire still seems unlikely.
Add to these horrors the spectre of political disenfranchisement. Concurrent with government-imposed stay-at-home orders to prevent the spread of the virus, internet restrictions ostensibly aimed at disrupting AA communications remain in place in several townships. In addition to undermining people’s access to health services and information, the internet restrictions curtail the exercise of people’s political rights as election campaigns increasingly move online. Both voters and candidates there now have to contend with limited connectivity during a crucial general election.
How should Myanmar’s response to COVID-19 be evaluated in a situation of armed conflict? In a briefing paper titled “COVID-19 and Human Rights: Upholding the Right to Health in Myanmar’s Conflict Areas,” the International Commission of Jurists offers some insight.
The international law prohibition on discrimination is relevant. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which Myanmar has ratified and to which it is bound, prohibits discrimination and guarantees the right to the highest attainable standard of health for all persons. The treaty requires that Myanmar enable access to healthcare for every person within its jurisdiction regardless of “race, colour, sexual orientation or gender identity, age, gender, religion, language, political or other opinion, citizenship, nationality or migration status, national, social or ethnic origin, descent, health status, disability, property, socio-economic status, birth or other status.” This applies even in situations of armed conflict.
Crucially, while some ICESCR obligations depend on state capacity and are therefore “progressively realisable”, the obligation not to discriminate based on any of the above criteria is not. This means that the state cannot invoke a lack of resources to justify discriminatory laws, policies and practices in fulfilling its obligations under the ICESCR. Non-discriminatory access to healthcare under the ICESCR requires not only physical and economic access to healthcare facilities, goods and services, but also to information. To comply with this latter requirement, Myanmar must ensure access to health-related education and information for everyone. In the context of COVID-19, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recommended that information about the pandemic be provided on a “regular basis, in an accessible format and in all local and indigenous languages”.
Opening up lines of communication and information-sharing is crucial, according to the UN Committee, to reduce the risk of transmission and to overcome COVID-19-related disinformation. As the recent ICJ report “Living Like People Who Die Slowly: The Need for Right to Health Compliant COVID-19 Responses” shows, states must generally refrain from censoring, withholding or misrepresenting health-related information and from preventing people from accessing it.
The internet restrictions, though not a total ban, still effectively isolate communities and undermine their ability to access health-related information – particularly crucial during a pandemic. Armed conflict does not justify these blanket restrictions. A non-discriminatory approach that ignores citizenship status, nationality, ethnicity, religion, or belief, would require Myanmar to fully restore 3G or 4G connectivity in these townships.
In addition to its international human rights law obligations, Myanmar must also comply with its international humanitarian law obligations, which regulate the conduct of hostilities between parties to a conflict and protect persons who take no active part in the hostilities. Importantly, it is not only the Myanmar government but also the AA that have obligations under international humanitarian law.
The AA, as a non-state actor, is not formally bound by the ICESCR. However, as the de facto authority in the areas under its effective control, the AA bears a general responsibility to respect human rights under international law in these areas, including the right to health. Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions requires both parties to distinguish between persons who take active part in the hostilities and those who do not. The killing of civilians, through the use of landmines, is illegal under international humanitarian law.
Both the Myanmar military and the AA must also ensure that the wounded and sick receive timely and adequate medical attention, without distinction. For this purpose, they must ensure the safe passage of medical personnel and vehicles, and the continued operation of medical facilities in conflict areas.
Medical vehicles bearing the UN logo have particular significance in this context. The logo signals to both groups that such a vehicle must not be attacked. Medical personnel must also be protected from physical risk and from the threat of prosecution based on their treating victims without regard to ethnic or political affiliation.
People need not be forced to choose between bombs and disease; they have the right to simultaneous protection from both. To avoid this situation, the UN secretary-general has called for a global ceasefire to enable everyone to focus on the “true fight of our lives”– COVID-19. In Myanmar, members of the diplomatic community, civil society and ethnic armed organisations have similarly called for the cessation of hostilities. Observing a ceasefire would enable all parties and the government to abide by its international law obligations.
As COVID-19 cases continue to increase in Myanmar, the pandemic has acutely underscored the importance of eroding man-made divisions like race and religion, and it has made clear the need to ensure access to healthcare and health information for all. If Myanmar needs a guide in its fight against COVID-19, it need look no further than what human rights law prescribes.
First published in Frontier Magazine on 2 October: https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/bombs-or-disease-the-false-choice-in-myanmars-conflict-areas/
Jun 10, 2020
An Opinion Editorial by Carlos Lopez, Senior Legal Adviser at the ICJ in Geneva.
The decision by Facebook to allow a post by US President Donald Trump, which its peer social media platform Twitter decided to label as incitement to violence, has sparked controversy and pushed the debate about the role of social media in the moderation of content posted by their users to the forefront of the public agenda.
Confronted with growing instances of disinformation, “fake news” and hate speech, most social media platforms are moving from an initially neutral position, refusing to “arbitrate” on what is seen as the exercise of a right to free speech, to a more or less active stance which sometimes leads decisions to delete the contested content. What is the right balance for social media companies’ content moderation policies? What objective parameters should they use to define their policies? Is there a role for governments in this field? Should they regulate and, if so, in which direction? The treatment of such questions is central to strategies to protect human rights in the context of activities of social platforms.
The incident that triggered the present backlash is the latest in a string of other similar instances concerning high-ranking public officers in different parts of the world.
Donald Trump’s tweet, “when looting starts, shooting starts” in relation to social protests in the United States was widely regarded as a threat and potential incitement to violence and a much rebuked direct quote used by a Miami Police chief during civil rights protests in 1967.
Another tweet that also met with widespread disapproval was Trump’s threat to send the military to Minneapolis, the epicentre of widespread popular protests against the killing of African American citizen George Floyd by a police officer who knelt in his neck for nearly 10 minutes while Floyd was already overpowered and lying on the floor with difficulties to breath.
But Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s refusal to follow twitter’s example and label Trump tweets with a warning to the public about its dangerous nature has received also wide condemnation, even by ordinary and prominent Facebook employees.
In response to criticism, including from its own Facebook employees, Zuckerberg stood by his decision refusing to be the arbiter of truth. Where twitter took action to mask the potentially harmful message with a warning to the public and action to limit its spread by the use of algorithms that limit users interaction with it, Facebook decided to allow the post appear and to be shared without hindrance.
This unacceptable stance from an ethical point of view is also problematic in the light of international standards, including the UN Guiding Principles, on business’ human rights responsibilities that require companies to avoid contributing to harmful conduct by others.
It may also raise issues of legal liability for social media in circumstances where serious crimes are committed at the instigation or facilitation of content allowed to be published in the knowledge of its likely impact. Standing-by to facilitate content to be widely shared in full knowledge of its likely harmful impact, is unethical, not human rights compliant and in certain circumstances can lead to legal responsibility.
Refusing to take action when one is in a position to act and knows that inaction is likely to instigate crimes, may also trigger legal responsibility. Instead, companies should take reasonable diligence measures to prevent clearly harmful content to be published and disseminated in their platforms.
Although a few days later Zuckerberg, in an apparent change of tack, announced internal consideration of options regarding Facebook’s policies on content moderation, he did not promise any concrete change or a timeframe.
In tackling violence and harm to human rights, company policies and procedures matter. In recent years, social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Youtube have revamped their policies on content moderation in response to growing concern by the general public.
Facebook has recently established an Oversight Board– a purportedly independent body to address in appeal disputed decisions on content moderation-, drafted its by-laws and appointed half of its membership. The ongoing health crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic is also serving as catalyser for action given the widespread circulation of harmful disinformation.
Facebook also reacted to incidents in which the platform was used by Buddhist extremists and military officials in Myanmar to incite hatred and violence against that country’s Muslim minority, the Rohingya, in 2017.
But most policies are still to be implemented and their effectiveness yet to be proved. Policies also widely differ from each other across the social media spectrum as dramatic events around the killing of George Floyd show.
But for companies to adopt and effectively implement sound policies and actions to respect human rights, internal leadership at the highest level is essential, especially for companies that are owned by one or a few individuals, as is the case of many of the major social media platforms. Here, there has been a serious failure that needs to be corrected for meaningful changes in policies and procedures to take place.
The spotlight on social media companies’ policies and actions and their leadership should not obscure the also crucial role that States have under international human rights law to take action to protect human rights.
With a few exceptions, States have also been failing in their duty to protect human rights in the context of activities by social media and other tech companies and have generally opted for abstention, fearful of impinging in the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
President Trump’s threats to regulate social media by exposing them to heightened risk of legal liability for the content they allow users to post, is not the best or more human rights-compatible way for State action.
Retaliation against social media – Twitter, in this case – for acting responsibly is also unacceptable. Instead, regulation that follows international standards on human rights, especially freedom of expression, opinion and to seek information, is possible and needed.
Some States have adopted punitive approaches that result in the restriction of freedoms and allow them increased control over social media. The ICJ report on practices across Asian countries are illustrations of the harmful nature of such regulation and why it should be changed.
These legal frameworks usually contain vague, and broadly defined legal provisions, severe and disproportionate penalties, lack of independent oversight mechanisms, and fail to provide effective remedy or accountability for cases of abuse.
But regulation that delineates the responsibilities of all actors and their possible legal liabilities for misbehaviour based on guidance from international human rights law is possible and could also be effective in tackling disinformation and various forms of “fake news”.
Both the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, have said that the respective treaties require States to ensure business under their jurisdiction adopt policies to respect human rights and adopt processes of due diligence and remediation to avoid or mitigate risks of human rights violations.
Clearly, neither social media nor their CEOs can be left to their own devices. States need urgently to take action in compliance with their international obligations in this respect.
Apr 27, 2020
An opinion piece by Emerlynne Gil, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Global Access to Justice and ASEAN
The Philippine government is one of the many around the world struggling to respond to the severe public health crisis brought about by the spread of the COVID-19 virus. To date, the Philippines is one of the countries with the highest COVID-19 related deaths in Southeast Asia.
Like a number of others around the world, the Philippine government responded to this pandemic by declaring a state of public health emergency and imposed limitations to rights such as the freedom of movement and freedom of expression. When the state of public health emergency was declared by President Duterte, there were fears that this might cause the further erosion of the rule of law and democracy in the country.
A state of emergency per se is not inconsistent with international human rights law. The human rights paradigm, which has sometimes been perceived by its critics as being too idealistic and lacking the practicality of being widely applicable in the real world, is actually quite pragmatic and envisions situations like the one we are facing now.
Situations necessitating the limitation of certain rights are anticipated under international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Philippines is a party, provides for the possibility of limiting certain rights in the interests of public health, and, in the most extreme cases, derogating from certain rights during declared states of emergency, to the extent strictly necessary to meet a threat to the life of the nation.
As part of the emergency measures, the Philippine government imposed a nationwide lockdown, which severely limits the freedom of movement of everyone in the country. The right to freedom of expression is also limited since the law that was passed declaring the emergency imposes a punishment of imprisonment of two (2) months or a fine of not more than 1 million pesos (approximately US$19,600) on persons found to have been “spreading false information regarding the COVID-19 crisis on social media and other platforms”.
The rights to freedom of movement and freedom of opinion and expression are two of the rights that may be limited under international law, but there are still parameters that must be followed when applying limitations. They must be established by law, are necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory. This means that only the least restrictive measure must be applied. The limitations on these rights must be interpreted strictly in favor of the right always, and should not be construed so as to defeat the essence of the right involved. Furthermore and very important in the Philippines context, the limitations should not be abused or applied in an arbitrary manner.
Ever since the lockdown started in the Philippines, there have been reports of how this severe limitation of movement by the population is being abused by government authorities, especially to harass activists and those allegedly connected to armed rebel groups. For instance, Felipe Levy Gelle Jr., reported several visits in his home from the military, after the lockdown started. Felipe Levy Gelle Jr., a member of a human rights group in Negros, is among those who called for the investigation into the death of Benjamin Ramos, a lawyer who assisted the families of the nine farmers murdered in Sagay City on 20 October 2019.
Local government officials, who have been tasked to implement the rules on community quarantine, are also abusing their powers during the emergency. There are credible reports according to which local officials have subjected people to ill-treatment on those who violate lockdown rules. For instance, a barangay captain in the province of Pampanga was reported to have forced LGBT individuals to do lewd acts in public and in some parts of Manila, those who violate lockdown rules are kept in dog cages.
These forms of “punishment” are definitely degrading as they are extremely humiliating and are aimed to debase a person beyond that which is usual. The prohibition against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is absolute and is not subject to limitation or derogation, even in times of emergency.
On the right to freedom of opinion and expression, there have been reports of several activists and journalists who have been either threatened or harassed by the authorities for criticizing publicly the government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis. For instance, barangay officials threatened to press libel charges against a student journalist, Joshua Molo, for the views he expressed online regarding the government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis. By going after those who express critical views of the government and its response to the crisis, authorities are casting a chilling effect on freedom of expression, stimulating self-censorship and possibly impeding information that may be crucial in effectively addressing this crisis. Indeed, the right to freedom of expression may be limited during times of emergency, but the limitations on this right should not be interpreted so as to defeat the right itself.
If the Philippine authorities are genuinely concerned about the rampant disinformation on the COVID-19 crisis, the best way to address this is counter-speech and social dialogue. It is within the spirit of democracy and rule of law to foster a culture of public dialogue where everyone can freely and without fear of reprisal, talk about and debate issues emerging from this crisis.
President Duterte’s language and rhetoric during his regular press conferences do not help the situation where the entire country is struggling under this state of emergency. The manner by which he is addressing this public health crisis is no different from how he continues to pursue his murderous “war on drugs”. In one of his speeches, instead of discouraging the use of force and calling for peaceful de-escalation of tensions during protests through dialogue and negotiation, he told police to unlawfully shoot protesters who “cause trouble” during this emergency. Instead of calming the nation and giving clear direction on how the government must work in a lawful and rights compliant manner during this crisis, his speeches cause further anxiety and confusion among the people.
Moreover, instead of letting public health professionals take the lead in addressing this crisis, President Duterte appointed military officers to implement the National Action Plan on curbing the spread of COVID-19. This shows that the Duterte administration still intends to rely on brute force and opaque decision-making processes to manage this crisis, instead of leaning on sound public health policies and transparent governance.
The Philippines is facing a long and difficult path in getting to the other side of this public health emergency. What is clear right now is that more human rights violations will not help the country. The survival of the nation will depend on protecting the rights of the people and holding on fiercely to the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
To download the Op-Ed, click here.
This article was first published on the Inquirer, available at: https://opinion.inquirer.net/129202/human-rights-in-a-public-health-emergency
Apr 6, 2020
An opinion piece by Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior Legal Adviser, Global Redress and Accountability
In New Zealand, swimming at the beach is prohibited, an activity so entrenched in the Kiwi psyche that for many it is like being asked to go without oxygen.
The Government has asked everyone to “unite against Covid-19” by living under the severest restrictions on fundamental freedoms the country has ever known. On 25 March, a one-week State of Emergency was declared, which was renewed for another seven days on 31 March.
New Zealand is also experiencing a “lockdown” under a Government-imposed “Covid-19 Alert System”, which means that, under the current Alert Level 4, nearly everyone must stay at home for at least four weeks unless they are purchasing groceries, medical supplies or enjoying exercise locally, among other restrictions.
This situation has taken us into unchartered territory and Kiwis should monitor the actions of our Government carefully.
Restrictions are being enforced by the police, who now enjoy extensive, broadly-worded, powers under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act and the Health Act.
And the police have been active, including by setting up checkpoints to screen peoples’ movements, asking Kiwis to report on their neighbours who break the rules, and requesting people in non-managed self-isolation give consent to the police to track their movements using their cellular devices.
The Government’s response to Covid-19 appears to have the general support of most people.
Kiwis have good reason trust their Government, with New Zealand’s strong track record of upholding human rights and the rule of law.
And it should be commended for its swift implementation of a range of special actions taken to alleviate peoples’ suffering at this time, including the most vulnerable, such as by providing a wage subsidy scheme, leave and self-isolation support, business cash flow and tax measures, a mortgage repayment holiday scheme and a business finance guarantee scheme.
Establishing a bi-partisan Epidemic Response Committee to oversee the Government’s response was also a positive step, and should serve as a model to other states.
That said, we should not be complacent about the magnitude of what we are being asked to endure, and what it already means for the “Kiwi way of life”, our communities and the nation.
Lessons learned from around the world where living under limitations on rights and states of emergency has become a way of life for many (such as in Thailand where I live and work), include that without constant scrutiny, restrictions put in place to respond to an emergency can be abused and sometimes linger long after they are required, assuming they were ever required in the first place.
Another, global, example is how in the post-September 11 context, different limitations which were put in place to combat the specific threat of terrorism – including enhanced powers of state surveillance – remain in place today, altering the trajectory of whole societies around the world.
So, what does monitoring our Government’s response to Covid-19 mean for New Zealand and what can we use as a yardstick?
It is not widely known that an international human rights legal framework exists which applies to precisely this situation, and that it is legally binding on New Zealand.
The Government – including the police – cannot simply do whatever it wants to combat the pandemic, even in good faith.
Rather, the framework requires New Zealand to place human rights and the rule of law at the forefront of its response.
Among other things, the Government must ensure that each and every restriction on our rights and freedoms has a clear legal basis; is described in specific terms so that people know how their rights are being limited, under which law, and precisely what they are (and are not) permitted to do; and is subject to the review of the courts, if necessary.
In combating Covid-19, all states, including New Zealand, are confronted with the challenge of ensuring that the whole protective fabric of human rights (civil, political, economic, social and cultural) and the rule of law is applied coherently and consistently.
New Zealand has a duty to respect, protect and fulfil a cluster of rights, including the right to life and the right to health.
These duties have a range of sources in national and international law, including under treaties to which New Zealand is a State Party, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
For example, Article 12 of the ICESCR – which deals with the right to health – recognises New Zealand’s duty to respect, protect and fulfil “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health” and the obligation to take effective steps for the “prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases.”
At the same time, New Zealand has a duty to respect, protect and fulfil another range of interrelated and interdependent rights including the rights to free movement, expression, assembly and association found in our domestic law (such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act) and the ICCPR.
Article 12 of the ICCPR states that “Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.”
This is the Article that protects, for example, our right to travel between cities or go for a swim at the beach.
Subsection 3 allows certain restrictions on the right to movement but only in limited circumstances, including to protect public health: “The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.”
And by declaring a State of Emergency, New Zealand has entered into another, quite specific, legal territory that has its own framework for dealing with public emergencies, should it seek to derogate (suspend or restrict obligations in certain emergency situations) from its obligations under the ICCPR, which it does not appear to have done so far.
Whether through normal limitation or emergency derogation, there are certain conditions to restricting rights that must always be observed under international human rights law and standards.
The Siracusa Principles and the jurisprudence of the UN treaty bodies (tasked with monitoring the implementation of the core international human rights treaties) set out what these requirements mean in practice.
In particular, any restrictions should, at a minimum, be:
• provided for and carried out in accordance with the law;
• directed toward a legitimate objective, as provided under the ICCPR (in this case public health);
• strictly necessary in a democratic society to achieve the objective;
• the least intrusive and restrictive available to reach the objective;
• based on scientific evidence and be neither arbitrary nor discriminatory in application; and
• of limited duration, respectful of human dignity, and subject to review.
While we should, of course, obey the current range of restrictions, we should also be aware of the Government’s obligations and our rights.
Government accountability, transparency and the rule of law – always necessary – is vital in these extraordinary times.
For example, we should welcome how initial confusion about the precise scope of restrictions, their legal basis and how they are being policed is now being addressed, including through a new, detailed, Health Act Order, and release of the Police’s Operational Policing Guidelines, both issued after questions were raised before the Epidemic Response Committee on Friday.
As the Covid-19 pandemic continues to rage around the world, many governments are struggling with an appropriate reaction.
New Zealand should continue to establish itself as a global leader on what a response grounded in human rights and the rule of law looks like.
To download the Op-Ed, click here.
This article was first published on Newsroom, available at: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/pro/2020/04/06/1117304/our-unprecedented-lockdown-should-be-carefully-monitored
Mar 12, 2020
An opinion piece by Ruth Panjaitan, ICJ National Legal Adviser in Indonesia.
Late last year, the Indonesian parliament was about to vote on a new Penal Code to replace the existing Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP), the culmination of decades of efforts to revise the country’s penal laws. The draft of the new Penal Code, however, was met with massive protests and vigorous public opposition that it prompted President Joko Widodo to appeal to lawmakers to postpone its passage.
The proposed Penal Code is now back in the hands of lawmakers who are promising more consultations with the public, including on its most contested and problematic provisions. The Parliament and the Ministry of Law and Human Rights jointly agreed to include the Penal Code as one of 50 priority draft laws in the national program legislative (prolegnas). It is thus expected that the Penal Code will be finalized this year.
There are a number of provisions in the draft law that, if implemented, would not comply with Indonesia’s international law obligations and would carry adverse human rights consequences for numerous people in the country. These provisions relate to such areas as the right to privacy, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.
In many ways, the law would pose particularly dire consequences for women’s human rights in Indonesia. Article 433 on adultery is one such provision that the ICJ and many human rights organizations and advocates have called on lawmakers to remove this from the draft.
The existing Penal Code already problematically criminalizes adultery, defining it as sexual intercourse between a married man or woman when the sexual partner is not his/her spouse. But under the proposed draft law, the definition of adultery has been expanded to include sexual acts between an unmarried woman and an unmarried man. Furthermore, the penalty has been increased so that a person found guilty thereof may be imprisoned for up to two years. The prosecution of Article 433 may only be commenced upon the complaint of the spouse, parents, or children of the alleged offenders.
The criminalization of adultery is not compliant with international law and standards, including the right to privacy and non-discrimination and equal protection of law. In this connection, various international human rights instruments, including the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) and the UN Working Group on Discrimination against women in law and practice, have consistently called for the repeal of laws criminalizing adultery. This is because the enforcement of adultery laws leads to discrimination and violence against women, as well as an infringement on the right to privacy.
Harmful gender stereotypes and rigid constructions of femininity lay at the core of this disparity. Women are expected to be sexually modest. A woman’s modesty is inextricably linked to her partner’s masculinity and her family’s honor. Hence, if a woman shows or is perceived to be sexually immodest, then her male partner would be viewed as weak and vulnerable. The woman would also be accused of bringing dishonor to her family. These harmful gender stereotypes are still very much present in Indonesia. In fact, in 2012, the CEDAW Committee expressed concern in its Concluding Observations on Indonesia’s periodic reports that there is the “persistence of adverse cultural norms, practices, traditions, patriarchal attitudes regarding roles, responsibilities and identities of women and men in the family and in society.”
There has been continuous trend throughout the world of countries reforming and abolishing often archaic laws criminalizing adultery. In 2018, India made the move of abolishing its colonial-era adultery law. The Philippines is now currently revising its Penal Code and one of the key considerations in the discussions is the abolition of the provisions on adultery. Indonesia now has the opportunity to step up and assert itself as a progressive leader in Asia in eliminating discrimination against women by removing the provision criminalizing adultery in its draft Penal Code.
To download in Bahasa Indonesia , click here.
This article was first published in Tempo, available at: https://kolom.tempo.co/read/1318052/dekriminalisasi-pasal-perzinaan
