Mar 27, 2018 | News
The ICJ and Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) today urged Malaysia’s Parliament not to pass the Anti-Fake News Bill 2018.
The two organizations are concerned that the bill will unduly limit freedom of opinion or expression in Malaysia, and could be used to suppress legitimate criticism of the government.
“The bill is flawed in its design and will be open to abuse by the Malaysian government which maintains a poor track record in upholding freedom of expression,” said Sevan Doraisamy, SUARAM’s Executive Director.
“The term ‘fake news’ is in itself problematic. It is defined in an overbroad manner in the draft law, and therefore vulnerable to arbitrary interpretation and enforcement,” said Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser.
“Given past experience in Malaysia, it is highly likely to be used to suppress legitimate criticism of the government on matters of opinion or where the facts are contested,” she added.
The right to freedom of opinion and expression is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The bill makes no provision for exceptions or defences such as honest mistake, parody, artistic merit, or public interest. The bill would allow up to ten years imprisonment.
“The penalties are wildly disproportionate,” said Gil. “Indeed, under international standards, imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty for such offences.”
On 3 March 2017, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, together with his counterparts from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR), issued a joint declaration on ‘fake news’, disinformation, and propaganda.
The joint declaration emphasized that “the human right to impart information and ideas is not limited to ‘correct’ statements, that the right to also protects information and ideas that may shock, offend and disturb.”
It also said that “general prohibitions on the dissemination of information based on vague and ambiguous ideas, including ‘false news’ or ‘non-objective information’ are incompatible with international standards for restrictions on freedom of expression.”
The ICJ and SUARAM also note that the timing and the lack of transparent consultation on how it was developed raise concerns about the government’s motivation behind the introduction of this bill.
The bill has been introduced during the final days of Parliament sitting and is expected to be voted on within this week, leaving little time for deliberation or consultation.
“Allowing this bill to be passed would only serve as an affront to democratic values. It will be another strike on Malaysia’s already shoddy human rights record,” Doraisamy said.
“Adopting a law that would unduly limit the right to freedom of opinion and expression is not the optimal way to counter disinformation and propaganda,” said Gil.
“The best way is to disseminate accurate information and to make such information accessible to everyone,” she added.
The ICJ and SUARAM strongly urge the Malaysian parliament not to pass the Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 and uphold the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the country.
Contact
Emerlynne Gil, Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia of ICJ, t: + 662 619 8477 (ext. 206) ; e: emerlynne.gil@icj.org
Background
The Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 has been tabled for first reading at the Malaysian Parliament on 26 March 2018 and may be voted on this week or early next week.
The bill defines ‘fake news’, without any defences or exceptions, as including “any news, information, data and reports” which are “wholly or partly false”.
Furthermore, the bill states that ‘fake news’ may be “in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas.”
If passed, any person may be subject to a penalty of up to ten (10) years imprisonment and/or a fine amounting to MYR 500,000 (approximately USD 127,681) if convicted of knowingly creating, offering, publishing, printing, distributing, circulating, or disseminating any ‘fake news’ or publication of ‘fake news’.
The bill also seeks to penalize both Malaysians and foreigners alike, even if they are outside of Malaysia, as long as the fake news concerns Malaysia or a Malaysian citizen.
Mar 27, 2018 | Advocacy, News
Today, the ICJ testified before the Canadian House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights on the human rights and rule of law crisis in Cambodia.
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser, addressed the Subcommittee on two key issues:
- The misuse of the law in Cambodia under the pretext of the “Rule of Law”; and
- The lack of an independent and impartial judiciary.
Other witnesses were former members of the Cambodian Parliament for the main opposition party, the CNRP, before its dissolution in November 2017, Mu Sochua and Kong Sophea.
Kingsley Abbott also requested that the ICJ’s October 2017 Baseline Study on the state of the rule of law and human rights in Cambodia be added to the record.
Contact:
Kingsley Abbott, ICJ Senior International Legal Adviser for Southeast Asia, e: kingsley.abbott(a)icj.org
Thailand-SDIR-Statement-ABBOTT-Advocacy-2018-ENG (Full opening statement ENG, PDF)
Mar 23, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined other NGOs in an end-of-session statement, reflecting on the 37th ordinary session of the UN Human Rights Council.
The statement was delivered by the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) on behalf of:
- The East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project (DefendDefenders)
- The Global Initiative for Economic, Social & Cultural Rights
- CIVICUS
- International Commission of Jurists
- International Federation for Human Rights Leagues
- Conectas Direitos Humanos
- Human Rights House Foundation
- Amnesty International
- International Lesbian and Gay Association
- Human Rights Watch
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA).
The statement read as follows (text in italics was not read aloud for lack of time):
“Our organisations welcome the adoption of the resolution on the promotion and protection of human rights and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, particularly in reaffirming that all approaches to development must comply with the State’s international human rights obligations.
We agree that “cooperation and dialogue” are important for the promotion and protection of human rights, and that States should fully cooperate with the Council and its mechanisms, and ensure that all stakeholders are able to cooperate and engage with them without fear of reprisals.
However, we must now be vigilant to ensure that the resolution on Mutually Beneficial Cooperation, lacking in balance, does not undermine other important parts of the Council’s mandate: to address human rights violations and respond promptly to human rights emergencies in specific countries.
The Council has failed to take meaningful action to address the alarming situation on the ground in Cambodia. We welcome and echo the joint statement on Cambodia by over 40 states calling for further action if the situation does not improve in the lead up to the elections and for a briefing by the High Commissioner before the next Council session. We are concerned by Cambodia’s attempt to shut down criticism under item 10 debate on the worsening human rights situation in the country, as they are doing domestically.
We are disappointed by the weak outcome on Libya. Given the gravity of the human rights situation on the ground and the lack of accountability for crimes under international law, the Council cannot justify the lack of a dedicated monitoring and reporting mechanism.
We welcome the co-sponsorship of the Myanmar resolution by groups of States from all regions, making a joint commitment to address the continuing human rights violations and crimes against humanity in the country and support for the Special Rapporteur and Fact-Finding Mission to fulfil its mandate to establish truth and ensure accountability for perpetrators.
We also welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan allowing it to continue its vital investigations and identification of perpetrators. These developments acknowledge the importance of accountability for serious human rights violations and crimes under international law, which cannot be understated.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on drugs and human rights as the OHCHR report will provide human rights indicators related to the drug issue that would help in future policies.
We welcome the resolution on Eastern Ghouta adopted after an urgent debate, demonstrating how this Council can respond in an agile manner to crises.
Having long supported the resolution on “protection of human rights while countering terrorism”, we appreciate the efforts that led to the end of the separate and deeply flawed initiative on “effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights“. Future versions of the resolution must address the relevant issues exclusively and comprehensively from the perspective of the effective protection of human rights.
We welcome the Dutch-led joint statement on strengthening the Council, emphasising the importance of substantive civil society participation in any initiative or process and that the Council must be accessible, effective and protective for human rights defenders and rights holders on the ground.
Finally, we call on the Bureau co-facilitators on improving the efficiency and strengthening the Council to closely engage with all Members and Observers of the Council, human rights defenders and civil society organisations not based in Geneva.”
Mar 22, 2018 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today highlighted misuses of the law and legal system in Cambodia, in violation of human rights, and called for action by States and international and regional organisations, as well as the Government of Cambodia.
The statement was delivered during a general debate at the UN Human Rights Council, responding to concerns expressed earlier in the session by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and in the report of the UN Secretary General. It read as follows:
“The Cambodian Government continues to misuse the law to clamp down on the political opposition, on civil society and on ordinary individuals under the guise of the ‘rule of law’.
In November 2017, the Supreme Court dissolved the main opposition political party and banned 118 of its members from political activity after a politicized hearing in which the President of the Court was himself a high-ranking member of the ruling party.
The main opposition leader, Kem Sokha, remains in detention, under investigation for treason.
A recent Constitutional amendment imposes a broad ‘duty’ on individuals and associations to “uphold the national interest”. A new lèse-majesté law is inconsistent with freedom of expression.
Individuals continue to flee the country in fear for having exercised their fundamental freedoms.
In February, Sam Sokha, a UNHCR-recognized refugee, was deported from Thailand to Cambodia after she was convicted in her absence by a Cambodian court, for throwing a shoe at a ruling party billboard.
With national elections scheduled for July 2018, the Government’s trend of weaponizing the law against its people only seems set to harden.
States, international and regional organisations, and other international actors must heighten efforts to address the rule of law and human rights crisis in Cambodia.”
Video of the statement is available here:
Numerous statements expressing similar concerns about the situation in Cambodia followed by other NGOs. Some of them were interrupted by Cambodia on “points of order” and prevented from fully presenting their criticisms despite their alloted time remaining. The ICJ does not consider that the objections raised by Cambodia were valid and that the speakers should have been able to receive the full allotted time to complete their statements. Video of a final statement by the delegation of Cambodia is available below:
The ICJ statement today follows an earlier joint statement delivered yesterday by New Zealand on behalf of a group of 45 states, which is available to download in PDF format here (NZJointStatementCambodiaHRC37-2018) and to view by video here:
Mar 20, 2018
An opinion piece by Sean Bain, ICJ International Legal Adviser in Myanmar.
Australia now sits as a member of the UN Human Rights Council for the first time, sharing an enhanced responsibility to promote and protect human rights globally.
This commitment must be robustly pursued in neighboring Southeast Asia, where human rights are under assault and states are reluctant to call each other out on international law violations.
The ASEAN-Australia Special Summit this past weekend brought regional leaders to Sydney, including Myanmar’s de facto civilian leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.
Alongside talks on business and counterterrorism, the Australian government is duty bound to vigorously raise human rights concerns. Australia should also re-evaluate defense cooperation in the region, particularly in Myanmar.
The scale and intensity of rights violations against Rohingya civilians, perpetrated by Myanmar’s military, rates among the worst ASEAN has seen in recent memory.
The Rohingya plight has been of regional concern for some time, largely due to effects of refugee movements. The commission of acts constituting crimes under international law has escalated the situation to a global level.
On March 12, UN experts tasked with fact finding presented more horrific reports to the Human Rights Council. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights says acts of genocide may have occurred and that ethnic cleansing continues.
Crimes against humanity of murder, forcible transfer, persecution, and rape are among those attributed to the military in Rakhine state and in the conflict-affected north.
Both the civilian and military branches of Myanmar’s government staunchly contest claims of widespread or systematic rights violations. They argue the military campaign is an appropriate response to attacks on police by Rohingya militants, who are voraciously labeled as terrorists.
Humanitarian agencies, independent media, and UN investigators are denied access to areas of concern.
Disregarding the state’s obligation to duly investigate and prosecute crimes, Myanmar diplomats have asked for “concrete evidence” of violations.
It’s an absurd request given the ongoing prosecution of two Reuters journalists for investigative work, and the substantial body of evidence collected by the UN and nongovernment organizations, despite restricted access.
Australia continues modest but symbolically significant defense cooperation with the Myanmar military, a stance at odds with European and North American allies, who have mostly cut these ties.
Persistent military involvement in international crimes demands a re-evaluation of this support.
The “quiet diplomacy” approach, by its nature hard to measure for efficacy, appears to have failed, as the ferocity of security operations is unchanged by recent years of renewed defense cooperation. Given the scale and intensity of violations in Myanmar, Australian engagement that does not at its core address human rights violations will inevitably be self-defeating.
At minimum, future assistance must address the policies and practices that encourage or enable rights violations at the operational and tactical levels.
Myanmar’s invocation of its Counter Terrorism Law as cover for indiscriminate and unlawful killings gives further reason for caution (a counter terrorism conference accompanied the summit in Sydney). Broad democratic gains and wider reforms are seriously threatened by military impunity and a lack of government accountability.
Defense cooperation is now patently indefensible without addressing accountability and redress in line with international law.
Placing human rights at the center of engagement would better position the Australian government to implore neighbors to address the crisis caused by Myanmar’s military.
An application of regional pressure would serve as a critical motivator for the Myanmar government to recognize the crimes and to address cyclical patterns of violations. Myanmar’s state media regularly trumpets signs of regional support for its obstinacy.
Take for instance the theatrical example of Senior General Min Aung Hlaing’s recent trip to Thailand, where he received the award, “Knight Grand Cross of the Most Exalted Order of the White Elephant.”
Recently the military chief, unanswerable to the elected government under constitutional arrangements, was welcomed by ASEAN defense chiefs at another meeting in Singapore. But outside these overt public displays, there is discontent in ASEAN with Myanmar’s handling of the crisis and with the unwanted instability this brings.
While ASEAN is generally viewed as reticent on human rights, linked to a principle of “noninterference” in the affairs of its member states, divergence from this has occurred when rights concerns take an international dimension.
This has particularly been the case for Myanmar: in 2006 the government abdicated its inaugural ASEAN chair in response to regional pressure on rights, and more recently Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak publicly contemplated intervention to protect Rohingyas (a significant move regardless of potential domestic motives). Yet regrettably the bloc has been mostly silent on the current crisis.
This lack of regional pressure, an existence of discontent, and the precedents for rights talk within ASEAN, open space for and demand Australian leadership.
As a strategic partner of ASEAN but outside the bloc itself, and as a member of the Human Rights Council, Australia is both well positioned and duty bound to robustly engage on the human rights situation in Myanmar, with a view to convince ASEAN members and the responsible authorities to reign in the military and fulfill obligations under international human rights law.
The Australian government must speak forthrightly on human rights, and match this by reviewing defense assistance to states that flout international law.
Failure to publicly address and push accountability for crimes of the scale seen in Myanmar would embolden perpetrators of human rights violations throughout the region.
