Report says thousands of people held in little-reported facilities where authorities are violating human rights on a large scale
The US and UK are complicit in the detention of thousands of people, including British nationals, in camps and facilities in north-east Syria where disease, torture and death are rife, according to Amnesty International.
In a report, the charity says the western-backed region’s autonomous authorities are responsible for large-scale human rights violations against people held since the end of the ground war against Islamic State (IS) more than five years ago.
Rishi Sunak’s authority suffers blow as several Conservatives vote against bill, which clears first Commons hurdle with 383 votes to 67
At 12.30pm a transport minister will respond to an urgent question in the Commons tabled by Labour on job losses in the rail industry. That means the debate on the smoking ban will will not start until about 1.15pm.
Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, is one of the Britons speaking at the National Conservatism conference in Brussels starting today. The conference, which features hardline rightwingers from around the world committed to the NatCons’ ‘faith, flag and family’ brand of conservatism, is going ahead despite two venues refusing to host them at relatively short notice.
The current UK government doesn’t have the political will to take on the ECHR and hasn’t laid the ground work for doing so.
And so it’s no surprise that recent noises in this direction are easily dismissed as inauthentic.
Any attempt to include a plan for ECHR withdrawal in a losing Conservative election manifesto risks setting the cause back a generation.
Foreign Office officials are holding secret talks with the paramilitary group that has been waging a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Sudan for the past year.
News that the British government and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) are engaged in clandestine negotiations has prompted warnings that such talks risk legitimising the notorious militia – which continues to commit multiple war crimes – while undermining Britain’s moral credibility in the region.
Concerns that vicious circle of party ill-discipline is undermining the PM’s ability to restore order
Senior Tories fear Rishi Sunak is facing a vicious circle of party ill-discipline, amid concerns that attacks from Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Suella Braverman will signal his inability to restore authority in the months before the general election.
Decision by European court of human rights around vulnerability of older women to heatwaves marks significant shift
A landmark legal ruling at the European court of human rights could open the floodgates for a slew of new court cases around the world, experts have said.
The Strasbourg-based court said earlier this week that Switzerland’s failure to do enough to cut its national greenhouse gas emissions was a clear violation of the human rights of a group of more than 2,000 older Swiss women. The women argued successfully that their rights to privacy and family life were being breached because they were particularly vulnerable to the health impacts of heatwaves.
Human rights campaigner who founded the charity Redress following his unlawful imprisonment and torture in Saudi Arabia
Questions were asked in the House of Commons after Keith Carmichael disappeared into a Saudi Arabian jail in November 1981. His case was repeatedly raised by MPs and peers as news of his brutal mistreatment filtered out. It was not until he was released without charge two and half years later, however, that the extent of the torture he had endured became public knowledge.
Carmichael, who has died aged 90, was held in solitary confinement for three months, deprived of food and sleep, beaten on his knees and feet, sexually assaulted, shackled in leg irons, suffered a fractured spine and detained in rat-infested cells. He was also threatened with crucifixion and electrocution if he did not confess to numerous crimes (including leaving Saudi Arabia illegally, spying and criticising the royal family), which he refused to do.
Flirting with leaving the European court of human rights has failed to move the dial for the PM, and has highlighted his deficiencies
Rishi Sunak is not a deep-cover agent of the Labour party, but politics might not look very different if the prime minister were on a secret mission to make life easier for Keir Starmer.
To achieve this feat, special operative Sunak would occupy positions expected of a Conservative leader, but in a way that minimised public enthusiasm and maximised division in his own party.
Nicaragua asks UN’s highest court to halt German weapons sales to Israel, alleging it is breaching obligation to prevent genocide
Germany has said Israel’s security is at “the core” of its foreign policy because of the history of the Holocaust, but denied accusations at the UN’s highest court that is aiding genocide in Gaza by arming Israel.
Nicaragua has brought a case against Germany at the international court of justice (ICJ) urging judges to order a halt to German weapons sales to Israel, alleging it is in breach of its obligation to prevent genocide and ensure respect of international humanitarian law.
Nicaragua asks UN’s highest court to halt German weapons sales to Israel, alleging it is breaching obligation to prevent genocide
Germany has said Israel’s security is at “the core” of its foreign policy because of the history of the Holocaust, but denied accusations at the UN’s highest court that is aiding genocide in Gaza by arming Israel.
Nicaragua has brought a case against Germany at the international court of justice (ICJ) urging judges to order a halt to German weapons sales to Israel, alleging it is in breach of its obligation to prevent genocide and ensure respect of international humanitarian law.
Court finds in favour of group of older Swiss women who claimed weak policies put them at greater risk of death from heatwaves
Weak government climate policies violate fundamental human rights, the European court of human rights has ruled.
In a landmark decision on one of three major climate cases, the first such rulings by an international court, the ECHR raised judicial pressure on governments to stop filling the atmosphere with gases that make extreme weather more violent.
Western governments could once be confident of protecting their friends. Nicaragua’s case shows those days are gone
The case brought by Nicaragua against Germany at the international court of justice (ICJ) in The Hague this week is a powerful example of the unprecedented political impact that the Gaza conflict is having around the world. Most obviously, Israel’s continuing assault after the 1,200 brutal murders and about 240 kidnappings by Hamas on 7 October has had a deadly impact on Palestinians. More than 30,000 people in Gaza have been killed, and a famine is now looming. The conflict has also opened up a division between the global north and south in a way not seen before.
Nicaragua’s case focuses on Germany’s supply of arms to Israel – the country supplied more than €326m (£258m) last year, which equated to more than a quarter of Israel’s military imports. It also calls on Germany to restore Gaza funding to Unrwa, the UN agency that provides Palestinians with humanitarian aid. Nicaragua says the arms sales mean Germany is “facilitating” genocide. On Monday, it accused Germany of doing “business as usual – or better than usual” because of its burgeoning weapons sales.
Western governments could once be confident of protecting their friends. Nicaragua’s case shows those days are gone
The case brought by Nicaragua against Germany at the international court of justice (ICJ) in The Hague this week is a powerful example of the unprecedented political impact that the Gaza conflict is having around the world. Most obviously, Israel’s continuing assault after the 1,200 brutal murders and about 240 kidnappings by Hamas on 7 October has had a deadly impact on Palestinians. More than 30,000 people in Gaza have been killed, and a famine is now looming. The conflict has also opened up a division between the global north and south in a way not seen before.
Nicaragua’s case focuses on Germany’s supply of arms to Israel – the country supplied more than €326m (£258m) last year, which equated to more than a quarter of Israel’s military imports. It also calls on Germany to restore Gaza funding to Unrwa, the UN agency that provides Palestinians with humanitarian aid. Nicaragua says the arms sales mean Germany is “facilitating” genocide. On Monday, it accused Germany of doing “business as usual – or better than usual” because of its burgeoning weapons sales.
On 1 April 2024, Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA is a human rights organization committed to protecting freedom of expression, press freedom, the right to assemble and protest, and access to information in Turkey. It serves as a vital platform where journalism and legal expertise merge to safeguard these freedoms, particularly for journalists, lawyers, and human rights defenders facing increasing challenges). SEMRA PELEK wrote about Mine Özerden, a human rights defender now detained for 700 days. The detailed statement if woth reading in full:
From Mine Özerden’s standpoint, the Gezi Trial began with an unsubstantiated criminal complaint. Despite efforts, no informant was identified. Tax inspectors investigated the allegations but couldn’t confirm them. The court ruled the phone taps used as evidence were illegal. Nonetheless, Özerden was sentenced to 18 years and has been in prison for nearly two years.
“I’ve said this repeatedly, and I’ll say it again: I still can’t comprehend why I’m here, and there hasn’t been anyone who could logically explain it to me yet.”
With these words, Mine Özerden began her defense during the session of the Gezi Trial held at the Istanbul 13th Heavy Penal Court on October 8, 2021. She posed the same question during her defense at the session held on January 17, 2022. Özerden has been asking the same question at every hearing since the initial session of the Gezi Trial on June 25, 2019. However, in the years that have passed, she has received no answer to her question throughout the entire legal process.
Mine Özerden’s lawyer requested an explanation from the prosecutor through the court regarding this matter. However, the court rejected the request: “The request for a statement from the Public Prosecutor regarding which acts and crimes are being attributed to the defendant Mine Özerden by the defense attorney has been rejected…”
The court failed to provide any justification or further clarification of the rejection. However, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, every defendant has the right to effectively present their defense, and the right to “be informed.” This means that prosecutors and courts are obligated to inform the defendant of the accusations against them to ensure a fair trial. The laws clearly state this right, however, Mine Özerden was not granted this right throughout the entire trial, and the judiciary system did not provide any logical explanation for this.
Let’s ask a question of our own here: Is there no answer to Ozerden’s question in the 657-page indictment written by the prosecution, which led to Osman Kavala’s aggravated life sentence and the 18-year sentences that Mine Özerden, Çiğdem Mater, Tayfun Kahraman, and Can Atalay have been given in the Gezi Trials? They are currently convicted of serious charges such as “attempting to overthrow the Republic of Turkey by force and violence” and “aiding this attempt,” which means the higher Court of Cassation also signed off on the decision. In the document of approval released by the Court of Cassation, is there any answer to the aforementioned question? No, there isn’t!
Scrutinizing the Gezi Trial files, one question remains: Why is Mine Özerden in prison?
And you can’t find the answer to that question. After poring over the files line by line, one can’t help but be reminded of Kafka’s novel, The Trial. So much so that you could replace the protagonist Josef K.’s name with Mine Özerden’s: “Somebody must have made a false accusation against Mine Özerden, for she was arrested one morning without having done anything wrong.”
This is exactly how the Gezi Trial, which today stands like a specter against the freedom of expression and assembly not only of the defendants but of the whole society, began for Mine Özerden.
Let’s start from the beginning: On September 26, 2013, a “criminal complaint” was sent via email to the Istanbul Communication Electronics Branch Directorate. According to the indictment, the person, who didn’t provide their name in “criminal complaint number 11167,” claimed to have “important information regarding the Gezi protests” and alleged that “before the protests began in Taksim, Mine Özerden opened bank accounts for several individuals under the direction of Osman Kavala from the Open Society Foundation.” According to the informant’s claim, the money collected in these accounts was intended to purchase “gas masks, bandages, and goggles,” which would then be “distributed to protesters.”
In the thousands of pages of the Gezi Trial file, this is the sole allegation concerning Mine Özerden.
Following up on this allegation requires due diligence in seeking the facts. Unlike Kafka’s novel, Özerden’s experiences are not allegorical but real; she has been held in Bakırköy Women’s Prison for nearly two years due to this unsubstantiated criminal complaint.
In the indictment, the prosecutor – after quoting the informant’s claim in quotation marks and bold black letters – immediately indicates in the next sentence that they “could not locate the informant”: “Upon the instruction of our Republic Prosecutor’s Office, an investigation was conducted into the IP address to obtain a detailed statement from the informant, however, no identification was made.”
In other words, the informant could not be found. So, were the bank accounts alleged by the informant opened?
No!
That, in fact, is the following sentence, where the prosecutor offers his admission that the informant could not be found. In the indictment, Istanbul Foundation’s 1st Regional Directorate’s investigation of the accounts of the Open Society Foundation, eventually preparing a report on this inquiry, but the report clearly stated that “no determination could be made regarding these allegations.”
In other words, the claim of an unidentified informant could not be substantiated.
On April 22, 2022 Mine Özerden’s lawyer submitted Tax documents, which proved that the informant’s claim was false to the file.
The court dismissed the Tax Inspectorate report and did not consider it as evidence.
Fact Two: No bank accounts opened; no purchase was made
Typically (in any rule-of-law state), when an informant cannot be found and an unsubstantiated criminal complaint is involved, the case is closed with a verdict of non-prosecution.
Moreover, according to the established jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, evaluating a purely unsubstantiated complaint on its own is also unlawful. Thus, this jurisprudence also warranted closing the case at this stage. The law is clear: you cannot prosecute anyone with a non-existent crime and an unsubstantiated allegation.
However, instead of closing the file at this point, the prosecutor opened another investigation completely unrelated to the Gezi inquiry. Mine Özerden was incidentally wiretapped within the scope of this investigation. It wasn’t until much later, when the Gezi Trial indictment was prepared, that the fact Özerden had been coincidentally wiretapped in this investigation emerged. When her lawyer officially questioned this, it was revealed that Özerden had never been a suspect in this investigation. Furthermore, there was no wiretap order issued against her in this investigation. Her lawyer had requested wiretap orders from the court, neither the police nor the prosecution had submitted these orders to the file.
In one of these coincidental wiretaps included in the Gezi Trial indictment despite having no relevance to the Gezi investigation, Mine Özerden had a conversation with Osman Kavala on May 30, 2013. In this conversation, Mine Özerden mentioned to Osman Kavala that she had received “some offers.” Someone suggested, “Let’s buy gas masks and distribute them to the youth.” The conversation continued with discussions on how this could be done, such as “maybe opening a bank account.” It was nothing more than an exchange of ideas, with the conversation ending with the suggestion, “One of the volunteers could probably do that.”
The claim of the unidentified informant was based on this conversation. Özerden, who was coincidentally wiretapped in an investigation, where she was not a suspect, was accused on the basis of this wiretap turned into a criminal complaint. Özerden’s lawyer requested the full resolution of this wiretap. However, neither the complete resolutions of wiretaps nor the wiretap recordings were found by the prosecution and were never submitted to the file.
The conversation between Mine Özerden and Osman Kavala remained at the level of ideas because the content of the conversation was not substantiated during the investigation and trial process. No bank account was found to have been opened. Something that doesn’t exist can’t be found in the first place.
There is no evidence in the file that gas masks, bandages, or goggles were purchased. Not a single invoice exists, nor is there any evidence anywhere that these items were found.
So, suppose even one piece of evidence existed in the file – for example, if a bank account had been opened or if an invoice for goggles had been found – what would happen? Opening a bank account and buying gas masks, bandages, or goggles is not a crime under any law. Therefore, Özerden’s lawyer brought goggles, gas masks, and bandages to the trial and asked the panel, “Is acquiring these items a crime?”
Fact Three: No Press Statements or Meetings were Found to Constitute a Crime or Incitement to Commit a Crime
Despite the lack of concrete evidence, the indictment directed the accusation of “aiding an attempt to overthrow the Government of the Republic of Turkey by force and violence” against Mine Özerden. To strengthen such a serious accusation, the prosecutor highlighted Özerden’s voluntary coordination of the Taksim Platform and her continued membership in the board of directors of Anadolu Kültür, where she had worked years ago.
The Taksim Platform was established as a peaceful dialogue platform, holding weekly exchange of ideas meetings, and organizing art events. Although the activities of the platform fell within the scope of freedom of assembly and expression, it was criminalized in the indictment, yet no crime associated with the platform can be found.
Not a single press statement by the platform was included in the indictment. There was not any piece of evidence regarding which press statement or meeting of the platform, on which date, would constitute a crime according to the law. There was also no evidence that any post or statement released by the Taksim Platform could constitute a crime or incitement to violence in the indictment or the file.
The rationale behind the establishment of the Taksim Platform and all updates, statements and press releases ever released by the platform is still accessible today on the website taksimplatformu.com. So, if there had been even the slightest evidence that Taksim Platform was inciting violence, it would be easy for the prosecution to find and include in the indictment.
Moreover, the accusations against Özerden based on her membership in the board of directors of Anadolu Kültür were already refuted explicitly by the Tax Inspectorate report.
Fact four: Özerden was not in Istanbul during the Gezi protests.
It gets even stranger from here. In the indictment, Özerden is accused of organizing meetings of the Taksim Platform in Istanbul during the Gezi protests, attending the platform’s meetings, and even participating in violent actions in Gezi Park.
But the problem here is this: Mine Özerden was not in Istanbul during the Gezi protests.
The Gezi protests began on May 31, 2013. However, Özerden was working at a language school in Fethiye from June 1 to July 31, 2013. Furthermore, not a single video, photograph, or technical surveillance recorded by the police indicating Özerden’s presence in Istanbul during that period has been included in the case file.
However, official Social Security Institution (SGK) records proving Özerden’s presence in Fethiye during that period were submitted to the court. But neither the prosecutor during the investigation process nor the Istanbul 13th Heavy Penal Court during the trial took this into account. The Court of Cassation 3rd Criminal Chamber, which upheld the 18-year prison sentence, also did not. .
Even if it were the opposite, if Mine Özerden were in Istanbul during that time, it still wouldn’t prove anything. Being in Istanbul during the Gezi protests, organizing a meeting, or attending one is not a crime. On the contrary, the right to assembly and freedom of expression are protected by the Constitution.
Fact Five: Wiretapping is Illegal
So, what was written about Mine Özerden on all those pages in the indictment whenthere was no concrete evidence of a crime against her?
The indictment merely contains pages of phone conversations between Özerden and her friends! These conversations delve into personal matters, discussing, for instance, the exhaustion of life and the beauty of getting away from some stressors of life. In one conversation, for instance, Mine Özerden advises a friend to attend a conference in Istanbul where world-renowned philosophers Slavoj Žižek and Alain Badiou are speakers. The conference, titled ‘Globalization and the New Left,’ was organized by Bakırköy Municipality and MonoKL publications. However, this advice was included in the indictment as if it were a crime.
Similarly, Özerden’s response of “enjoy the beautiful weather, how lovely” to a friend saying “the weather was even better two or three days ago” is also included in the indictment as part of these casual conversations. None of the phone taps contain any reference to the organization of the Gezi protests. Instead, they clutter the file. Moreover, these wiretaps are illegal!
The Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court, which handled the case, determined that the wiretaps were illegal. In its decision dated February 18, 2020, acquitting 16 defendants in the Gezi trial, including Osman Kavala, Mücella Yapıcı, Can Atalay, Yiğit Aksakoğlu, Tayfun Kahraman, Çiğdem Mater, Mine Özerden, Yiğit Ekmekçi, and Ali Hakan Altınay, the court made the following legal assessment:
“We have 53 wiretap orders in our file. It is understood that the first wiretap order was issued for the offense of ‘forming and leading a criminal organization,’ not for the offense of ‘crimes against the government.’ Later, it was observed that Article 312 of the Turkish Penal Code (crimes against the government) was added to the requests and decisions for extending the wiretapping. However, Article 312 was not among the crimes subject to legal wiretapping as listed in Article 135/8 of the Criminal Procedure Code at that time. There is no wiretap order issued after that date. Therefore, it is accepted that the wiretap recordings are in violation of the law and are illegal evidence, considering the established precedents of the Court of Cassation and the principle that ‘the fruit of the poisonous tree is also poisonous.’ Hence, the wiretaps included in the indictment are considered as prohibited evidence.”
In other words, all phone conversations used as evidence against Mine Özerden, along with other defendants, were the fruits of the poisonous tree. In summary, the real crime was the wiretapping of phones.
But as if that weren’t enough, a new term called ‘revaluation’ was coined to justify the inclusion of wiretap recordings in the indictment. The indictment stated that “the revaluation of all evidence concerning the investigation, especially the wiretaps, was ordered.” However, there is no procedure called ‘revaluation’ in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mine Özerden asks: “Isn’t this openly insulting to use the word ‘revaluation’?”
They Were Convicted with the “Poisonous Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”
Ultimately, the acquittal verdicts were overturned. Despite no additional evidence being presented to substantiate the allegations, the convictions handed down by the Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court on April 25, 2022, against Osman Kavala, Can Atalay, Çiğdem Mater, Mine Özerden, and Tayfun Kahraman were upheld by the Court of Cassation’s 3rd Criminal Chamber.
Osman Kavala, who was sentenced to an aggravated life sentence for the allegation of “attempting to overthrow the Government of the Republic of Turkey,” has been in prison for over six years. Can Atalay, Çiğdem Mater, Mine Özerden, and Tayfun Kahraman, who were each sentenced to 18 years in prison for “aiding this attempt,” have been deprived of their freedom for 700 days.
Responding to our questions from prison, Mine Özerden made the following comment regarding the entire legal process:
“Not only do the institutions and decision-makers of the country I am a citizen of fail to protect our rights, but they also increasingly violate our fundamental, constitutional, and legal rights more and more everyday. For nearly two years, we have been deprived of our physical freedom without reason, evidence, or truth…
I find myself involuntarily caught in a senseless quarrel of irrationality and illogic. We are continuously instrumentalized by different political segments with various affiliations. My wish is for people from all walks of life to stand up against injustice and for a collective will demanding basic human rights to emerge.”
Mine Özerden still awaits a logical explanation as to why she is being tried, why she is being punished, and why she has been held at Bakırköy Women’s Prison for years.
Instead of explaining, the judiciary merely extends to her the poisonous fruit of a poisonous tree.
Stockholm, April 4, 2024—The Committee to Protect Journalists is alarmed by the ruling Georgian Dream party’s Tuesday reintroduction into the Georgian parliament of a proposed “foreign agents” law previously shelved after mass protests.
“Georgian authorities’ revival of a bill that would smear media outlets as foreign-controlled is deeply concerning and utterly incompatible with their claim of aligning with European democratic standards and threatens press freedom ahead of the October parliamentary elections,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “The ruling Georgian Dream party should withdraw the law and renounce any form of ‘foreign agent’ legislation if Georgia wants to succeed in its bid to join the European Union.”
The draft law, “On transparency of foreign influence,” would require nonprofits and media outlets receiving more than 20% of their funding from abroad to join a registry and provide detailed annual financial accounts, according to mediareports and Georgia’s parliamentary website. Organizations that fail to register or to provide such data would be subject to fines of 25,000 lari (US$9,500).
A statement published on the party’s Facebook page said the bill is largely identical to a bill with the same name dropped by parliament in March 2023 following widespread protests. The only change is that the term “agent of foreign influence” has been replaced by that of “organization pursuing the interests of a foreign power.”
Georgian Dream, which controls a parliamentary majority, vowed in its statement to pass the law by the end of the current parliamentary session in June. The party’s majority is large enough to override Georgia’s president, who previously said she would veto it.
The proposed law, which was previously criticized by CPJ, is similar to Russia’s foreign agent legislation, except that it does not currently require media outlets to label their publications as produced by a foreign agent.
On Tuesday, Kyrgyzstan ratified a Russia-style foreign agents law requiring some nonprofit media organizations to register as “foreign representatives” and label their publications as produced or distributed by a foreign representative.
The editorial boards of the nation’s major media organizations must have been frantic last week.
Used to reporting on US foreign policy, wars and arms exports so as to portray the United States as a benevolent, law-abiding and democracy-defending nation, they were confronted on March 25 with a real challenge dealing with Israel and Gaza. No sooner did the Biden administration, for the first time, abstain and thus allow passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution that was not just critical of Israel, but demanded a ceasefire in Gaza, than US officials began declaring that the resolution that they allowed to pass was really meaningless.
It was “nonbinding,” they said.
The New York Times (3/25/24) reported that US’s UN Ambassdor “Thomas-Greenfield called the resolution ‘nonbinding’”—and let no one contradict her.
That was enough for the New York Times (3/25/24), which produced the most one-sided report on the decision. That article focused initially on how Resolution 2728 (which followed three resolutions that the US had vetoed, and a fourth that was so watered down that China and Russia vetoed it instead) had led to a diplomatic dust-up with the Israeli government: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu canceled a planned visit to Washington by a high-level Israeli delegation to discuss Israel’s planned invasion of Rafah and the future of Gaza and the West Bank.
The Times quoted Richard Gowan, a UN expert at the International Crisis Group: “The abstention is a not-too-coded hint to Netanyahu to rein in operations, above all over Rafah.”
Noting that “Security Council resolutions are considered to be international law,” Times reporters Farnaz Fassihi, Aaron Boxerman and Thomas Fuller wrote, “While the Council has no means of enforcing the resolution, it could impose punitive measures, such as sanctions, on Israel, so long as member states agreed.”
This was nevertheless followed by a quote from Washington’s UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who abstained from the otherwise unanimous 14–0 vote of the rest of the Security Council, characterizing the resolution as “nonbinding.”
The Times offered no comment from any international law scholars, foreign or US, to rebut or even discuss that claim. Such an expert might have pointed to the unequivocal language of Article 25 of the UN Charter: “The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
If the US offered its claim that this language only applies to resolutions explicitly referencing the UN Charter’s Chapter VII, dealing with “threats to the peace,” an international law expert (EJIL: Talk!, 1/9/17) might note that the International Court of Justice stated in 1971, “It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view.”
‘Creates obligations’
The Washington Post (3/26/24) quoted an international law expert to note that the resolution “creates obligations for Israel and Hamas.”
The Washington Post (3/26/24), though like the Times a firm defender of Washington’s foreign policy consensus, did marginally better. While the Times didn’t mention Britain or France, both major US NATO allies, in its piece on the Security Council vote, the Post noted that the four other veto powers—Britain and France, as well as China and Russia—had all voted in favor of the resolution, along with all 10 elected temporary members of the Council.
The Post also cited one international law legal expert, Donald Rothwell, of the Australian National University, who said the “even-handed” resolution “creates obligations for Israel and Hamas.”
While that quote sounds like the resolution is binding, the Post went on to cite Gowan as saying, “I think it’s pretty clear that if Israel does not comply with the resolution, the Biden administration is not going to allow the Security Council members to impose sanctions or other penalties on Israel.”
The Post (3/25/24) actually ran a stronger, more straightforward piece a day earlier, when it covered the initial vote using an AP story. AP did a fairer job discussing the fraught issue of whether or not the resolution was binding on the warring parties, Israel and Hamas (as well as the nations arming them).
That earlier AP piece, by journalist Edith M. Lederer, quoted US National Security spokesperson John Kirby as explaining that they decided not to veto the resolution because it “does fairly reflect our view that a ceasefire and the release of hostages come together.”
Because of the cutbacks to in-house reporting on national and international news in most of the nation’s major news organizations, most Americans who get their news from television and their local papers end up getting dispatches—often edited for space—from the New York Times, Washington Post or AP wire stories. (The Wall Street Journal, for example, ran the same AP report as the Post.)
‘A demand is a decision’
CNN (3/27/24) quoted US officials claiming the resolution was nonbinding—and noted that “international legal scholars” disagree.
In TV news, CNN (3/27/24) had some of the strongest reporting on the debate over whether the resolution was binding. The news channel said straight out, “While the UN says the latest resolution is nonbinding, experts differ on whether that is the case.”
It went on to say:
After the resolution passed, US officials went to great lengths to say that the resolution isn’t binding. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller repeatedly said during a news conference that the resolution is nonbinding, before conceding that the technical details of are for international lawyers to determine. Similarly, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby and US ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield separately insisted that the resolution is nonbinding.
Those US positions were challenged by China’s UN Ambassador Zhang Jun, who “countered that such resolutions are indeed binding,” and by UN spokesperson Farhan Haq, who said Security Council resolutions are international law, and “so to that extent they are as binding as international law is.”
CNN quoted Maya Ungar, another International Crisis Group analyst:
The US—ascribing to a legal tradition that takes a narrower interpretation—argues that without the use of the word “decides” or evocation of Chapter VII within the text, the resolution is nonbinding…. Other member states and international legal scholars are arguing that there is legal precedence to the idea that a demand is implicitly a decision of the Council.
‘A rhetorical feint’
According to the Guardian (3/26/24), the US’s “nonbinding” interpretation “put the US at odds with other member states, international legal scholars and the UN itself.”
To get a sense of how one-sided or at best cautious the US domestic coverage of this critically urgent story is, consider how it was covered in Britain or Spain, two US allies in NATO.
The British Guardian (3/26/24), which also publishes a US edition, ran with the headline: “Biden Administration’s Gaza Strategy Panned as ‘Mess’ Amid Clashing Goals.” The story began:
The Biden administration’s policy on Gaza has been widely criticized as being in disarray as the defense secretary described the situation as a “humanitarian catastrophe” the day after the State Department declared Israel to be in compliance with international humanitarian law.
But the real contrast is with the Spanish newspaper El País (3/29/24), which bluntly headlined its story “US Sparks Controversy at the UN With Claim That Gaza Ceasefire Resolution Is ‘Nonbinding.’” Not mincing words, the reporters wrote:
By abstaining in the vote on the UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the United States on Monday sparked not only the anger of Israel, which had asked it to veto the text, but also a sweeping legal and diplomatic controversy due to its claims that the resolution—the first to be passed since the start of the Gaza war—was “nonbinding.” For Washington, it was a rhetorical feint aimed at making the public blow to its great ally in the Middle East less obvious.
El País (3/29/24) quoted the relevant language from the UN Charter: “The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
After quoting Thompson-Greenfield saying it was a “nonbinding resolution,” and Kirby saying dismissively, “There is no impact at all on Israel,” they wrote,
These claims hit the UN Security Council—the highest executive body of the UN in charge of ensuring world peace and security—like a torpedo. Were the Council’s resolutions binding or not? Our was it that some resolutions were binding and others were not?
The reporters answered their own rhetorical question:
Diplomatic representatives and legal experts came out in force to refute Washington’s claim. UN Secretary-General António Guterres made his opinion clear: the resolutions are binding. Indeed, this is stated in Article 25 of the UN Charter: “The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.” Several representatives of the Security Council, led by Mozambique and Sierra Leone, pointed to case law to support this argument. The two African diplomats, both with legal training, said that the Gaza ceasefire resolution is binding, regardless of whether one of the five permanent members of the Council abstains from the vote, as was the case of the US. The diplomats highlighted that in 1971, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) established that all resolutions of the UN Security Council are legally binding. The Algerian ambassador to the UN summed it up even more categorically: “Security Council resolutions are binding. Not almost, not partly, not maybe.”
Unlike most most US news organizations, El País went to an expert, in this instance seeking out Adil Haque, a professor of international law at Rutgers University, where he is a professor, and also executive editor of the law journal Just Security. Haque, they wrote, “has no doubts that the resolution is binding.” He explains in the article:
According to the UN Charter, all decisions of the Security Council are binding on all member states. The International Court of Justice has ruled that a resolution need not mention Chapter VII of the Charter [action in case of threats to the peace, breaches of the peace or acts of aggression], refer to international peace and security, or use the word “decides” to make it binding. Any resolution that uses “mandatory language” creates obligations, and that includes the term “demands” used in the resolution on Gaza.” He adds, “For now, it does not seem that the US has a coherent legal argument.”
It should be noted that the New York Times, when there is a dispute regarding a document, typically runs a copy of the document in question—or, if it is too long, the relevant portion of it. In the case of Resolution 2728, which even counting its headline only runs 263 words, that would have not been a hard call. Despite the disagreement between the US and most of the Council over the wording of the ceasefire resolution, the Times chose not to run or even excerpt it.
New York, April 1, 2024–Angola’s proposed national security law could hinder the public’s right to information and severely undermine press freedom, further exposing journalists to harassment, intimidation, and censorship by authorities, the Committee to Protect Journalists said on Monday.
The National Security Bill, which critics saythreatens Angola’s democracy and could turn the country into a dictatorship, is currently under review by a specialist committee after passing a first vote in the country’s National Assembly on January 25. No date has been announced for the finalization of the review and resubmission of the bill for a final parliamentary vote before being sent for presidential signature.
“If passed into law, Angola’s National Security Bill will expose journalists to further harassment and intimidation by authorities and legalize telecommunications shutdowns at the whim of security agencies,” said Muthoki Mumo, CPJ Africa program coordinator, from Nairobi. “The provisions citing constitutional limits to the exercise of power cannot disguise this law’s repressive intent. Parliamentarians should reject or revise any bill that doesn’t comply with international human rights standards.”
According to a copy of the bill reviewed by CPJ, the proposed law will create a national security system headed by the president—and including the police, intelligence services, and the military—with the power to “[prohibit] broadcasting from public or private radio systems” or disrupt telecommunication services, under undefined “exceptional circumstances” and “within the limits of the constitution.”
The proposed law would also give police the autonomy to surveil “premises, buildings and establishments” and “means of transport” as well as temporarily close public premises or prohibit the movement of people “whose activity is likely to disturb public order” for unspecified amounts of time. It does not make specific provisions for judicial oversight of these “preventative” national security measures, outline procedures for security personnel to seek warrants for surveillance activities, or define the activities that would be deemed disruptive to public order.
Teixeira Cândido, secretary general of the Union of Angolan Journalists, told CPJ via messaging app that provisions giving security organs the power to disrupt telecommunications and shut down the internet “for no apparent reason” could make journalistic work “impossible.”
David Boio, owner of online news website Camunda News, whichsuspended operations indefinitely in 2023 due to police harassment, said that the proposed law would provide authorities the missing “legal frame” needed to “justify their actions against critics.”
“The bill is as invasive as possible with authorities allowed to legally put journalists and anyone under surveillance, bug their home, their car without the intervention of a judge, everything at the discretion and mercy of the repressive apparatus itself,” Boio told CPJ via messaging app.
Florindo Chivucute, president of the human rights group Friends of Angola, told CPJ that the proposed national security law fits within a pattern of repressive legislation, including a Non-GovernmentalOrganizations (NGO) bill under consideration by the National Assembly. André Mussamo, president of the Angola chapter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) told CPJ MISA Angola and other media freedom NGOs could face “extinction” by government directive if the proposed NGOlaw was approved.
Reached by telephone, National Assembly Secretary-General Pedro Neri declined to comment on the proposed security legislation and referred CPJ to António Paulo, president of the first parliamentary specialist committee that is reviewing the bill. Paulo declined to comment on either the national security or NGO bills, saying that he wanted to “avoid influencing the [review] process” but that he welcomed civil society contributions during the process. Adão de Almeida, Minister of the State and Civil House of the President, didn’t reply to CPJ phone calls or messages.
Not a lot of lawyers can say that they helped create a whole new legal field, but William Shernoff can. On this week’s episode, Ralph welcomes trailblazing attorney William Shernoff to discuss predatory insurance practices, and how consumers can protect themselves. This special episode was co-presented by The American Museum of Tort Law, and was recorded in front of a live virtual audience.
William Shernoff is the founding partner of Shernoff Bidart Echeverria, a law firm specializing in insurance bad faith litigation. A longtime consumer advocate, he has made a career of representing insurance consumers in their cases against insurance companies. Often called the “father” of bad faith insurance law, in 1979, Mr. Shernoff persuaded the California Supreme Court to establish new case law that permits plaintiffs to sue insurance companies for bad faith seeking both compensatory and punitive damages when they unreasonably handle a policyholder’s claim (Egan v. Mutual of Omaha).
A frequent lecturer and writer, Mr. Shernoff co-authored the legal textbook, Insurance Bad Faith Litigation, which has become the field’s definitive treatise, as well as How to Make Insurance Companies Pay Your Claims . . . . And What To Do If They Don’t, Fight Back and Win – And How To Make Your HMO Pay Up, and Payment Refused.
Under bad faith law in California and in most states, you not only could get the benefits you deserve under the insurance policy—whether it be life insurance or disability insurance or health insurance. But you can also get damages over and above the policy limits, which are emotional distress damages…Not only can you get the emotional distress damages, but any aggravation of your medical condition. And then punitive damages are on top of that. And attorney’s fees are on top of that. So all of these damages are coming from insurance bad faith if the insurance bad faith law applies. And punitive damages are designed to punish the insurance company so that they correct their wrongful conduct in the future, and deter them from unfair claims practices.
William Shernoff
Most people, if they get a letter from an insurance company—which they consider to be an authoritative source— and the insurance company says, “Your claim is denied because…” and then they cite all kinds of fine print in the insurance policy, most people accept that and don’t do anything. They don’t see a lawyer. They just accept what their insurance company told them because it sounded quite official to them.
William Shernoff
Insurance regulation is state-controlled. The federal government has been blocked for decades and the Congress has imposed itself on the federal Federal Trade Commission and said that they can’t even investigate the insurance companies without being allowed to by a committee in the House or the Senate that has jurisdiction over such matters. So the privileges of the insurance lobby are quite extraordinary even by comparison with other corporate lobbies.
Ralph Nader
More people should know about bad-faith cases rights—and use them. And not take whatever is dealt to them by insurance companies—denials, rescission of insurance policies, refusing to renew, other delays, or other crazy obstructions. Learn about your rights.
Ralph Nader
In Case You Haven’t Heard with Francesco DeSantis
News 3/27/24
1. CNN reports the United Nations Security Council has passed a Gaza ceasefire resolution. The resolution itself is imperfect, calling only for a ceasefire during the month of Ramadan, but this watered down language paved the way for the United States to allow the resolution to pass. The U.S. has vetoed every previous ceasefire resolution before the Security Council and disputes the extent to which this resolution is legally binding. For its part, Israel’s Foreign Minister stated unequivocally that Israel “will not cease fire,” per CNN.
2. Following the passage of the Security Council resolution, Prime Minister Netanyahu canceled a planned high-level Israeli delegation visit to Washington, per CNBC. The planned visit, which would have included an address to Congress, was staring down scathing criticism from Congressional Progressives. Axios reports Representative Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian member of Congress and the most outspoken on the Israeli campaign of terror, said “[Netanyahu] shouldn’t come to Congress, he should be sent to the Hague.”
3. In another sign of the rift between the Biden Administration and Netanyahu, Haaretz reports that Congressional Democrats are sending formal warnings to the administration stating that Israel is not in compliance with U.S. laws governing the dispensation of military aid. Joaquin Castro, a Democrat from Texas, said “Congress and [the] White House need to make clear to Israel that we will enforce US law to protect Palestinian children from starvation in Gaza.”
4. Professor Jana Silverman, co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America International Committee, reports “After a totally last-minute, ad-hoc, no-budget campaign, 13.2% of voters in the Democrats Abroad primary said no to genocide in Gaza and voted Uncommitted!” This impressive performance signals that the Uncommitted electoral protest movement isn’t going anywhere. The next major test for the movement will be Pennsylvania, where Uncommitted PA is aiming for at least 40,000 votes in the state’s April primary, per Lancaster Online.
5. In an open letter, over 100 prominent American Jews condemned AIPAC. The letter reads “We are Jewish Americans who have…come together to highlight and oppose the unprecedented and damaging role of AIPAC…in U.S. elections, especially within Democratic Party primaries. We recognize the purpose of AIPAC’s interventions in electoral politics is to defeat any critics of Israeli Government policy and to support candidates who vow unwavering loyalty to Israel, thereby ensuring the United States’ continuing support for all that Israel does, regardless of its violence and illegality.” Signatories include the Ralph Nader Radio Hour’s own Alan Minsky, celebrated academic Judith Butler, Postal Workers Union president Mark Dimondstein, Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry’s, and the actor Wallace Shawn among many others. The full letter is available at USJewsOpposingAipac.org.
6. Oscar winning director Jonathan Glazer continues to be the target of phony outrage by pro-Israel groups like the Anti-Defamation League. Coming to the defense of the filmmaker however are other prominent Jewish organizations, like Jewish Voice for Peace and the Auschwitz Memorial, whose director said “In his Oscar acceptance speech, Jonathan Glazer issued a universal moral warning against dehumanization,” per the Guardian. Decorated Jewish playwright Tony Kushner, a signatory on the anti-AIPAC letter, told Haaretz “There’s been a concerted attempt by right wing American Jews to sort of sell the idea that American college campuses are awash with virulent antisemites – professors and students and so on. And the Jewish students are walking these campuses in terror for their lives. I think this is nonsense. I see no evidence of it.”
7. Both the Gannett and McClatchy newspaper companies have announced they will no longer use AP journalism in their publications, AP reports. This is yet another indication of the dire financial straits the news business finds itself in. The AP notes “Gannett’s workforce shrank 47% between 2020 and 2023 because of layoffs and attrition…The company also hasn’t earned a full-year profit since 2018… Since then, it has lost $1.03 billion.”
8. In Honduras, the Intercept reports “an almost-impossible-to-believe scenario: A group of libertarian investors teamed up with a former Honduran government — which was tied at the hip with narco-traffickers and came to power after a U.S.-backed military coup — in order to implement the world’s most radical libertarian policy, which turned over significant portions of the country to those investors through so-called special economic zones. The Honduran public, in a backlash, ousted the narco-backed regime, and the new government repealed the libertarian legislation. The crypto investors are now using the World Bank to force Honduras to honor the narco-government’s policies.” While this story has certain unique angles – crypto and narco-trafficking chief among them – the key element is actually quite familiar: international ‘free trade’ regimes superseding sovereign governments. We offer Honduras solidarity against these contemporary crypto-filibusters.
9. On March 11th, Congressmen Jimmy Gomez and Joaquin Castro sent a letter to the heads of the CIA and FBI demanding disclosures of surveillance efforts on Latino civil rights leaders during the 1960s and ‘70s, citing the well-documented pattern of surveillance on Black civil rights leaders during that period and the wealth of circumstantial evidence indicating that these organs of national security did the same toward prominent Latino figures such as Cesar Chavez. The following day, in a hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Castro pressed CIA Director Bill Burns on the matter, and Burns committed to working with his office to bring these activities to light. We hope that further transparency will beget further transparency and that some day the complete account of the CIA and FBI’s domestic surveillance programs will be a matter of public record.
10. Finally, in Mississippi, CBS reports that authorities have successfully convicted all six members of a police gang calling themselves the “Goon Squad.” These six white officers plead guilty to “breaking into a home without a warrant and torturing two Black men…The assault involved beatings, the repeated use of stun guns and assaults with a sex toy before one of the victims was shot in the mouth in a mock execution.” Lawyers representing the criminal cops allege that “their clients became ensnared in a culture of corruption that was not only permitted, but encouraged by leaders within the sheriff’s office.” If true, then a federal investigation – and likely more than a few exonerations of individuals victimized by this “Goon Squad” – are in order. Justice demands it.
This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven’t Heard.
Abuja, March 29, 2024—Liberian authorities should investigate the law enforcement officers who tear-gassed and beat to unconsciousness journalist Kesselee Sumo, and drop all legal proceedings against the talk show host, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Friday.
Two officers with the Liberia Drug Enforcement Agency (LDEA) and a magistrate’s court sheriff assaulted and arrested Sumo, a talk show host and producer with the privately owned Radio Fuamah, in the centrally located Bong Mine Community on March 11, according to Sumo, the outlet’s founder, Rufus Tartee, and a statement by the local press group the Press Union of Liberia.
A court issued a warrant for Sumo’s arrest on charges of criminal coercion under Section 14.27 of the penal code and interference with judicial matters, according to CPJ’s review of the warrant. CPJ was unable to immediately determine the potential penalties Sumo faces.
Sumo and Tartee told CPJ that the charges are in connection to a March 7 broadcast of Sumo’s daily program “What’s happening in your community,” in which the journalist alleged that a magistrate, Linda Sulonteh, unjustly detained two community leaders.
“Liberian authorities must ensure a comprehensive investigation into the violent attack on journalist Kesselee Sumo, hold those responsible to account, and drop any investigations into his work,” said CPJ Africa Program Head Angela Quintal, in New York. “There is no justification for beating a journalist over reporting about alleged human rights abuses, and the fact that these abuses were perpetrated by officers responsible for public safety is even more alarming.”
Sumo went to the local magistrate court on March 8 after officials came to the outlet’s office and summoned him, according to Sumo and Tartee. Sumo told CPJ that at the court, a magistrate informed him that Sulonteh wanted the journalist to pay U.S. $100 to the government as compensation for the March 7 report. Sumo waited three hours for Solunteh and left after she did not arrive.
Sulonteh declined to answer CPJ’s questions, saying that she is “not answerable to CPJ” and “We do not have journalists in Liberia. What we do have are [a] bunch of liars and unprofessionals”
The officers denied Sumo’s request to speak to his lawyer when they arrested him on March 11 before punching him repeatedly, primarily on his back and head, especially his left eye, according to Sumo, Tartee, and a video of the attack reviewed by CPJ. The journalist also said one of the officers hit his hands several times with a pair of handcuffs, and another officer sprayed tear gas in his left eye before he lost consciousness.
The officers took Sumo to the court, where a judge instructed that he be taken to hospital, Sumo told CPJ. He was hospitalized until March 12 and experienced severe pains in his chest and left eye.
Sumo and Tartee told CPJ they reported the matter to the police. The police told Sumo they would not investigate as the matter was before the court. Liberia National Police Spokesperson Moses Carter told CPJ he was not aware of the incident and requested Sumo contact him directly.
LDEA spokesperson Michael Jipply told CPJ that the two LDEA officers had gone to support the court official in executing the arrest warrant, but Sumo resisted coming with them. “They tried to restrain and take him to the court,” Jipply said. “In the process of that altercation…he sustained whatever injuries that he may have reported.”
“It is clear that he was assaulted physically, which I stated was because of his refusal to properly adhere to law enforcement instructions, which of course is provocative. So anything as such that happened, it was because of that, but again we do not train our officers to be brutal on civilians,” Jipply told CPJ. He added that they apologized for the altercation, and the LDEA assisted Sumo in getting medical treatment after the judge ordered him to be taken to the hospital.
Jipply said CPJ brought Sumo’s arrest and attack to his attention, and he had instructed the officers involved to be sent to the LDEA headquarters as part of an investigation. Jipply told CPJ he would contact Sumo directly to learn more and “take actions where necessary.”
The Press Union of Liberia’s acting president, Akoi M. Baysah, told CPJ that the union was writing a letter to the LDEA and the court requesting they hold the officers accountable.
Radio Free Asia on Friday announced it has closed its Hong Kong bureau, saying the city’s recently enacted national security law, also known as “Article 23,” has raised safety concerns for its reporters and staff members.
RFA will no longer have full-time personnel in Hong Kong but will retain its official media registration there, the organization’s president and chief executive, Bay Fang, said in a statement.
“We recognize RFA’s frontline status – as it is among the last independent news organizations reporting on events happening in Hong Kong in Cantonese and Mandarin,” she said.
“For our audiences in Hong Kong and mainland China, who rely on RFA’s timely, uncensored journalism: Rest assured, our programming and content will continue without disruption,” Fang said.
Hong Kong was once a bastion of free media and expression in Asia, qualities that helped make it an international financial center and a regional hub for journalism.
But demonstrations in 2019 led to the passage of a national security law in 2020 that stifled dissent. Soon after, The New York Times announced it would relocate its digital news operations to Seoul.
In 2021, the pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily was forced to shut down amid an investigation conducted under the 2020 law.
Sweeping new powers
Last week’s enactment of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance, also referred to as Article 23 based on a clause in Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, has intensified uncertainties among Hong Kong journalists.
It has created new offenses, increased punishment for offenders and granted the government sweeping new powers to crack down on all forms of dissent.
It includes a reference to “external threats” and uses China’s expansive definition of “national security,” which journalists and critics say is vague.
In February, Hong Kong security chief Chris Tang accused RFA of reporting what he described as “false” criticism that the new law would target media organizations. He called the media outlet a “foreign force” that was misleading the people of Hong Kong.
“Actions by Hong Kong authorities, including referring to RFA as a ‘foreign force,’ raise serious questions about our ability to operate in safety with the enactment of Article 23,” Fang said in Friday’s statement.
Opened in 1996
RFA opened its Hong Kong office – its first overseas bureau – in 1996. The organization is funded by the U.S. Congress but operates as an editorially independent private news organization. Its mission is to provide news in languages and regions where authorities censor news and stymie the freedom of expression and the press.
The ranking Democratic member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks, representing New York, said he was “deeply concerned” by the decision, calling RFA “a longstanding beacon of independent journalism” in Hong Kong.
“Since the passage of Hong Kong’s National Security Law in 2020, RFA has been a rare source of independent news coming out of Hong Kong despite facing unrelenting pressure and harassment,” he said in a statement.
“The closure of RFA’s bureau in Hong Kong, after 28 years, is a stark reminder of how brazenly Beijing has extinguished Hong Kong’s autonomy.”
RFA’s restructuring of its on-the-ground operations means that staff members will be relocated to the United States, Taiwan and elsewhere amid the closure of the physical bureau, the organization said.
“RFA will shift to using a different journalistic model reserved for closed media environments,” Fang said. “I commend RFA’s journalists and staff for making this difficult transition possible.”
Edited by Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Matt Reed for RFA.
Hong Kong lawmaker Paul Tse, who was among dozens of pro-government legislators who voted in favor of the city’s Safeguarding National Security Ordinance last week, has removed posts from his Facebook page for fear that comments he had posted there earlier could be used to prosecute him under the law.
Tse’s Facebook account was unavailable when checked by RFA Cantonese on March 27.
The move came after Tse, who represents the tourism sector in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, was criticized by Chief Executive John Lee in January for sounding like an opposition politician after he accused the city’s government of caring more about the opinions of social media users in mainland China than those of Hong Kong’s tax paying citizens.
Tse’s move underscores fears among Hong Kongers that the new law, which critics say will undermine human rights protections, will mean ever-widening definitions of what constitutes a crime, and leave people vulnerable to malicious reporting to the authorities.
Hong Kong lawmaker Paul Tse appears to have hidden or deleted all posts from his Facebook account as of March 29, 2024. (Image from Facebook)
Lee warned that Tse’s criticism of the government’s law enforcement tactics was “dangerous,” and reminded him of rhetoric from the 2019 protests, as well as “soft confrontation,” the government’s term for subtler forms of opposition and criticism that it also regards as potentially criminal.
“Soft confrontation” was one of the terms used by Lee and his officials as justification for a second national security law under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, which functions as a constitutional framework for the city’s government.
Social media criticism
Tse told a question and answer session in the legislature on Jan. 25 that the Hong Kong government seemed more responsive to social media criticism from the rest of China than to its own people.
“Law enforcement forces have seemingly given the public the impression that they value the online opinions of Xiaohongshu users, who are not taxpayers, more than Hong Kong citizens, who actually pay tax,” Tse said, referring to a social media and e-commerce platform described as “China’s answer to Instagram.”
He quipped that the attempt to placate mainland Chinese public opinion would lead to “Xiaohongshu running Hong Kong,” a play on the government’s insistence that only “patriots” loyal to Beijing should run Hong Kong.
Tse singled out heavy-handed police enforcement of jaywalking penalties and heavy fines on restaurants for creating obstructions, as well as “cracking down on bookstores.”
Hong Kong’s Chief Executive John Lee (C) applauds with lawmakers following the passing of Article 23 legislation at the Legislative Council in Hong Kong on March 19, 2024. (Louise Delmotte/AP)
“Some Hong Kongers feel that the government’s style of governance is far removed from the reality of actual Hong Kongers who pay their taxes,” Tse said.
Repeated calls to Tse’s phone rang unanswered during office hours on Wednesday.
However, Tse wrote in a column in the Economic Journal newspaper that he had deleted his Facebook account due to fears that his past posts about Xiaohongshu running Hong Kong and other topics would be used to accuse him of “incitement to hatred,” possibly through a malicious tip-off via the much-used national security hotline.
Tse’s Facebook account was visible again by noon GMT on Friday, but all posts appeared to have been hidden or deleted.
‘No need to panic’
By contrast, fellow LegCo member Doreen Kong said she wasn’t worried about her recent comments criticizing the government for spending HK$50 million, or US$6.4 million, on an illuminated egg art installation in the Central business district.
“If you do not intend to endanger national security, you will not break the law,” Kong told the Hong Kong Economic Journal. “There is no need to panic.”
The article also quoted lawmaker Lau Chi-pang as saying that he isn’t worried about keeping books banned under the national security crackdown for private use.
“I research riots, so it’s normal for me to have historic data about riots,” the paper quoted Lau as saying. “Any research into Hong Kong between 2010 and 2020 will inevitably involve inflammatory propaganda and publications from that era.”
Interactive installations of the ‘teamLab: Continuous’ by Japanese brand teamLab, an interdisciplinary group of artists are placed by Victoria Harbour in Hong Kong, March 25, 2024. (Tyrone Siu/Reuters)
Documentary films depicting the 2019 protest movement have been banned from public screening in Hong Kong, because they are deemed to “glorify” a protest movement that the government has said was an attempt by “hostile foreign forces” to overthrow the government.
Lau said a historian who privately read Guerilla Warfare by Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara but didn’t try to put its ideas into practice wouldn’t be committing “incitement” under the national security law.
RFA Cantonese reached out to fellow lawmaker Gary Zhang, who has also made some remarks that are critical of government policies, and to former pro-democracy lawmaker Tik Chi-yuen, regarded as the only token “opposition” member of LegCo, for comment on Wednesday, but neither responded.
The current Legislative Council was elected under new rules that only allow “patriots” approved by the government to run, and has no remaining opposition members, with many former pro-democracy lawmakers in exile or on trial under the 2020 National Security Law.
‘Seditious’ speech
Meanwhile, Albert Chen, chair professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, was at pains to reassure people that they were unlikely to run afoul of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance unwittingly.
The law’s provisions regarding “seditious” speech were most worthy of the public’s attention, Chen said in comments reported in the Ming Pao newspaper on March 27, reminding readers that Hong Kong’s courts heard more than 30 cases of “sedition” in 2020 alone.
Citizens should “pay attention to relevant legal standards” in their speech, to avoid accidentally running afoul of the law, he told the paper.
But he said “constructive criticism” was unlikely to be judged to be “incitement of hatred or contempt of the government” under the new law, without detailing what criteria might be used to gauge if criticism was “constructive” or not.
Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Roseanne Gerin.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Sam Yuen for RFA Cantonese.
Eleven found guilty of crimes against humanity after trial that heard testimony on torture, rape and forced disappearances
A court in Argentina has convicted 11 former military, police and government officials of crimes against humanity committed during the country’s last dictatorship in a sprawling trial that heard, for the first time, about atrocities suffered by trans women.
The three-year case focused on the forced disappearances, torture, rapes and homicides that occurred at or were connected to three clandestine detention and torture centres located in police investigative units on the outskirts of Buenos Aires. They were known as the Banfield pit, the Quilmes pit and “El Infierno” – or “hell” – by the officials who worked there.
UK does not ‘solicit, encourage or condone’ inhumane treatment, but critics say ministerial approval system contradicts this
The number of requests for UK ministerial approval of intelligence-sharing where there was a real risk of torture, unlawful killing or extraordinary rendition has more than doubled in a year.
An immigration battle continues on the border between Texas and Mexico, as Texas’s state government increases its militarization of the region, deploying hundreds of National Guard troops and constructing new infrastructure on the border. Meanwhile, a new federal spending bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Biden has increased funding for ICE and CBP, and state and federal courts have been wrangling over the legality of SB4, a new Texas state law that gives local police sweeping powers to arrest and deport anyone they suspect has entered the United States without authorization. We hear more from Fernando García, founder and executive director of the Border Network for Human Rights, in El Paso. García says the influx of special forces with “no training with how to deal with a civilian population,” alongside the “show me your papers’’ atmosphere created by SB4, is increasing the daily violence faced by Latinx residents on the U.S. side of the border, all while “illegally impeding” the right to seek asylum by those in “desperate” straits on the Mexico side. Instead of capitulating to anti-immigrant politicians, he continues, “We needed for the federal government to stop Texas, stop the governor” from targeting “Latinos, people of color, migrants and people looking for asylum, for protection.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
CPJ joined 38 other civil society organizations on Wednesday in calling on the European Commission to strengthen its fifth annual rule of law report, which assesses media freedom in European Union member states.
With Europe due to vote from June 6 to 9, the 39 groups also called on the new European Commission to prioritize implementation of their recommendations.
Read more about press freedom in the European Union in CPJ’s special report “Fragile Progress,” which called on the European Commission to strengthen the rule of law report with a view to building trust with journalists and protecting media freedom.
Campaigners say activities leading to severe environmental harm usually also violate human rights
The international criminal court (ICC) has been urged to start investigating and prosecuting individuals who harm the environment.
Academics, lawyers and campaigners from around the world have sent expert opinions to the court outlining what they call its current regime of “impunity” for serious environmental crimes.
As the Hong Kong government tries to reassure the city’s 7 million residents that they have little to fear from the latest national security law, residents say they now live in greater fear of a misstep that could land them in jail.
The Safeguarding National Security Law, known as “Article 23,” took effect on March 23, and has been billed by the government as a way to protect the city from interference and infiltration by “hostile foreign forces” that Beijing blames for waves of mass popular protests in recent years.
But its critics — and some of the city’s residents — say they will now have to be far more careful about what they say in casual conversation or online.
“I used to get together regularly with a dozen or so friends to eat and chat for fun,” a Hong Konger who gave only the surname Chow for fear of reprisals told RFA on Monday.
“I won’t be inviting people to my home for dinner any more, or going to theirs, because I don’t know if I can trust everyone I meet up with not to report me,” she said. “I don’t know if I could get into trouble for saying the wrong thing.”
Chow said she has already thrown out all of her old copies of the pro-democracy Apple Daily, which was forced to shut down amid an investigation under the first national security law in 2021.
‘Soft confrontation’
Chow is also planning to spend some tourist dollars in the neighboring Chinese city of Shenzhen to demonstrate her patriotism and loyalty.
“It’s to avoid being labeled by others, who might say I’m engaging in soft confrontation with the government,” Chow said.
People visit the International Immigration & Property expo in Hong Kong, March 23, 2024. (Louise Delmotte./AP)
“Soft confrontation” is a term that has been used by Hong Kong officials including Chief Executive John Lee to justify the second round of national security legislation.
In January, Lee warned that “soft confrontation” could disguise itself as “so-called human rights, freedom, democracy and people’s livelihood,” and said the city needed the law to protect itself against “hostile forces” waiting to pounce.
Pro-democracy media mogul Jimmy Lai is currently on trial for “collusion with foreign forces” under the 2020 National Security Law — the case against him relies heavily on opinion articles published in his flagship Apple Daily newspaper.
Self-censorship
A former 2019 protester who gave only the surname Tin for fear of reprisals said she had been careful not to criticize Article 23 in public because she feels that the risk of arrest just got a lot higher with the new law.
“There are so many ways that they can get you under Article 23 that you have to censor yourself,” Tin said, citing a recent exchange at her place of work, in which a colleague was shushed for criticizing John Lee’s appearance.
“Someone said something critical about John Lee’s appearance, and another person immediately warned them not to, saying we need to be careful not to break the law once Article 23 is passed,” she said. “Everyone immediately fell silent.”
Tin said that while everyone knows that self-censorship isn’t ideal, they will do it anyway.
“The only silver lining is that we know self-censorship is wrong — we don’t yet completely accept it as they do in mainland China,” she said.
‘Rebuttal team’
The government launched a “rebuttal team” in January to hit back at international criticism of the new law, and has been busy sending officials out to reassure people in media interviews since.
On Monday, Justice Secretary Paul Lam set out to reassure people that journalists wouldn’t be targeted simply for reporting criticism of the Hong Kong authorities.
“Anyone carrying out sincere journalistic work has absolutely no need to worry,” Lam told a local radio show, without explaining how such “sincerity” would be measured by the authorities.
“Sometimes it’s important to report comments that are unfriendly to Hong Kong … but the purpose should be to let us know so we can deal with it,” Lam said.
Hong Kong Chief John Lee signs the Article 23 bill, March 22, 2024. (Information Services Department of the Government of the HKSAR via Xinhua)
A Hong Kong journalist who gave only the nickname Chin for fear of reprisals said he feels under far more pressure than he did before the Article 23 legislation took effect.
“It feels like the calm before the storm,” Chin said. “I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t under any pressure.”
“As I continue to work in the media, I will … be constantly assessing the risks and making professional judgments, to make sure I’m doing what I’m supposed to do,” he said.
Quieting criticism
Meanwhile, Lam has also warned that anyone who “relentlessly” reposts critical comments online could be targeted.
“[W]hen someone publishes criticism relentlessly, even if they have been told why their criticism is unreasonable or why it wouldn’t be accepted … then I would begin to have a doubt: Are they actually making criticism?” Lam said in comments reported by the Hong Kong Free Press.
A Hong Kong resident surnamed Hui said he would be making some changes too, but said he would keep viewing overseas media content on YouTube that was critical of the government.
Secretary for Security Chris Tang has also been defending the new security law in public, claiming in a statement on Friday that it won’t affect “normal business operations” in the city.
“Law-abiding persons (including US businessmen and enterprises in Hong Kong and US travelers visiting Hong Kong) will not engage in acts and activities endangering our national security and will not unwittingly violate the law,” Tang said in a statement on March 23.
But an accountant in a logistics company who gave the pseudonym Avis for fear of reprisals said his employer has warned colleagues to be careful what they do and say, now that the law has taken effect.
But he said that’s not always straightforward.
“It’s not always clear when doing business whether a client has done something to violate national security laws,” Avis said.
He said it will likely mean a lot more due diligence to ensure the company isn’t put at risk by its business contacts.
“You can lose a lot of business opportunities if you have to take a lot of care to know the other party very well before acting,” he said.
A civil servant who gave only the nickname Ming said it’s too soon to say how much their work will be affected, however.
“I won’t be talking to my colleagues about Article 23,” he said. “We will just get on with our work, and there won’t be any discussion of it.”
“It’s not for us to comment, right?”
Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Ray Chung for RFA Cantonese, Chen Zifei for RFA Mandarin.
Hong Kongers took to the streets of cities around the world over the weekend to protest a second national security law known as “Article 23” that critics say violates rights to freedom of expression and association, as governments updated travel advisories to warn citizens of an increased risk of detention.
In London, around 400 protesters holding banners that read “Free Hong Kong, Revolution Now!” — a slogan of the 2019 pro-democracy movement that has been banned in the city — rallied outside the British government’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to protest the Safeguarding National Security Law, which took effect on Saturday.
They chanted, “Say no to dictatorship!” and “Hong Kong independence is the only solution!” as they marched through Chinatown en route to the rally, where some trampled the official flag of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in protest.
Rallies also took place in Sydney, Vancouver, Taipei and elsewhere.
The law is the second national security law to be passed since 2020, and will plug “loopholes” left by the 2020 National Security Law imposed on Hong Kong by Beijing in the wake of 2019 protests, according to the government.
But critics say Article 23 will likely extend the existing use of “national security” charges to prosecute peaceful dissent and political opposition, striking a further blow at human rights protections in the city.
The British government on March 22 updated its travel advice for Hong Kong to warn citizens that they could be detained or removed to mainland China for some offenses or prosecuted for “supporting individuals who are considered to be breaking the national security laws,” which includes statements critical of the authorities, including online.
Australia updated its advice on the same day to warn its citizens of an increased risk of detention if they travel to Hong Kong.
“Hong Kong has strict laws on national security that can be interpreted broadly,” the advice now reads. “You could break the laws without intending to and be detained without charge and denied access to a lawyer. We continue to advise … a high degree of caution.”
A Hong Kong government spokesman on Friday condemned the advice as “scaremongering,” saying such warnings were “tactics aimed at destabilizing Hong Kong.”
Avoiding political topics
Protests against the new law also took place in several Canadian cities including Vancouver, where around 300 protesters formed a human chain and sang the protest anthem “Glory to Hong Kong,” which has been banned from public performance or dissemination in Hong Kong.
Others carried placards calling for independence for the city, which has seen a sharp deterioration in its promised rights and freedoms since the 1997 handover to Chinese rule.
A protester holds up a sign protesting the “Article 23” national security legislation in London, March 23, 2024. RFA/Cheryl Tung.
Two protesters who gave only the nicknames Amy and Candy told RFA that they came to Canada through the lifeboat visa scheme, but they are careful to avoid mentioning politics when speaking with their families back home.
“You have to think carefully before you say anything, because if someone hears you, they could report you and get you arrested,” Candy said.
Amy added: “They want to find an excuse to target anyone they don’t like.”
A spokeswoman for protest organizers Vancouver Brothers who gave only the nickname Christine for fear of reprisals said the definitions of the “crimes” in Article 23 are very broad, and anyone could be targeted regardless of nationality.
She cited the arrests of Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor in China on “espionage” charges as retaliation for the Vancouver arrest of Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou in 2018.
“We want to call on the international community to please help save Hong Kong, and to impose sanctions on Chinese Communist Party and Hong Kong officials because they have taken away freedom and democracy in Hong Kong,” Christine told RFA.
‘Last nail’
In Sydney, dozens of protesters sang “Glory to Hong Kong” and watched performance artist Pamela Leung stage a work titled “The Last Nail,” depicting the Article 23 legislation as the “last nail” in the coffin of Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms.
Protesters also carried placards pointing to more than 1,700 political prisoners since the first round of national security legislation was imposed on the city, and draped chains around the protest site.
“The chains are just a reference to political prisoners in Hong Kong — they actually reach much further than that,” a protester who gave only the name Ivan for fear of reprisals told RFA at the scene. “If governments don’t move to prevent it, they will extend and trap the whole world.”
Protesters including one dressed up as Winnie-the-Pooh, prepared to represent Xi Jinping, perform during a protest against Hong Kong’s new national security law recently approved by Hong Kong lawmakers, in Taipei, Taiwan, Saturday, March 23, 2024. (AP Photo/Chiang Ying-ying)
In democratic Taiwan, former political prisoner Lee Ming-cheh told a rally organized by the Hong Kong Outlanders campaign group that if Taiwan didn’t pay close attention to China’s handling of Hong Kong, then its 23 million people could be next.
“China has never followed the law, doesn’t abide by its own commitments, and has ignored international law, so China will consider Taiwan, which it has never ruled, its territory,” Lee said.
“Taiwanese should stand in solidarity with Hong Kong. If there is no way to curb China’s destruction of the rule of law in Hong Kong … the next victim will definitely be Taiwan,” said Lee, who served a five-year sentence for “subversion” in a Chinese jail.
Harder for journalists
Former CNN China correspondent Mike Chinoy said the National Security Law and the Article 23 legislation will make it harder for foreign journalists to work in the city.
“The National Security Law and Article 23 are going to make people reluctant to talk to journalists,” Chinoy said, adding that the 2019 protest movement had likely “terrified” Chinese President Xi Jinping.
“There was always a lot of suspicion about Hong Kong because it was so Westernized and it was so separate,” Chinoy said in a recent interview with RFA.
“My sense is that they saw in Hong Kong a rebellious peripheral area heavily influenced by foreigners that was challenging the central government, and I think that must have absolutely terrified them.”
In a March 19 statement, former colonial governor Chris Patten said the law was “another large nail in the coffin of human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong.”
“Governments and parliaments around the world will take note and so will international investors,” he said.
Chris Smith, chairman of the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China warned on March 22 that the new law could target employees of U.S. companies in Hong Kong and called on the business community to carefully assess the risks posed by the legislation.
Hong Kong Watch CEO Benedict Rogers addresses a protest rally against the “Article 23” national security legislation in London, March 23, 2024. RFA/Cheryl Tung.
Meanwhile, 88 parliamentarians from the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, EU and other countries said the law was a “flagrant breach” of China’s obligations under the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, a U.N.-registered treaty governing the handover of Hong Kong to China.
Benedict Rogers, CEO of the London-based rights group Hong Kong Watch, said the Article 23 legislation was a “death knell” for Hong Kong’s remaining freedoms.
“We urge the international community to address the new threats posed by Article 23 legislation by imposing targeted sanctions, broadening lifeboat schemes for Hong Kongers, ensuring that the law is not applicable overseas and used for transnational repression,” Rogers said, calling for a review of Hong Kong’s special status, including the city’s separate Trade and Economic Offices in foreign countries.
Translated by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by .
