The European Parliament on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a new law that prevents the import and distribution of goods made with forced labor, a move that Uyghur advocates said would help clamp down on China’s use of forced labor in far western Xinjiang.
The Forced Labour Regulation, which places the burden of proof on the EU rather than on companies, was approved in a 555-6 vote, with 45 abstentions.
The law will allow authorities in EU member states and the European Commission to investigate suspicious goods, supply chains and manufacturers. Products they determine to be made with forced labor cannot be sold in the EU, including online, and will be confiscated at the border.
Manufacturers of banned goods must withdraw their products from the EU single market and donate, recycle or destroy them. Companies that fail to comply can be fined.
Uyghur activists welcomed the measure, although it does not specifically ban products made by Uyghur forced labor, and some pointed out shortcomings.
“The passage of this legislation also sends a powerful message to the Chinese companies doing business in Europe that have continuously benefited from the Uyghur forced labor despite repeated warnings,” said Dolkun Isa, president of the World Uyghur Congress, or WUC.
The EU’s 27 countries must now approve the regulation for it to enter into force, a measure that is largely a formality. After ratification, they will have three years to implement the law.
Missed opportunity
Zumretay Arkin, WUC’s director of global advocacy, called the parliament’s vote positive, but said the EU “missed a crucial opportunity to agree on an instrument that could meaningfully address forced labor when the government is the perpetrator, like in the Uyghur region in China.”
“We welcome this milestone but stress that all related guidance, guidelines and considerations of when to investigate cases be created in a way that ensures the regulation can effectively ban products made with state-imposed forced labor,” she said in a statement from the London-based Anti-Slavery International.
Absent from the law are key provisions that would have heightened its effectiveness, including a method of redress for forced labor victims, said the rights group which works to end modern slavery.
A similar law took effect in the United States in 2021 banning the import of goods made using forced labor in Xinjiang, where the U.S. government has said China is committing genocide against the 11 million mostly Muslim Uyghurs.
Beijing has denied accusations of human rights violations in Xinjiang, despite substantial evidence that it has detained an estimated 1.8 million Uyghurs and other Turkic peoples in “re-education” camps, where they received training in various skills and were forced to work in factories making everything from chemicals and clothing to car parts.
The European Parliament passed a resolution in June 2022 saying China’s treatment of Uyghurs and other Muslim groups in Xinjiang amounted to crimes against humanity and held a “serious risk of genocide.”
‘Less teeth’
The EU law has “significantly less teeth” than the U.S. Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, but the crux will be the way it’s implemented by investigating authorities, said Adrian Zenz, senior fellow and director in China studies at the Washington-based Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.
The EU regulation contains a provision that the EU must align itself according to the forced labor definitions and standards of the International Labour Organization, or ILO, which has published updated guidelines containing provisions capable of targeting Uyghur forced labor in Xinjiang, Zenz said.
One of the new provisions is that state-imposed forced labor is best assessed as a risk rather than a specific instance. This points to the fact that state-imposed forced labor creates a pervasive risk in an entire targeted region that is difficult, if not impossible, to assess in particular situations such as in places where there is no freedom to speak out, he said.
“There’s the possibility that the [European] Commission in its investigation … could make a finding of forced labor without having to prove every connection to every supply chain, by determining that this region is not cooperating, is not providing accurate information, and in line with what the ILO guidelines say about state-imposed forced labor, that it’s best assessed as a systemic risk,” he said.
“That increases the scope of being more effective in its implementation.”
The approval of the Forced Labour Regulation comes ahead of a European Parliament vote expected this week on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which creates a legal liability for companies relating to environmental and human rights violations within their supply chains.
“Together, these laws will send a strong message to workers around the world that the EU will not stand for forced labor,” said Anti-Slavery International.
Edited by Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Alim Seytoff for RFA Uyghur and Roseanne Gerin for RFA.
The Council of Europe’s human rights watchdog has condemned Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda scheme, saying it raises “major issues about the human rights of asylum seekers and the rule of law”.
The body’s human rights commissioner, Michael O’Flaherty, said the bill, expected to be signed into law on Tuesday after passing its parliamentary stages on Monday night, was a grave concern and should not be used to remove asylum seekers or infringe on judges’ independence.
Historic hearing will receive submissions from people whose human rights have been affected by climate change
Julian Medina comes from a long line of fishers in the north of Colombia’s Gulf of Morrosquillo who use small-scale and often traditional methods to catch species such as mackerel, tuna and cojinúa.
Medina went into business as a young man but was drawn back to his roots, and ended up leading a fishing organisation. For years he has campaigned against the encroachment of fossil fuel companies, pollution and overfishing, which are destroying the gulf’s delicate ecosystem and people’s livelihoods.
This week on CounterSpin: The long-fought effort to get legal acknowledgement of the abuse of Iraqi detainees during the Iraq War is coming to a federal court in Virginia, with Al-Shimari v. CACI. Since the case was first filed in 2008, military contractor CACI has pushed some 20 times to have it dismissed.
Time magazine unwittingly told the tale with the recent headline: “Abu Ghraib Military Contractor Trial Set to Start 20 Years after Shocking Images of Abuse.” That’s the thing, people had been reporting the horrific treatment of Iraqi detainees at the Baghdad-area prison and elsewhere, but it was only when those photos were released—photos the Defense Department tried hard to suppress—that it was so undeniable it had to be acknowledged.
But still: When Australian TV later broadcast new unseen images, the Washington Postofficially sighed that they weren’t worth running because they did not depict “previously unknown” abuse. Post executive editor Len Downie had a different answer, saying in an online chat that the images were “so shocking and in such bad taste, especially the extensive nudity, that they are not publishable in our newspaper.” Because that what officially sanctioned torture is, above all, right? Distasteful.
We got a reading on the case last year from Baher Azmy, legal director at the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Also on the show: Historians tell us that the Cold War is over, but the framing persists in news media that love a simple good guy vs. bad guy story, even as who the good and the bad guys are shifts over time. Telling history through actual human beings makes it harder to come up with slam-dunk answers, but can raise questions that are ultimately more useful for those seeking a peaceful planet. A new book provides a sort of case study; it’s about Ted Hall, who, as a young man, shared nuclear secrets from Los Alamos with the then–Soviet Union. Veteran investigative journalist Dave Lindorff has reported for numerous outlets and is author of Marketplace Medicine and This Can’t Be Happening, among other titles. We talked with him about his latest, Spy for No Country: The Story of Ted Hall, the Teenage Atomic Spy Who May Have Saved the World, which is out now from Prometheus Books.
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.
