Dakar, June 20, 2024—Nigerien authorities must decriminalize defamation and ensure that the country’s cybercrime law does not unduly restrict the work of the media, the Committee to Protect Journalists said on Thursday.
On June 7, Niger’s head of state Abdourahamane Tchiani, who overthrew the democratically elected president in July 2023, reintroduced prison sentences of one to three years and a fine of up to 5 million CFA francs (US$8,177) for defamation and insult via electronic means of communication, according to newsreports.
A jail term of two to five years and a fine of up to 5 million CFA francs (US$8,177) were also set for the dissemination of “data likely to disturb public order or undermine human dignity,” even if such information is true, according to CPJ’s review of a copy of the law.
“The changes to Niger’s cybercrime law are a blow to the media community and a very disappointing step backwards for freedom of expression,” said CPJ Africa Program Coordinator, Muthoki Mumo, in Nairobi. “It is not too late to change course by reforming the law to ensure that it cannot be used to stifle journalism.”
Previously, the crimes of defamation and insult were punishable with fines of up to 10 million CFA francs (US$16,312), while dissemination of data likely to disturb public order carried a penalty of six months to three years’ imprisonment.
On June 12, Niger’s Minister of Justice and Human Rights Alio Daouda said in a statement that the 2022 amendments were made “despite the opposition of the large majority of Nigeriens.” He said that decriminalization of the offenses had led to a “proliferation of defamatory and insulting remarks on social networks and the dissemination of data likely to disturb public order or undermine human dignity” despite authorities’ calls for restraint.
“Firm instructions have been given to the public prosecutors to prosecute without weakness or complacency” anyone who commits these offenses, he said.
CPJ and other press freedom groups have raised concerns about journalists’ safety in the country since the 2023 military coup.
This April, Idrissa Soumana Maïga, editor of the privately owned L’Enquêteur newspaper, was arrested and remains behind bars on charges of undermining national defense. If convicted, he could face between five and 10 years in prison.
SeveralNigerienjournalists were imprisoned or fined over their reporting prior to decriminalization in 2022.
CPJ’s calls to the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights to request comment went unanswered.
Report finds that religious, historical and cultural references have been removed in crackdown by Beijing
Hundreds of Uyghur villages and towns have been renamed by Chinese authorities to remove religious or cultural references, with many replaced by names reflecting Communist party ideology, a report has found.
Research published on Wednesday by Human Rights Watch and the Norway-based organisation Uyghur Hjelp documents about 630 communities that have been renamed in this way by the government, mostly during the height of a crackdown on Uyghurs that several governments and human rights bodies have called a genocide.
Country on track to become third in Asia – after Taiwan and Nepal – to legalise same-sex marriage
Thailand’s senate has passed the final reading of a historic marriage equality bill, paving the way for the country to become the first in south-east Asia to recognise same-sex marriage.
The bill gained the support of nearly all upper-house lawmakers and will be sent to the palace for the pro-forma endorsement by King Maha Vajiralongkorn. The law will come into force 120 days after it is published in the royal gazette.
Istanbul, June 14, 2024 — Jordanian authorities must immediately and unconditionally drop all charges against Palestinian-Jordanian journalist Hiba Abu Taha, release her, and allow all journalists to cover issues related to the Israel-Gaza war without fear of reprisal, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Friday.
On June 11, the Soloh Court in Amman sentenced Abu Taha to one year in prison after convicting her of violating the Cybercrimes Law for “inciting discord and strife among members of society” and “targeting community peace and inciting violence,” according to regional press freedom group SKeyes, mediareports, and the journalist’s lawyer Rami Odeh, who spoke to CPJ.
Abu Taha’s conviction came after a complaint by the Media Commission, the government agency responsible for enforcing press laws and regulations, over Abu Taha’s April 2024 article in the Lebanese Annasher website titled “Partners in genocide… Jordanian capital involved in genocide in the Gaza strip.” The article alleges that Jordan allows regional companies to ship goods to Israel via a land bridge.
In February Jordanian Prime Minister Bisher al-Khasawneh called reports of the existence of a land bridge to Israel a “fabrication.”
“Jordanian authorities’ insistence on punishing reporting in the public interest using the Cybercrimes Law reeks of censorship,” said Carlos Martínez de la Serna, CPJ’s program director in New York. “Jordanian authorities must immediately release Palestinian-Jordanian journalist Hiba Abu Taha, drop all charges against her, and allow all journalists to work freely to cover matters pertaining to the Israel-Gaza war.”
Abu Taha, who has been in Juwaida prison since her arrest on May 14, plans to appeal the ruling. On May 28, her bail request was denied, her lawyer said.
In a statement to CPJ, Jordan’s media commissioner Bashir al Momani said Abu Taha’s article contained “serious insults against Jordanian state institutions, incitement to the state’s positions, and stirring up discord among the components of the people.”
Al Momani added that “the actions taken by the journalist constitute a violation of Jordanian laws, which necessitated her prosecution.”
CPJ warned of the use of the Cybercrime Law to punish journalism after it was passed in 2023. The country has arrestedother journalists for their reporting on the Israel-Gaza war.
Vietnam’s new President To Lam has asked that Beijing respect Hanoi’s rights and interests in disputed waters, days after Vietnamese officials protested against what they called “China’s illegal activities” in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Last Thursday, a Vietnamese foreign ministry spokesperson denounced the operation of the Chinese navy survey vessel Hai Yang 26 in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and said that Vietnam “has engaged in multiple diplomatic exchanges” with China to demand the ending of such operations.
To Lam, while not mentioning the Hai Yang 26, told Chinese ambassador to Vietnam Xiong Bo that the two neighbors should strictly implement bilateral agreements, better control and resolve disagreements at sea, as well as respect each other’s legitimate rights and interests, his office said in a statement .
The two countries should also actively seek appropriate ways to settle maritime disputes in accordance with international law, especially the U.N. Convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS), he said.
The new president stressed that Vietnam saw its relationship with China as a “strategic choice and top priority” of its foreign policy.
Lam was sworn in as Vietnam’s state president on May 22 amid an unprecedented reshuffle of the communist party’s leadership following the “burning furnace” anti-graft campaign initiated by party chief Nguyen Phu Trong.
Xiong Bo became the first foreign ambassador to pay Lam a courtesy call to congratulate him on his new post.
Hai Yang 26
In last week’s unusually strong rebuke, foreign ministry spokeswoman Pham Thu Hang said that Vietnam was “deeply concerned,” resolutely opposed, and demanded that China immediately stop the “illegal survey activities” of the Hai Yang 26 in Vietnam’s waters and not repeat them.
Hang told reporters in Hanoi that the Vietnamese government “has engaged in multiple diplomatic exchanges” with the Chinese side over the case.
Chinese survey vessels have frequently operated in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone but it has seldom publicly protested, giving preference to quieter bilateral channels.
Caption: The Chinese navy survey vessel Hai Yang 26 on an unspecified date. (Vietnam Foreign Ministry)
A Vietnamese analyst, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that the new leader – who was seen as a hard-liner because of his public security background — may want to show that he is not pro-China, as some critics say.
Another analyst, Hoang Viet, told RFA that the foreign ministry’s reaction was due to the severity of the event, as well as to partially direct attention to Vietnam amid increased tensions between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea.
Hai Yang 26 is one of nine Type 636A hydrographic survey vessels in service with the Chinese People’s Liberation Army navy.
This kind of survey ship is thought to be utilized by the navy for mapping the underwater topography map in areas where submarines operate, as well as to conduct marine surveys, such as the study of ocean acoustics.
The fact that Vietnam had “multiple diplomatic exchanges” with China over the vessel suggested it had been operating in Vietnam’s waters for a prolonged period.
China has yet to respond to Vietnam’s protest but a Chinese think tank, the South China Sea Probing Initiative, wrote on the social media platform X that the Hai Yang 26 only conducted a freedom of navigation operation, a type of patrol that China itself has deemed provocative on numerous occasions when conducted by other navies.
Edited by Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.
New York, June 11, 2024 – The Committee to Protect Journalists expressed alarm on Tuesday that Pakistan’s east Punjab province hastily enacted a defamation law that is likely to greatly restrict press freedom, and the country’s Supreme Court issued notices to 34 media outlets in connection with their programming.
On Saturday, June 8, acting Punjab governor and speaker of the provincial assembly Malik Ahmad Khan, a Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party member, approved a defamation lawpassed on May 20 despite concerns from journalists, human rights organizations, and opposition lawmakers, according to newsreports.
The law, which is being challengedby journalists and press bodies in the Lahore High Court, replaces Punjab’s Defamation Ordinance, 2002 and loosely defines “defamation” and “broadcasting” to include social media platforms.
Separately, on June 5, Pakistan’s Supreme Court issued show-cause notices to 34 news channels, asking them to explain, within two weeks, why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for airing press conferences by two parliamentarians who criticized the judiciary, according to multiplenewsreports.
The court issued the order while hearing a contempt case against the two parliamentarians, who questioned senior judges alleging the ISI– Pakistan’s premier intelligence agency– was interfering in judicial matters.
“Pakistan’s Punjab government must swiftly repeal the recently enacted defamation law and ensure that any such legislation does not impinge on press freedom,” said CPJ Asia Program Coordinator Beh Lih Yi. “The media must also be allowed to broadcast key political speeches and developments without interference or fear of reprisal.”
Under Punjab’s new defamation law, claimants may initiate legal action “without proof of actual damage or loss.” Penalties range from three million rupees (US $10,792) to punitive damages 10 times that amount. Tribunals may also order defendants to tender an unconditional apology or issue a directive to suspend or block the social media account or website where the alleged defamatory content was disseminated.
The law also mandates special tribunals, whose members will be appointed by the Punjab government in consultation with the chief justice of the Lahore High Court to adjudicate offenses within 180 days.
According to Farieha Aziz, a freelance journalist and co-founder of the digital rights organization Bolo Bhi, the appointment procedure represented a conflict of interest because those who select tribunal members can also be complainants.
The law further authorizes the tribunal to pass a preliminary decree against a defendant if they do not obtain a leave to defend, or permission to defend themselves against the accusations, at the outset of trial. Moreover, the law bars commenting on pending proceedings, which Aziz called a “gag order.”
“If a public official has brought a case under the law, it is in public interest to know,” Aziz said.
Defamation claims filed by a “constitutional office” holder such as the prime minister, Supreme Court and Lahore High Court judges, and army chiefs, will be tried through a separate procedure, raising concerns surrounding violations of constitutional rights.
Pakistan’s political environment remains volatile after February elections– widely described as flawed– led to the formation of a coalition government of the PML-N and the Pakistan People’s Party, with the former taking power in Punjab.
Punjab governor Sardar Saleem Haider, a PPP member who was abroad when the defamation law was enacted, earlier stated on June 5 that the provincial government would address the concerns of journalists and other stakeholders, suggesting the legislation would be sent back to the assembly for further consultation.
Punjab information minister Azma Zahid Bokhari did not immediately respond to CPJ’s request for comment.
Most miscarriage of justice victims will still be denied compensation after two men lose test case in Strasbourg
Most victims of miscarriages of justice will still be denied compensation in Britain after the European court of human rights ruled the government’s test for payouts was lawful.
A test case was brought by Sam Hallam and Victor Nealon, two men who between them served 24 years in prison for crimes they were later exonerated of. Neither was paid any compensation by the government despite new evidence being enough to overturn their convictions.
The Committee to Protect Journalists joined over 50 news and press freedom organizations in urging United States senators to support the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act (PRESS Act). The bill would create a federal shield safeguarding reporter-source confidentiality and prevent government access to unreported source material.
The letter, authored by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, urges Senate leadership to advance the bill during this critical period.
The legislation previously passed the House twice but has languished in the Senate.
Israeli forces have illegally dropped white phosphorus munitions on densely populated residential areas in southern Lebanon, according to a new report by Human Rights Watch. White phosphorus, which poses a high risk of excruciating burns and lifelong suffering, was dropped by Israel over at least 17 municipalities in Lebanon since October 2023. Lebanon’s Ministry of Public Health says at least 173 people have been injured in the white phosphorus attacks, which have also caused hundreds of forest fires in Lebanon. “It can burn down to the bone and cause lifelong suffering,” says Ramzi Kaiss, a researcher at Human Rights Watch. “This widespread use is putting civilians at grave risk and also contributing to displacement.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
Miami, June 6, 2024—The Committee to Protect Journalists welcomes the release of Cuban journalist Lázaro Yuri Valle Roca, but is deeply concerned he was forced into exile, and calls on Cuban authorities to allow reporters to work freely in the country without fear of reprisal.
Valle was sentenced to five years in prison in July 2022 for contempt and sharing “enemy propaganda” in connection with a video posted on his YouTube channel, Delibera, of pro-democracy leaflets thrown from a building in the capital, Havana.
ICLEP reported that Valle Roca arrived in the United States on humanitarian parole, and that his release from prison was on the condition that he leave Cuba.
“Although we welcome Lázaro Yuri Valle Roca’s prison release, it is disconcerting that the Cuban government has forced Valle into exile rather than allowing him to do his job,” said CPJ U.S., Canada and Caribbean Program Coordinator Katherine Jacobsen. “The Cuban government should allow journalists to work freely, without fear of imprisonment or forced exile.”
ICLEP general manager, Normando Hernández confirmed in a text message to CPJ that Valle had safely landed in Miami with his wife on Wednesday.
“After almost three years of unjust imprisonment, Yuri is finally free,” Hernández wrote on the ICLEP’s website.
Valle’s expulsion of Valle Roca is the latest example of a crackdown by Cuban authorities on independent media that began following street protests in July 2021 which began in response to longstandingfrustrations with the government and restrictions on rights and scarcity of food and medicines. As a result of the government crackdown, journalists, activists and other civil society members were either jailed or forced to leave the island.
Cuban law prohibits the establishment of independent media organizations outside the country’s socialist state system. Journalism is not one of the legally permitted professions under Cuba’s 2021 legalization of private business activity. Cuba’s updated ‘Social Communication Law,’ approved by Cuba’s National Assembly on May 26, 2023, prohibits the dissemination of information that aims to “subvert the constitutional order and destabilize the socialist State of law and social justice.”
Valle had been held in pretrial detention since June 15, 2021, when he was arrested after police summoned him to allegedly close a 2020 contempt investigation. In June 2022, prosecutors requested a six-year sentence in his case.
Valle has suffered from multiple health conditions during his detention, including complications related to his previous hunger strike, according to CPJ research.
Janine Jackson interviewed TheLever‘s Katherine Li about corporations’ First Amendment dodge for the May 31, 2024, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
Janine Jackson: CounterSpin listeners will likely know about what’s been called the “right-wing media machine.” It started, you could say, with ideologues and politicians with ideas, generally ideas about how to hurdle us back to at least the 19th century, legally and culturally. They then created think tanks and funded academics to polish up and promulgate those ideas. And they created and funded media outlets to push those ideas out.
It’s not, in other words, a reflection of a fortuitous coming together of like-minded individuals, but an echo chamber forged with the explicit purpose of maximizing a narrow viewpoint into a false consensus. The news article you read, after all, cites a professor and a pundit and a think tank and a guy on the street who read a thing, so it looks like multiple disparate sources who happen to agree.
Something analogous is happening now with corporations claiming the First Amendment says they don’t have to comply with regulations they don’t want to comply with, because those regulations reflect ideas that are “controversial,” and they can’t be compelled to take a public position on a controversial idea, like, for example, that climate disruption is real. It’s a weird, important maneuver, at once complicated and pretty simple, and it’s usefully unpacked in a recent piece by our guest.
Katherine Li is an editorial fellow at the Lever, where the piece, “Corporations Are Weaponizing Free Speech to Wreck the World,” appears. She joins us now by phone from Oakland, California. Welcome to CounterSpin, Katherine Li.
Katherine Li: Hi, Janine, very happy to be here. And let’s unpack this complicated piece.
JJ: Well, before we get to its current—you could say artful—employment, what is the “compelled speech” doctrine under the First Amendment? What do we think was the point of it when it was adopted?
KL: Well, as with the First Amendment, the compelled speech in the First Amendment—the original purpose is to say that the government cannot force people to say something they disagree with. That is perhaps illustrated in a very early compelled speech case that basically says that students do not have to stand up in school and salute the flag or the national anthem if they don’t want to.
Basically, it is to protect people from things that the government is forcing them to do, and it’s kind of to insulate people from government policies that impose things on them. The original intention, I do not believe, and experts I have interviewed for this story do not believe that the intention is for corporates to use such an argument in lawsuits.
JJ: All right, well then, let me just move on to asking you to please lay out for us what you call, in the lead to this informative piece for TheLever.com, “the novel legal strategy” that some corporations are now “pioneering,” you say, which sounds very different than “relying on”; they’re kind of trying to make something new here. Explain what you’re seeing.
KL: So traditionally, like I have just mentioned it, is to protect people from the government imposing things on them. But what is considered as speech has really exploded when it comes to the corporate landscape: Are tax returns and contracts considered speech? What does that mean for our government’s power to look into financial wrongdoing, and prevent tax fraud and prevent money laundering, if all of those things are considered as speech, and the government cannot force anybody to “say” and disclose such information?
So the corporates have definitely spotted that, and they have been trying to argue that these financial documents are considered as speech. So it started with drug pricing, it starts with the Corporate Transparency Act, that once there’s a precedent in the court system that says these things are considered speech, more cases are being invited and more cases are coming in this specific landscape. So basically they are saying that these things are considered speech, and therefore the government cannot compel them to disclose this information.
At first it starts with financial information. And right now we’re seeing that in Medicare drug negotiations, it is also happening. These commercial speeches are, according to the lawyers and experts I have spoken to, they don’t believe that these things should be considered; they don’t believe that this so-called commercial speech should be afforded the same amount of protection as traditional political expression, for example, like protesting or writing something in the media, or being censored or being prevented or being forced to make a certain political expression in the non-commercial sense.
So that is why in the article, and according to my experts, they believe this is a new strategy, that corporates are basically exploiting this argument in order to bring more and more cases, and expand the definition of what speech is.
JJ: Right. So then they seem as though they are complying with a law, or relying on a law, rather than sort of forging this new way.
Well, I think the examples really bring it home for people, what’s happening here, and there are a number of those examples in the piece, and each one is more disturbing and illuminating than the last. But one key one is, California has a new emissions disclosure law, that major companies doing business in California have to make public how much pollution they’re emitting throughout their supply chain. And we can understand why that’s important, because a company can say, “Well, our home office is zero emissions,” and that’s great, but what about your factories? What’s happening there?
So the public needs this information, this is information that the public is looking for, to get through the PR that these companies—fossil fuel companies in this case—might be putting out. And they’re saying, “No, we don’t need to comply with an emissions disclosure law, because that’s speech”?
KL: That is precisely what is happening. And the thing is, these emissions laws, they target companies with annual revenue above $1 billion. That is not asking our local coffee shop or the marketplace around the corner to figure out how much emissions are in their supply chain. It only really applies to large companies, especially oil companies, very large agricultural factory-farming companies.
So what initially caught my eye in the story is actually the arguments they have in the complaints that they filed against the emission disclosures law. The complaint, if you read it very closely, to anybody with common sense, it almost sounds ridiculous. Some of the arguments are saying that they fear that disclosing their emissions would allow activists, nonprofits and lawmakers to single out companies for investigation, which to me is just another word for accountability. I mean, that’s what our nonprofits and lawmaking agencies, it’s what they’re supposed to do, investigate and help create policy that can improve lives. So to me, it sounds like their effort to avoid accountability is very thinly veiled.
If you look at their complaint very closely, they also complain that this law would be compelling them to change their behavior. They complain that this law is changing and shaping their behavior, when, in reality, isn’t that what any laws and regulations are supposed to do? I mean, in any daily-life law, such as, like, hey, you cannot jaywalk, that is aiming to shape our behaviors, it’s aiming to change our behaviors.
So if you read the complaint closely, their efforts to avoid accountability, it’s honestly very thinly veiled. And it is, in a way, further expanding what is considered as speech, and also the whole circular argument that climate change is somehow “controversial.”
I also looked into the threshold of what could be considered as controversial when I first read their complaint. So then the lawyers I was talking to, the question I brought to them was, how low is the threshold to prove that something is scientifically controversial? And it turned out my instincts were correct, that the threshold of that is extremely low. They just have to prove that there’s a dissenting opinion. They don’t really have to prove that it is scientifically sound, and there’s no one to really check that.
JJ: So it’s just laid in a lap of particular courts, or particular decision makers. And it sounds as though they’re saying, particularly with that low threshold—or that very vague, undetermined threshold—that any regulation, because any regulation is about shaping behavior, it sounds like any regulation, they can dispute, because it’s aimed at asking them to do something different. I mean, am I misreading that, or is it really anti- any regulation whatsoever, in some way?
KL: In some way, that’s what it sounds like. Because if the complaint is about changing and shaping behavior, any regulations, that’s the point of it, changing behavior. And what is so wrong, what could be so wrong about forcing someone to lower their emissions at this point? It sounds like they’re saying that they shouldn’t lower their emissions, because either climate change doesn’t matter enough, or that climate change is not real. Like they said, they think it’s controversial.
JJ: Right. Well, just in case folks don’t understand, and of course we’ll send them to TheLever.com to read the piece, but you also have a food distribution and a restaurant supplies company, Cisco, that’s saying that you can’t force companies to read out notices of labor violations to workers, because they don’t want to. They don’t want to make that information available. And if they talk about labor violations in the workplace, well, that’s a “confession of sins,” and they shouldn’t be forced to do that. So this can reach into pretty much any area of our life, yeah?
KL: Yeah, definitely. Companies argue that if there has been a labor dispute, whatever the result is of that dispute, the company would post a sign somewhere in the facility, basically detailing the labor violation. But it doesn’t really achieve the same effect as reading it out in front of everybody, because it’s the difference between passively posting a sign somewhere and actively informing people what happened. And obviously, if a company has labor violations, they likely don’t want their workers to know. And if workers have also suffered the same violation, if the company reads it out, they might become more aware of it.
JJ: Well, it’s funny—if by funny, we mean perverse—because the narrative of capitalism that we often hear is that it relies on everyone being an informed economic actor, an individual actor who is making economic choices based on knowledge. And here we have corporations actively trying to reduce the available amount of information that a person could have to make decisions about what to buy or where to work or anything like that. It’s weird. This is how corporate capitalism subverts this notion that we hear about Capitalism 101, and building a better mousetrap, and all of that sort of thing.
Katherine Li: “They’re actually afraid that this information is going to get out and impact their profits, so that a lot of times their greenwashing or disinformation isn’t going to work anymore.”
KL: Definitely. Well, about the emissions case, part of their complaint is also that they might be more susceptible to boycott. I do believe that in this day and age, especially people of the younger generations, they’re much more aware of climate change, and a lot of times they would choose companies and products based on their perception of whether that company is being socially responsible enough.
So it’s obvious that a lot of corporates have caught up on that, and they’re now afraid that if they disclose how much they’re actually emitting, people are going to stop buying from them. They’re actually afraid that this information is going to get out and impact their profits, so that a lot of times their greenwashing or disinformation isn’t going to work anymore, because there will be a real concrete number for people to go on, and a number they cannot fake.
They could put on their website all they want, that we have this commitment in 10 years, we have this kind of green commitment; we’re going to become zero emissions by 2030. They could say what they want to say on their website, but once there’s a concrete number out there, none of that is going to work anymore. And they’re really afraid of that, clearly.
JJ: Afraid of an informed public.
Well, this only works with a certain kind of judicial landscape. I mean, you have to count on not getting laughed out of court with what looks to many people like a fairly transparent shenanigan, but obviously they believe that, for some reason, courts are going to be open to this particular kind of argument.
KL: Yes, unfortunately, multiple times courts have been open to this particular argument. And in terms of science, in California, the well-known case would be the Monsanto case.
For everyone who doesn’t know, Monsanto is a herbicide company. They make this herbicide called Roundup, and there is a certain chemical in it, where a lot of international scientists have said that it could potentially cause cancer in humans. So because science is never 100%, and that knowledge is constantly evolving, there is a loophole for them to say that there is contradicting science. And as we have later found out, Monsanto, the company, has also commissioned scientific studies to say that their product is safe.
And in California, that stood up in court. Because the court doesn’t really look at whether or not Monsanto has engineered this controversy that they’re claiming, this argument was allowed to pass California Proposition 65, which requires a warning label for a whole host of chemicals that could be cancerous and cause birth defects–Monsanto would not have to put that label on their specific herbicide product, because this whole “scientific controversy” thing was allowed to stand up in court.
So the consequences of that is now this argument was expanded. It’s not just one chemical anymore. It’s the entire mechanism of climate change that is being brought into question.
But the good news here is that sometimes courts are also beginning to hold the line, and recently there have been some positive developments. If you look at the most recent case of the Medicare drug negotiations under the Inflation Reduction Act, I believe it is the US Chamber of Commerce and different pharmaceutical companies, they were arguing that the Medicare drug negotiations, that the Inflation Reduction Act, is trying to “compel” them to agree with a government-determined price, and that they’re saying that is compelled speech.
So they have brought that point to multiple federal courts, including, most recently I believe, a federal court in Ohio. And these courts have fortunately rejected this argument, basically blocked the case on multiple occasions. So I do believe that courts are becoming aware of that, and that they’re beginning to curb these arguments, because in the past, when they have allowed these arguments to pass, sometimes, likely in the next case, the argument becomes expanded.
JJ: Right. Well, I was going to push you further on that, in terms of, it sounds like courts are cottoning on and pushing back. Are there other policy or legislative responses that seem appropriate here, or is it mainly a matter for the courts? And then, do you have thoughts about—because I have not seen this in other reporting—what media might do in terms of disclosing this, putting some sunlight on this, as part of a pushback against what seems clearly like an anti-regulatory, anti–public information effort?
KL: Well, to answer the first question, I do believe this matter is mainly up to the courts, even though, in terms of lawmaking, there can be laws that make up for what the courts are not doing. At the end of the story that I wrote about this, I mentioned a doctrine called the major questions doctrine. A lot of times what the states are allowed to do and what the states are allowed to regulate, what the federal agencies are allowed to regulate in states, is significantly limited. So a lot of times, these things become left up to courts in a major case, to basically make a decision on whether what the individual states are doing is lawful or not.
I believe that if the federal regulatory agencies oftentimes could have more power to pass more sweeping regulations on these things, and that federal regulatory agencies could have more power to fight these law cases if they are sued on a particular point, for example, like the Inflation Reduction Act…. I believe that federal agencies should be given more power to decide, instead of leaving it up to the courts, because the court doesn’t always hold the line.
They’re beginning to, but, for example, the California emissions disclosure case, it’s still very much up in the air, and it’s an entirely new regulation. No other states have implemented it yet; it’s just California, and there are no federal regulations on how companies could be more accountable for the emissions they’re putting out.
And in terms of how media could report on this, I would say, a lot of times, this type of story, it’s very, very helpful to talk to lawyers, because a lot of the cases that I have found, and also trying to figure out how low the scientific threshold is to basically prove that something is controversial: the lawyers know. They are a treasure trove of past cases, because that is their job. And a lot of times, they really enjoy talking to journalists, laying out their cases, and basically walking you through the steps and loopholes that are in our law, because that is their profession.
I would also say, I can understand that sometimes it’s hard to write about something that doesn’t have a main human character in it. Sometimes it’s hard to make it interesting, and it could be easy to overlook these stories. But personally, I think that even a seemingly boring document could contain very interesting information.
For example, the initial complaint that’s filed against the California Emissions Disclosure Law, if you look at the information closely, it might look like a boring document, but the more you read, you’re like, “Wow, this doesn’t make sense. Am I hallucinating this, or is this real?” So then you go to a lawyer, and verify that information. Is this a trend I’m spotting? Is this a problem? Do you think it’s a problem? And these kind of stories could end up being very interesting.
And I would say that, also, it’s important to look into lobbying data, and frame the story looking at who is responsible, and not only looking at what the problem is. I feel like stories could become much more powerful when you look at the how, the mechanism, the larger mechanism that’s at work, instead of only focusing on one specific event or one isolated event that’s happening. Sometimes the more people, the more professionals, you talk to, you start to see a network and a storyline, and how there’s a loophole, and the mechanism of how things work behind the scenes.
JJ: Absolutely. Well, that’s excellent. We’ll end it there for now.
We’ve been speaking with Katherine Li. She’s editorial fellow at the Lever, online at TheLever.com, where you can find this informative article, “Corporations Are Weaponizing Free Speech to Wreck the World,” that we’ve been talking about. Thank you so much, Katherine Li, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
Migrants seek redress for ‘immense distress’ from deportations now thrown into chaos by election announcement
Asylum seekers detained by the Home Office and threatened with deportation to Rwanda are set to take legal action against the government after Rishi Sunak admitted that no flights will take place before the general election.
The Home Office started raiding accommodation and detaining people who arrived at routine immigration-reporting appointments on 29 April in a nationwide push codenamed Operation Vector.
This week on CounterSpin: In 2023, the California legislature passed legislation that said that big corporations doing business in the state have to tell the public, investors, how much pollution they’re emitting throughout their supply chain. It’s knowable information, and people have a right to know it, right? The same way restaurants here in New York City have to tell potential customers how they did on their last health inspection; you can eat there or not, but at least you’re making an informed decision.
But no! This past January, the US Chamber of Commerce and a bunch of other industry groups challenged those laws, because, they said, making companies disclose the impact of their actions—in this case, their emissions—would force them to publicly express a “speculative, noncommercial, controversial and politically charged message.” That, they said, makes the laws a “pressure campaign” aimed at shaping company behavior.
Unfortunately, some courts are indulging this bizarre notion that regulation should be illegal, essentially, because it forces companies to say stuff they’d rather not say. Fortunately, other courts are calling this self-serving nonsense self-serving nonsense. But it’s not just a legal matter; public information, our right to know, is also on the line here, so we should know what’s going on.
Katherine Li addresses this issue in a recent piece for the Lever, where she is an editorial fellow. We hear from her this week on CounterSpin.
The Committee to Protect Journalists joined more than 85 journalism and civil society organizations and 35 attorneys and law professors in urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to schedule a markup of the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act (PRESS Act) as soon as possible so that it can be considered by the full Senate and become law.
The PRESS Act would create a federal shield law, protecting journalist-source confidentiality and preventing government surveillance of journalistic activity through phone and email providers.
The legislation, which CPJ helped author, passed the House twice but has previously languished in the Senate.
The New York Times (4/8/24) cited “experts” who called Nicaragua charging Germany with facilitating genocide “a cynical move by a totalitarian government to bolster its profile and distract attention from its own worsening record of repression.”
When Nicaragua accused Germany of aiding and abetting Israel’s genocide in Gaza at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) last month, readers of corporate media might have seriously wondered whether Nicaragua’s case had any legitimacy.
The case targeted Germany as the second biggest supplier of arms to Israel, because the US, Israel’s biggest supplier, does not accept the court’s jurisdiction on this issue. The object (as Nicaragua’s lawyer explained) was to create a precedent with wider application: that countries must take responsibility for the consequences of their arms sales to avoid them being used in breach of international law.
Many in corporate media took a more jaundiced view. The Financial Times (4/8/24) led by telling readers, “The authoritarian government of Nicaragua accused Germany of ‘facilitating genocide’ in Gaza at the opening of a politically charged case.” The second paragraph in a New York Times article (4/8/24) cited “experts” who saw it “as a cynical move by a totalitarian government to bolster its profile and distract attention from its own worsening record of repression.” The Guardian (4/9/24) qualified its comment piece by remarking that “Nicaragua is hardly a poster child when it comes to respect for human rights.”
Double standards are evident here. If the US government were to do what it has failed to do so far, and condemn Israel’s genocidal violence, Western corporate media would not remind readers of US crimes against humanity, such as the Abu Ghraib tortures, extraordinary renditions, or the hundreds imprisoned without trial at Guantánamo. It’s hard to imagine Washington would be accused of “hypocrisy” (Guardian, 4/9/24) for calling out Israel’s crimes. Any condemnation of Israel by the US or one of its Western allies would be taken at face value—in clear contrast to the media’s treatment of such action by an official enemy country like Nicaragua.
Germany ‘as its finest’
For El País (4/11/24), facilitating mass slaughter in Gaza is “Germany…at its finest,” because it it is “driven by its sense of responsibility stemming from a tragic history.”
Of establishment media, Spain’s El País (4/11/24) was perhaps the most vitriolic in its portrayal of Nicaragua. Its piece on the court case was headlined “The Worst Version of Nicaragua Against the Best Version of Germany.”
“The third international court case on the Gaza war pits a regime accused of crimes against humanity against a strong and legitimate democracy,” the piece explained. “It may be a noble cause, but its champion couldn’t be worse.”
The article, which relayed none of the evidence offered by either side, commented rather oddly that Germany was “at its finest” arguing the case, and that its “defense against Nicaragua’s charges is solid and its legitimacy as a democratic state is unassailable”—a comment presumably intended to contrast its legitimacy with “the Nicaraguan dictatorship.”
In addition to its article cited above, the New York Times (4/8/24) had a report more focused on the case itself. However, it was CNN (4/9/24) and Al Jazeera (4/8/24) that stood out as covering the case on its own merits rather than being distracted by animosity toward Nicaragua.
The negative presentation in much of the media was repeated when, later in April, they headlined that Nicaragua’s request had been “rejected” by the ICJ (e.g., AP, 4/30/24; NPR, 4/30/24), with the New York Times (4/30/24) again remembering to insert a derogatory comment about Nicaragua’s action being “hypocritical.” These followup reports largely overlooked the impact the case had on Germany’s ability to further arm Israel during its continued assault on Gaza.
Nicaraguan ‘Nazis’
The New York Times (3/2/23) ran a headline equating the Nicaraguan Sandinistas with the German Nazi Party, based on the claim that “the weaponizing of the justice system against political opponents in the way that is done in Nicaragua is exactly what the Nazi regime did.”
Corporate media had been gifted their criticisms of Nicaragua by a report published at the end of February by the UN Human Rights Council. A “group of human rights experts on Nicaragua” (the “GHREN”) had produced its second report on the country. Its first, last year, had accused Nicaragua’s government of crimes against humanity, leading to this eyebrow-raising New York Times headline (3/2/23): “Nicaragua’s ‘Nazis’: Stunned Investigators Cite Hitler’s Germany.”
The GHREN’s leader, German lawyer Jan-Michael Simon, had indeed likened the current Sandinista government to the Nazis. Times reporter Frances Robles quoted Simon:
“The weaponizing of the justice system against political opponents in the way that is done in Nicaragua is exactly what the Nazi regime did,” Jan-Michael Simon, who led the team of UN-appointed criminal justice experts, said in an interview.
“People massively stripped of their nationality and being expelled out of the country: This is exactly what the Nazis did too,” he added.
It’s quite an accusation, given that the Nazis established over 44,000 incarceration camps of various types and killed some 17 million people. Robles gave few numbers regarding the crimes Nicaragua is accused of, but did mention 40 extrajudicial killings in 2018 attributed to state and allied actors, and noted that the Ortega government had in 2023 “stripped the citizenship from 300 Nicaraguans who a judge called ‘traitors to the homeland.’”
Robles also quoted Juan Sebastián Chamorro, a member of the Nicaraguan oligarchic family who are among the Sandinista government’s fiercest opponents; Chamorro claimed there was evidence of “more than 350 people who were assassinated.” Even if true, this would seem to be a serious stretch from “exactly what the Nazis did.”
Like most Western reporters, Robles—who also wrote the recent ICJ piece for the Times—gave no attention to the criticisms of the GHREN’s work by human rights specialists, who argued that the GHREN did not examine all the evidence made available to it and interviewed only opposition sources. For example, former UN independent expert Alfred de Zayas castigated its first report in his book The Human Rights Industry, calling it a “political pamphlet” intended to destabilize Nicaragua’s government.
Even if one takes the GHREN account at face value, the Gaza genocide is at least 100 times worse in terms of numbers of fatalities, quite apart from other horrendous elements, such as deliberate starvation, indiscriminate bombing, destruction of hospitals and much more. It’s unclear why the accusations against Nicaragua should delegitimize the case against Germany.
Hague history
In 1986, the New York Times (6/28/86) reported that the ICJ found the US guilty of ”training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces,” and of “direct attacks on Nicaraguan oil installations, ports and shipping.”
Many media reports did mention Nicaragua’s long history of support for Palestine—which undermines the accusation of cynicism underlying the case—but few noted the Latin American country’s history of success at the Hague. As Carlos Argüello, the Nicaraguan ambassador to the Netherlands who took the lead at the ICJ, pointed out, Nicaragua has more experience at the Hague than most countries, including Germany. This began with its pioneer case against the US in 1984, when it won compensation of £17 billion (that was never paid) for the damage done to Nicaragua by the US-funded Contra war and the mining of its ports.
One notable exception to that historical erasure came from Robles at the Times (4/8/24), who did refer to the 1984 case. But the point was clearly not to remind readers of US crimes, or to demonstrate that Nicaragua is an actor to be taken seriously in the realm of international law. The two academics she quoted both served to portray the current case as merely “cynical.”
The first, Mateo Jarquín, Robles quoted as saying that the Sandinista government has “a long track record…of using global bodies like the ICJ to carve out space for itself internationally—to build legitimacy and resist diplomatic isolation.” Robles didn’t disclose Jarquín’s second surname, Chamorro. Like her source in the earlier article, he is a member of the family that includes several government opponents.
Robles also quoted Manuel Orozco, a former Nicaraguan working at the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue, whose major funders include the US Agency for International Development and the International Republican Institute, notorious for their role in promoting regime change, including in Nicaragua. Orozco told Robles that “Nicaragua lacks the moral and political authority to speak or advocate for human rights, much less on matters of genocide.”
‘Effectively siding with Germany’
AP (4/30/24) missed the significance of the ICJ holding that, “at present, the circumstances are not such as to require” an order forbidding Germany to ship weapons to Israel—namely, that Germany maintained that it already halted shipments of such weapons (Verfassungblog, 5/2/24).
On April 30, the ICJ declined to grant Nicaragua its requested provisional measures against Germany, including requiring the cessation of arms deliveries to Israel. Headlining this outcome, the Associated Press (4/30/24) said the court was “effectively siding with Germany.” The outlet did, however, continue by explaining that the court had “declined to throw out the case altogether, as Germany had requested,” and will hear arguments from both sides, with a resolution not likely to come for years.
That was better than NPR‘s report (4/30/24), which only mentioned that the court was proceeding with the case in its final paragraph.
But German lawyer and professor Stefan Talmon (Verfassungblog, 5/2/24), clarified that the court’s ruling “severely limits Germany’s ability to transfer arms to Israel.”
“The court’s order was widely interpreted as a victory for Germany,” Talmon commented. “A closer examination of the order, however, points to the opposite.” He concluded that although the ICJ did not generally ban the provision of arms to Israel, it did impose significant restrictions on it by emphasizing Germany’s obligation to “avoid the risk that such arms might be used to violate the [Genocide and Geneva] Conventions.”
And Talmon pointed out that the court appeared to make its decision that an order to halt war weapons shipments was unnecessary based on Germany’s claim that it had already stopped doing so.
“By expressly emphasizing that, ‘at present’, circumstances did not require the indication of provisional measures, the Court made it clear that it could indicate such measures in the future,” Talmon wrote.
Establishment media, seemingly distracted by the “hypocrisy” of Nicaragua challenging a country whose “legitimacy as a democratic state is unassailable,” mostly failed to notice that its legal efforts were therefore at least partially successful: It forced Germany to back down from its unstinting support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and alerted German politicians to the fact that they are at risk of being held accountable under international law if they transfer any further war weapons.
This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by John Perry.
“Do you condemn Hamas?” This question is a familiar response from corporate journalists and pro-Israel advocates whenever anyone urges the Israeli military to stop its offensive in Gaza (Declassified UK, 11/4/23; Forward, 11/10/23; Jewish Journal, 11/29/23). If you denounce Israel’s response to the attacks without condemning Hamas, the insinuation goes, you are defending the militant group and the killing of Israeli civilians.
If you don’t start off by condemning Hamas’ attack, the British pundit Piers Morgan (Twitter, 11/23/23) said, “why should anyone listen to you when you condemn Israel for its response?”
The International Criminal Court surely condemned Hamas when an ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, sought arrest warrants for Hamas’ three principal leaders along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister (Reuters, 5/21/24). That hasn’t helped the ICC in the press. By condemning both Hamas and Israel leaders for illegal acts of violence, the ICC is delegitimizing Israel, editorialists say.
‘A slander for the history books’
The New York Post (5/20/24) was outraged by “the ICC’s morally perverse bid to seem ‘fair’ by also seeking warrants for some leaders of Hamas.”
“Lumping them together is a slander for the history books. Imagine some international body prosecuting Tojo and Roosevelt, or Hitler and Churchill, amid World War II,” the Wall Street Journal editorial board (5/20/24) said. It added that “Israel has facilitated the entry of 542,570 tons of aid, and 28,255 aid trucks, in an unprecedented effort to supply an enemy’s civilians.”
For the record, the UN has estimated that Gaza needs 500 truckloads of humanitarian aid a day—so nearly four times as many as Israel has allowed in. Israeli soldiers have reportedly helped protesters block aid trucks (Guardian, 5/21/24), while the IDF has relentlessly targeted medical facilities (Al Jazeera, 12/18/23). And Israeli “forces have carried out at least eight strikes on aid workers’ convoys and premises in Gaza since October 2023,” according to Human Rights Watch (5/14/24).
The New York Post editorial board (5/20/24) engages in the same logic, saying Hamas leaders are “cold-blooded savages—who target innocent civilians for murder, rape and kidnapping,” while Israel is pure at heart: “law-abiding, democratic victims, who merely seek to eradicate the terror gang.”
Back on Planet Earth, Israel has targetedhospitals, journalists, schools and aid workers. The United Nations has declared a famine is underway (AP, 5/6/24), and its data show the death toll for Palestinians since October 7 is nearly 30 times larger than for Israelis, a testament to the conflict’s imbalance of might and ferocity. The UN estimates nearly 8,000 Gazan children have been killed (NPR, 5/15/24).
‘Digging its own grave’
For the New York Times‘ Bret Stephens (5/21/24), the “decision to seek the arrest of three Hamas leaders along with Netanyahu” was part of a strategy to destroy Israel, “as it places Israel’s leaders on a moral par with a trio of terrorists.”
New York Times columnist Bret Stephens (5/21/24), who is loved by the right-wing fanatics at the New YorkPost (4/28/17, 8/27/19, 12/29/19, 2/11/21) for his backward views on social issues and his desire to rob his critics of free speech rights, said that by going after both Israeli and Hamas leaders, the court was part of an “overall strategy” to bring about Israel’s downfall through alienation, as the equivalency “places Israel’s leaders on a moral par with a trio of terrorists.” In other words, it treats Israel as being morally equivalent to a group that has killed less than 1% as many children.
The Washington Post‘s opinion page (5/21/24) featured multiple sides in response to the news, including human rights scholar Noura Erakat, who said, if anything, Khan was too easy on Israel. But the Post’s roundtable also featured former Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief Avi Mayer, a pro-Israel public relations professional who left that paper amid turmoil (Forward, 12/15/23). He said comparing Israel to its “cruel and implacable foe against which it is defending itself will be met with wall-to-wall resistance and steely determination.”
The Post also featured Bush II and Trump administration hawk John Bolton, who ignored the accusations against Hamas altogether, saying the “ICC has finally and irreversibly begun digging its own grave”—not just because of the charge against Israel, but because the court is “untethered to any constitutional structure, unchecked by distinct legislative or executive authorities, and utterly unable to enforce its decisions.”
The Post could have found much more nuanced voices to critique Khan. Mayer is hardly a scholar looking at the situation with cold eyes; he’s a dedicated promoter of Israeli policy who only briefly worked as a newspaper editor (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 3/21/23). Bolton’s entire persona revolves around opposing the notion of international justice (Politico, 9/23/18; Washington Post, 10/10/18); the ICC could have opened a cat shelter and he would have found a way to argue that this harmed US interests. Meanwhile, one of the legal advisors who had recommended seeking arrest warrants for both Israeli and Hamas leaders was a former Israeli diplomat and Holocaust survivor (Forward, 5/23/24).
Across the pond, the editorial board of the Telegraph (5/21/24), the main print voice of British conservatism, said that the “moral equivalence” of Hamas and Israeli leaders was “absurd.” The London Times (5/21/24) simply said the ICC’s action wouldn’t help the situation in Gaza.
These views reflect the official line of the White House (CNN, 5/20/24), 10 Downing Street (Politico, 5/21/24) and Netanyahu (Reuters, 5/20/24).
An unsurprising outcome
Chief ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, a British lawyer, compared Israeli actions to the British government saying “let’s drop a 2,000-pound bomb on the Falls Road” in response to IRA attacks (Jewish Chronicle, 5/26/24).
You just can’t win, can you? Had the ICC prosecutor sought arrest warrants only for Israeli leaders, we can only imagine that these same outlets would condemn it as a one-sided interpretation of the war. In other words, there is simply no scenario in which criticism or scrutiny of Israel can take place.
For those who have actually studied conflict and human rights, it is just not surprising that an international body would recognize war crimes by both the military of a recognized government and an armed faction dubbed a “terrorist” group. A United Nations panel found that while the separatist Tamil Tigers committed atrocities in the last days of the Sri Lankan civil war, the final government offensive caused the “deaths of as many as 40,000 civilians, most of them victims of indiscriminate shelling by Sri Lankan forces” (Washington Post, 4/21/11).
A 2020 Human Rights Watch report noted that Syrian and Russian government forces in the Syrian Civil War used “indiscriminate attacks and prohibited weapons,” while opposition groups carried out “serious abuses, leading arbitrary arrest campaigns in areas they control and launching indiscriminate ground attacks on populated residential areas.”
The news that the ICC was indicting members of a militant anti-government group along with leaders of the government that group opposes falls into that same unsurprising category.
In fact, Khan told the London Times (5/25/24) that he believed Israel had a right to defend itself and seek the return of the October 7 hostages, but not to enact collective punishment on the Palestinians. And “he did not understand, given his warnings to comply with international law over the past months, why anyone was surprised” at his announcement (Jewish Chronicle, 5/26/24).
Some editorial boards have been calling for an end to the butchery in Gaza (LA Times, 11/16/23; Boston Globe, 2/23/24). But there is still a loud, booming editorial voice that is in line with official thinking in Washington: There is no red line for Israel. Anything goes. No matter what atrocity it commits, editorialists will ignore it and proclaim Israel the victim.
Bangkok, May 29, 2024—Proposed amendments to Indonesia’s broadcasting law represent a clear and present danger to press freedom and should be scrapped immediately to uphold and protect democracy, the Committee to Protect Journalists said Wednesday.
According to multiple pressreports citing a leaked draft of the broadcast bill, electronic and television broadcasts of “exclusive investigative journalism” would be restricted under the proposed changes, which are currently tabled for debate in the House of Representatives.
The bill, which also includes prohibitions on broadcasting LGBTQ content, does not provide details on how the proposed ban on investigative reporting would be implemented, Reuters reported, citing the leaked draft. Lawmakers who sit on Commission 1, the House committee overseeing the bill, have said the revisions are initial and still subject to change, the Reuters report said.
“Indonesian lawmakers should immediately scrap their wrongheaded amendments to the broadcasting law,” said Shawn Crispin, CPJ’s senior Southeast Asia representative. “Indonesia’s democracy works precisely because journalists can investigate and report freely on their findings. Any changes to the broadcasting law should protect, not imperil, press freedoms.”
Changes to the 2002 Broadcast Law were first deliberated by legislators in 2020, on the grounds that the law required updating, Reuters reported. If the proposed revisions are passed, they would apply to all content broadcast in the country, including via online streaming platforms, the Reuters report said.
The revised law could be passed as early as September, according to news reports. A discussion of the bill scheduled for Wednesday in the House of Representatives was postponed at the request of the Gerindra Party, a Tempo report said.
Indonesia’s democracy faces new challenges as it transitions from the outgoing President Joko Widodo to president-elect Prabowo Subianto, an ex-soldier linked to rights abuses, including the disappearances of activists in the late 1990s. Prabowo has variously denied and acknowledged the unresolved accusations.
Critics of the proposed amendments quoted in a South China Morning Post report suggested that both Widodo and Prabowo have incentives to curb the media’s ability to investigate their past actions.
Indonesia’s House of Representatives and Executive Office of the President did not immediately reply to CPJ’s emailed request for comment.
Ministers should think again after judges ruled the authoritarian move to constrain demonstrations was unlawful
Judges in the high court have found that the former home secretary Suella Braverman acted unlawfully in making it easier for the police to criminalise peaceful protest. That is a very good thing for society and democracy. The rights of non-violent assembly are among our fundamental freedoms, providing a touchstone to distinguish between a free society and a totalitarian one. Liberty, the civil rights campaigners who took the government to court, ought to be congratulated for standing up for all our rights. At the heart of this case was whether a minister could, without primary legislation, decide what words meant in law. The court, thankfully, thought that such matters were best left to the dictionary.
During protests by environmental groups in the summer of 2023, Ms Braverman had decided to rule by diktat. Consulting only the police, and not the protesters who would have been affected, she used so-called Henry VIII powers that the government had conferred upon itself a year earlier. These allowed her to lower the threshold at which the police would intervene to impose conditions on public protest, defining “serious disruption” as anything “more than minor”. There’s an ocean of difference between the two. But Ms Braverman was unconcerned that she was shamefully pursuing a nakedly authoritarian move to constrain the right of peaceful protest by stripping words of their meaning.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
The Committee to Protect Journalists and nine other organizations representing news media titles, journalists, and campaign groups, urged U.K. authorities on Tuesday to urgently repeal Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which could force publishers to pay the costs of people who sue them — even if the outlet wins.
Section 40, which has never been brought into force, was drawn up following the Leveson Inquiry into British media ethics in 2012 after journalists were found to have hacked the phones of celebrities and a murdered schoolgirl.
CPJ and others called on the U.K. to repeal Section 40, as promised in 2023 via provisions in the Media Bill, as it risks forcing news publishers to sign up to state-backed regulation.
Prosecution of three high-ranking Syrian officials to be tried in absentia could pave way for president’s case
At midnight on 3 November 2013, five Syrian officials dragged arts and humanities student Patrick Dabbagh from his home in the Mezzeh district of Damascus.
The following day, at the same hour, the same men, including a representative of the Syrian air force’s intelligence unit, returned with a dozen soldiers to arrest the 20-year-old’s father Mazzen.
Stockholm, May 14, 2024 — The Committee to Protect Journalists is deeply troubled that as thousands of protesters waited for the results amid a heavy police presence equipped with water cannons and riot gear, the Georgian parliament voted Tuesday to adopt the controversial Russian-style “foreign agents” law that would target foreign-funded media.
Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili said she would veto the bill, but the ruling party controls a large enough majority to override her.
“The passage of ‘foreign agent’ legislation by the ruling Georgian Dream party, despite significant public opposition, is set to stifle media freedom in the lead-up to the parliamentary elections in October,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator, in New York. “Georgian authorities should not advance the Russia-style bill any further unless they want to throw the country off the path to the European Union and into the Kremlin’s embrace. European and international leaders must convey to the Georgian government that the country cannot move forward in its EU aspirations if the law goes into force.”
The law — reintroduced by the ruling party in April following widespread protests that led to its withdrawal last year — would require nonprofits and media outlets receiving more than 20% of their funding from abroad to register as “organizations pursuing the interests of a foreign power” and submit detailed annual financial accounts. Authorities would be granted as-yet unspecified powers to monitor their activities.
Organizations that fail to register or to provide required data would be subject to fines of 25,000 lari (US$9,500) and monthly fines of 20,000 lari ($7,500) for continued non-compliance.
In a speech on April 29, Bidzina Ivanishvili, the founder and honorary chair of the ruling Georgian Dream party and a billionaire who is alleged to maintain close business and political ties with Russia, attacked the West and promised legal reprisals and “punishment” against opponents if the party wins the October elections.
Amid renewed mass protests of the proposed law in recent weeks, CPJ documented police violence against multiple media workers and a coordinated intimidation campaign targeting dozens of government-critical journalists.
On May 10, CPJ and 17 partner organizations sent a letter to Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze urging him to withdraw the draft law and guarantee journalist safety.
The cornerstone of Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation policy should not apply in Northern Ireland because it undermines human rights protections guaranteed in the region under post-Brexit arrangements, a high court judge has ruled.
Parts of the UK’s Illegal Migration Act were also incompatible with the European convention on human rights (ECHR), Mr Justice Humphreys said.
The Labour peer and former Liberty director makes a clear, impassioned case for human rights law, but steers surprisingly clear of thorny political arguments
It may sound a little melodramatic to say that human rights are under attack in Britain. But in the week I opened this book, it certainly didn’t feel that way. Parliament was locked in battle over the Rwanda bill, widely seen as driving a coach and horses through human rights obligations, with Shami Chakrabarti herself in the thick of the fray as a Labour peer. Nigel Farage was once again demanding Britain leave the European convention on human rights – the new passion project for Brexiters who would rather not talk about how Brexit itself is going, and who see the convention as a haven of suspiciously lefty values – while Rishi Sunak was bending over backwards not to rule that out. There’s still something faintly surreal about having to actively make a case for the right to life, liberty, or freedom from being tortured – who doesn’t automatically value these things? – but if Brexit taught us anything, it’s that liberals are surprisingly bad at defending truths that seem so obvious we’ve never given them much thought. This time, it pays to be ready.
Chakrabarti has already covered some of this ground in her brilliant first book, On Liberty, in which she reflected on her time running the civil liberties organisation of that name and somehow pulled off the rare feat of tackling extremely serious issues without taking herself too seriously. This third book, however, feels more like sitting through an undergraduate lecture, albeit an absorbing one.
