This blog is supposed to be an about Human Rights Defenders, not about self promotion. I know!
However, this very long interview is both and therefore belongs here.
Posts Tagged ‘ICJ’
About the MEA, human rights activism and me
May 1, 2025ICJ seeks Legal Adviser (Human rights and the digital space)
February 3, 2025Although the preferred job location is Bangkok, Thailand (Hybrid), remote work is possible for candidates with the legal right to work in their country, provided the location aligns with the organization’s operational and budgetary considerations.
Start date: March 2025 – Closing date 16 Feb 2025
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is a worldwide organization of judges and lawyers united in affirming international law and rule of law principles that advance human rights. Its strategic goals for 2021-2025 are: (1) to develop, defend, and strengthen international institutions, instruments, and standards on rule of law and human rights; (2) to improve domestic implementation of, and compliance with, international law and standards; (3) to bolster the effectiveness and independence of judges and lawyers; and (4) to improve access to justice for all and accountability. Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, ICJ has a presence in Africa, Latin America, Asia & the Pacific, Europe & Central Asia, and the Middle East.
To lead the implementation of the ICJ’s work on human rights in the digital space at the global and regional levels, we are seeking a full-time Legal Adviser. Key requirements for this role include expertise and working experience related to human rights in the digital space, excellent legal skills and sound political judgment, and proven ability to develop and carry out legal advocacy strategies.
KEY RESPONSIBILITIES
Reporting directly to the Senior Director, Legal and Policy Office, the Legal Adviser is expected to:
• Provide leadership and contribute to the design and implementation of ICJ work related to human rights in the digital space, including the work at the country, regional and global levels;
• Lead and implement work on a global project aimed at developing policy and legal action on protecting human rights in the digital civic space;
• Implement the programme work on human rights in digital space in a way that advances the strategic directions of the ICJ.
REQUIREMENTS
- University degree in law with advanced studies in international human rights law.
- Proven experience working in the area of international human rights law.
- Expertise and working experience related to human rights in the digital space, including in the areas of freedom of expression, right to privacy, non-discrimination and equality, sexual and gender-based violence, and human rights and businesses enterprises.
- Excellent legal skills and sound political judgment and proven ability to develop and carry out legal advocacy strategies.
- Advanced expertise in general international human rights law
- Practical legal and advocacy experience on the implementation of international human rights standards; litigation experience desirable.
- English native speaker level; knowledge of Spanish, French, and/or Arabic an asset.
- Demonstrated analytic and writing ability, including substantial report-writing experience;
- Excellent written and oral communication skills;
- Excellent interpersonal skills and ability to work as part of a multi-cultural team;
- Demonstrated commitment to human rights and the rule of law;
- Availability to start in March 2025 is required.
How to apply
Interested applicants should provide the materials outlined below to recruitment@icj.org by 16 February 2025, midnight Central European Time (CET). Early applications are encouraged as they will be reviewed on a rolling basis, the ICJ reserves the right to close this vacancy earlier if a sufficient number of quality applications has been received.
- A CV (maximum 2 pages);
- A cover letter;
- Application form filled out.
Please include “Legal Adviser HRDS” in the subject line of the application e-mail.
https://reliefweb.int/job/4129125/legal-adviser-human-rights-and-digital-space
First World Congress on Enforced Disappearances 15 – 16 January in Geneva
January 15, 2025The first World Congress on Enforced Disappearances will convene from 15 – 16 January in Geneva, marking a pivotal step in the global fight to prevent and eradicate this egregious human rights violation.
This event will bring together governments, victims, civil society organisations, and international bodies to foster dialogue and chart a collective path forward to end enforced disappearances worldwide. Over the course of the two-day event, panel discussions will be held on topics such as international responsibility for the forcibly disappeared, strengthening search procedures, and protecting victims, rights defenders, lawyers and journalists.
See also https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/5E526725-F43B-83FB-3B7E-2B3C56D01F60
and https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/81468931-79AA-24FF-58F7-10351638AFE3
The Congress, open to the press and the public, is co-organised by the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED), the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID), the UN Human Rights Office, and the Convention Against Enforced Disappearances Initiative (CEDI).
Details of the programme are available online. The event will take place at the Geneva International Conference Centre (CICG). Onsite registration is open at the venue.
The Committee on Enforced Disappearances monitors States parties’ adherence to the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which as of to date, has been ratified by 77 States parties. The Committee is made up of 10 members who are independent human rights experts drawn from around the world, who serve in their personal capacity and not as representatives of States parties.
The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances comprises five independent experts from all regions of the world. The Chair-Rapporteur is Ms. Gabriella Citroni (Italy); and the Vice-Chair is Ms. Grażyna Baranowska (Poland); other members are Aua Balde (Guinea-Bissau); Ms. Ana Lorena Delgadillo Perez (Mexico); and Mr. Mohammed Al-Obaidi (Iraq).
https://www.icj.org/wced-1st-world-congress-on-enforced-disappearances/
ICJ new President is human rights defender Carlos Ayala
December 11, 2024On 28 November, 2024 the International Commission of Jurists announced Carlos Ayala as its new President
Ayala brings decades of experience defending the rule of law, advocating for constitutional justice, and championing the rights of marginalized groups
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) proudly welcomes Carlos Ayala as its new President, taking over from Robert Goldman after seven years in the role. A distinguished legal scholar and human rights advocate, Ayala brings decades of experience defending the rule of law, advocating for constitutional justice, and championing the rights of marginalized groups.
Ayala, born in Caracas in 1957, has dedicated his career to advancing human rights. From his early days as a law student at Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, Ayala developed a profound sense of defending rights and social justice, which he carried through his graduate legal studies at Georgetown University and later in his legal practice. He is tenured professor and chair of Constitutional Law and a member of the board of the Ibero-American Institute of Constitutional Law. His commitment has spanned defending indigenous land rights in Venezuela to addressing transitional justice issues across Latin America. Notably, Ayala was instrumental in the landmark decision against blanket amnesty laws for human rights violators in Peru, a victory that set critical international legal precedents.
He has been President of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as well as Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the Americas, and President of the Andean Commission of Jurists, giving him a vision of the human rights landscape that takes in the whole hemisphere of Americas from Alaska to Tierra Del Fuego.
Ayala has worked extensively on issues relating to the independence of the judiciary and he became involved with the OHCHR in monitoring the appointment of judges of several high courts. He states that one of the cases that impacted him most has been that of Venezuelan Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni, who was arrested and detained after making a ruling that implemented a decision of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions which was not in the political interest of the government. She was immediately arrested and her trial lasted 10 years, was a flawed process throughout and ended in a flawed decision to convict.
As President, Ayala envisions the ICJ working as a unified community with other partners and allies committed to reinforcing the rule of law and international justice. Under his guidance, he will support the ICJ to advance human rights standards globally, counter setbacks, and provide critical support to governments, civil society, and multilateral institutions.
“We are facing new threats to reverse the advancement of human rights that we have achieved in the past 70 years – we need to defend against unilateralism and authoritarianism. The ICJ has been actively contributing to stop any setback in international standards, and we will continue this essential work.”
https://www.icj.org/icj-welcomes-its-new-president-human-rights-advocate-carlos-ayala/
Tunisia no longer poster child of Arab spring
June 29, 2023The Human Rights Council should urgently address the deterioration of the human rights situation in Tunisia, four human rights organizations said on 27 June 2023 as the 53rd Council’s session is underway.
In a letter sent to UN Member States’ Representatives on 5 June 2023, the four undersigned organizations warned against the rapidly worsening situation in Tunisia, and urged States to seize the opportunity of the ongoing Human Rights Council’s session to address it. The organizations called on the Council and Member States to press the Tunisian authorities to comply with their obligations under international human rights law particularly those guaranteeing the rights to fair trial, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and non-discrimination.
The Human Rights Council should urge Tunisia to end the ongoing crackdown on peaceful dissent and freedom of expression, and drop charges against, and release, all individuals being detained and prosecuted solely on the basis of their peaceful political activities and the exercise of their human rights. The Council should also call on Tunisia to conduct prompt, thorough, independent, impartial and transparent and investigation into a wave of anti-Black violence – including assaults and summary evictions – against Black African foreign nationals, including migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and bring to justice anyone reasonably suspected to be responsible, and provide victims with access to justice and effective remedies.
Over the past two years, Tunisia has witnessed a significant rollback on human rights. Judicial independence guarantees have been dismantled and individual judges and prosecutors have been subjected to arbitrary dismissal, politicized criminal prosecutions and increased interference by the executive. Lawyers are being prosecuted for the discharge of their professional duties and exercise of their right to freedom of expression.
‘The Tunisian authorities’ interference in the judiciary and attacks on lawyers have greatly undermined the right to fair trial and public trust in the integrity of the justice system. The authorities must ensure that the courts are not weaponized to crush dissent and free expression,’ said International Commission of Jurists’ MENA director Said Benarbia.
Under the guise of ‘fighting offences related to information and communication systems’, punishable by up to a 10 years’ imprisonment and a hefty fine according to Decree Law 54, at least 13 individuals, including journalists, political opponents, lawyers, human rights defenders and activists, have been subject to police or judicial investigations and are facing possible prosecutions.
‘With Tunisia facing political uncertainty and economic crisis, it’s more important than ever that Tunisians be free to debate their country’s future without fear of reprisal. The authorities should strive to allow the effective enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression of everyone; instead, they are attacking it,’ said Rawya Rageh, Amnesty International’s acting deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa.
Last week, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called on the Tunisian authorities to stop restricting media freedoms and criminalizing independent journalism. In a statement published on 23 June, Volker Türk expressed deep concern at the increasing restrictions on the right to freedom of expression and press freedom in Tunisia, noting that vague legislation is being used to criminalize independent journalism and stifle criticism of the authorities. ‘It is troubling to see Tunisia, a country that once held so much hope, regressing and losing the human rights gains of the last decade,’ said the High Commissioner.
Since February 2023, a wave of arrests targeted political opponents and perceived critics of Tunisia’s President, Kais Saied. In the absence of credible evidence of any offences, judges are investigating at least 48 people, such as dissidents, opposition figures, and lawyers, for allegedly conspiring against the State or threatening State security, among other charges. At least 17 of them are being investigated under Tunisia’s 2015 counter-terrorism law.
‘By jailing political leaders and banning opposition meetings, the authorities are dangerously trampling on the fundamental rights that underpin a vibrant democracy. The democratic backsliding and the human rights violations, which are unprecedented since the 2011 revolution, require urgent attention from the Human Rights Council and Member States,’ said Salsabil Chellali, Tunisia director at Human Rights Watch.
Signatories:
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
- Amnesty International
- Human Rights Watch (HRW)
Genocide case against Rohingya population progresses
July 27, 2022The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 22 July, 2022, rejected Myanmar’s preliminary objections to the case brought by Gambia under the international Genocide Convention. The case concerns Myanmar’s alleged genocide against the ethnic Rohingya population in Rakhine State, with a focus on military operations launched in October 2016 and August 2017.
Gambia filed the case before the ICJ in November 2019 alleging that the Myanmar military committed the genocidal acts of “killing, causing serious bodily and mental harm, inflicting conditions that are calculated to bring about physical destruction, imposing measures to prevent births, and forcible transfers … intended to destroy the Rohingya group in whole or in part.”
“The ICJ decision opens the door toward an overdue reckoning with the Myanmar military’s murderous campaign against the Rohingya population,” said Elaine Pearson, acting Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “By holding the military to account for its atrocities against the Rohingya, the World Court could provide the impetus for greater international action toward justice for all victims of the Myanmar security forces’ crimes.”
In February 2022, the ICJ heard Myanmar’s four objections challenging the court’s jurisdiction and Gambia’s legal standing to file the case, as well as Gambia’s response.
In response to Myanmar’s argument that Gambia has no standing to bring the case due to its lack of ties to Myanmar or the Rohingya, the court concluded, “All the States parties to the Genocide Convention thus have a common interest to ensure the prevention, suppression and punishment of genocide, by committing themselves to fulfilling the obligations contained in the Convention.”
By rejecting the preliminary objections, the ICJ is allowing the case to proceed on the merits to examine Gambia’s genocide allegations against Myanmar. Myanmar will now have to submit its response to Gambia’s main arguments filed in October 2020 detailing its case.
The ICJ case is not a criminal case against individual suspects, but a legal action brought by Gambia against Myanmar alleging that Myanmar bears responsibility for genocide as a state.
In December 2019, the court held hearings on Gambia’s request for provisional measures to protect the Rohingya remaining in Myanmar from genocide, which it unanimously adopted in January 2020. The provisional measures require Myanmar to prevent all genocidal acts against the Rohingya, to ensure that security forces do not commit acts of genocide, and to take steps to preserve evidence related to the case. The court also ordered Myanmar to report on its compliance with the provisional measures every six months.
Myanmar is legally bound to comply with the order. However, Human Rights Watch and other groups have continued to document grave abuses against the 600,000 Rohingya remaining in Myanmar, contravening the provisional measures.
The court’s decision on Myanmar’s preliminary objections should encourage the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Canada, and other concerned governments to support Gambia’s case through formal interventions to bolster the legal analysis on specific aspects of the Genocide Convention as it relates to the Rohingya, Human Rights Watch said.
Under article 41(2) of the ICJ Statute, the court’s order for provisional measures is automatically sent to the UN Security Council. As the fifth anniversary of the military’s atrocities against the Rohingya approaches, Security Council members should take steps to address the failure to secure justice and security for the Rohingya. Council members should work to adopt a resolution that gives the International Criminal Court (ICC) a mandate over the situation in Myanmar and severs the junta’s supply of arms and revenue, even if the resolution would be vetoed by Russia or China.
As the Myanmar armed forces continue to carry out atrocities against civilians and ethnic minorities, the ICJ remains one of the few available paths for holding the military to account. Ethnic groups and human rights defenders have aligned in Myanmar to push for the establishment of democratic rule, efforts that are amplified by the pursuit of justice at the ICJ.
“Concerned governments seeking to be leaders for accountability in Myanmar should formally intervene in the Genocide Convention case,” Pearson said. “The case provides an important opportunity to scrutinize the Myanmar military’s abusive policies and practices that have preserved its power over decades.”
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/07/22/world-court-rejects-myanmar-objections-genocide-case
Today is the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances, also in Nepal
August 30, 2021Enforced disappearance refers to the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by agents of the State, or those acting with State authorization or support, whose whereabouts are unknown.
Once largely the product of military dictatorships, it has become a global problem, according to the UN, with hundreds of thousands of people “disappeared” in more than 80 countries. Impunity remains widespread.
While strictly prohibited under international human rights law, the SG, Mr. Guterres said enforced disappearance continues to be used across the world as a method of repression, terror, and stifling dissent.
“Paradoxically, it is sometimes used under the pretext of countering crime or terrorism. Lawyers, witnesses, political opposition, and human rights defenders are particularly at risk,” he added.
Having been removed from the protection of the law, victims, who can include children, are deprived of all their rights and are at the mercy of their captors.
They are frequently tortured and know that it is unlikely anyone will come to their aid. Some are even killed.
“Enforced disappearance deprives families and communities of the right to know the truth about their loved ones, of accountability, justice and reparation,” the Secretary-General said.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has added to the agony and anguish of enforced disappearance, by limiting capacities to search for missing persons and investigate alleged enforced disappearance.”
It was established by the UN General Assembly, which adopted a resolution in December 2010 expressing deep concern about the rise in incidents in various regions, and increasing reports of harassment, ill-treatment and intimidation of witnesses of disappearances, or relatives of people who were disappeared.
The resolution also welcomed the adoption of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which calls for countries to take measures to hold perpetrators criminally responsible.
“The Convention for the Protection of all Persons against Enforced Disappearances is indispensable in helping to tackle this cowardly practice. But it requires the will and commitment of those with the power to do so,” the Secretary-General said. “States must fulfil their obligations to prevent enforced disappearance, to search for the victims, and to investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators.”
Mr. Guterres reiterated his call for countries to ratify the Convention, and to work with the UN Committee that monitors its implementation, as well as the Working Group on Enforced Disappearances, which assists families in determining the fate of their loved ones.
On this day Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) issued a statement that the government of Nepal should promptly enforce Supreme Court rulings and permit the regular courts to try cases of enforced disappearance and other grave international crimes. On the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances, August 30, 2021, thousands of Nepali families are no closer to knowing the truth of what happened to their missing loved ones than they were when the country’s armed conflict ended 15 years ago.
Nepal’s Supreme Court has repeatedly ordered the government to investigate gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law during the conflict from 1996 to 2006, and to conduct a meaningful, effective transitional justice process to establish the truth and provide justice for thousands of cases of serious abuses.
“The Nepali government stands in blatant violation of express orders of the Supreme Court by failing to conduct a credible, timely transitional justice process,” said Mandira Sharma, senior legal adviser for South Asia at the ICJ.
The International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/08/30/nepal-stop-stalling-enforced-disappearance-inquiries
Chilean human rights defender, José (Pepe) Zalaquett, no more
February 22, 2020
José Zalaquett was a prominent lawyer and academic, who fought for human rights, truth and justice worldwide.
Amnesty International and others announced on 17 February 2020 the passing of José Zalaquett (Pepe), one of the leading lights of the human rights movement in the last quarter of the 20th century.
He was born on 10 March,1942 and died on 15 February 2020. He initiated his human rights work as a law student campaigning for Salvador Allende in Chile. Upon Allende’s election as president in 1970, José Zalaquett served as cabinet minister, which he left for a post at the university. In 1973, General Augusto Pinochet launched a violent military coup which forcibly ousted the elected government of Allende and imposed a military dictatorship from 1973 to 1990. In that period, thousands of people were arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. In the aftermath of the coup, José Zalaquett founded the Committee for Peace to help the victims of the military regime. Under Zalaquett’s leadership, the committee, later known as the Vicaría de la Solidaridad, was the foremost human rights organization operating in Chile throughout the dictatorship. The Vicaría defended hundreds of detainees and helped family members of the disappeared to demand legally the whereabouts of their loved ones. In retaliation for his work, José Zalaquett was imprisoned in 1975 and 1976, and sent into exile in 1976.
He left Chile with two military officers walking him all the way to his plane, where they sat him down and buckled his seatbelt. He moved first to France and then to the USA, where he joined Amnesty International to demand with many other Chilean exiles an end to Pinochet’s dictatorship and raise awareness internationally about the situation in his home country. Pepé, as he was known, became Chair of the International Executive Committee of Amnesty International, and later its Deputy Secretary General.
José Zalaquett was a prominent human rights lawyer who leaves behind an enormous legacy. His time with Amnesty International, as a Chair of the international Board and later as a Deputy Secretary General, was a gift for us. His wisdom and passion to fight for the rights of people have been an inspiration for Amnesty’s movement
Ten years later, he returned to Chile. In 1990 José Zalaquett was appointed to the National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation, and with his nine colleagues wrote a report on the fate of the victims of the Pinochet regime. As such, he became an internationally respected authority on truth and reconciliation, advising similar human rights commissions on three continents. From 2001-2005 José served as a Commissioner at Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, including a term as its Chairman. He was also member of the International Commission of Jurists and of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Transparency and Public Probity, and a board member of the Chilean chapter of Transparency International. José Zalaquett conducted human rights missions to numerous countries in Africa, the Americas, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, working on transitional justice issues. He wrote extensively about human rights in books, specialized journals and newspapers.
He was a prominent professor at different universities. José Zalaquett received honorary doctorates from the University of Notre Dame and the City University of New York. His awards include a MacArthur Foundation award (1990 to 1995), the UNESCO Prize for the Teaching of Human Rights (1994), the B’nai B’rith Human Rights Award, and the National Prize for Humanities and Social Sciences (Chile, 2003).
“José Zalaquett was a prominent human rights lawyer who leaves behind an enormous legacy. His time with Amnesty International, as a Chair of the international Board and later as a Deputy Secretary General, was a gift for us. His wisdom and passion to fight for the rights of people have been an inspiration for Amnesty’s movement,” said Sarah Beamish, Amnesty International’s Chair of the International Board.
Side event preparing the UPR process on Turkey
January 22, 2020In the framework of the 35th session of the Universal Periodic Review, Press Emblem campaign (PEC) and International Observatory for Human Rights (IOHR) are organising a side event entitled ‘Information meeting on the UPR process in Turkey‘ within the Palais des Nations on Monday, 27 of January, Room XXV from 1 to 2.30 pm.
Key Note Speaker:
Ambassador Stephen Rapp Former United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues in the Office of Global Criminal Justice
Panel 1: Press Freedom
Guest Speakers
Mr Yavuz Baydar: Editor-in-Chief of Ahval
Ms Evin Barış Altıntaş: Journalist & Blogger
Mr Massimo Frigo: Senior Legal Advisor for International Commission for Jurists
Panel 2: Human Rights Defenders
Guest Speakers
Şebnem Korur Fincancı – President of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey
Nurcan Baysal – Award-winning Turkish Human Rights Defender & Journalist [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2018/05/18/breaking-news-five-front-line-award-winners-2018-announced/]
Anne van Wezel – Former Co-Chair, EESC EU-Turkey Joint Consultative Committee
Moderator: Louise Pyne Jones, Head of Research, IOHR
ICJ Report on freedom of information in South East Asia especially on-line
December 23, 2019
Malaysian cartoonist Zunar helps launch a report by the International Commission of Jurists at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand. (Photo by Osama Motiwala/ICJ))
On 16 December 2019 Dave Kendall wrote in the Bankok Post about the International Commission of Jurists(ICJ), having released a report called Dictating the internet: Curtailing free expression, opinion and information online in Southeast Asia. The report was presetned at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand, where some of the human rights defenders featured in the case studies participated in a panel discussion. The Malaysian cartoonist Zunar, [https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/07/18/fight-through-cartoons-zunar/] drew a cartoon live on stage; it showed a government figure placing handcuffs around the two ‘O’s in the word Google.
The ICJ has a slightly different take from other non-governmental organisations that seek to protect freedom of speech. For the ICJ, the law is both the problem and the solution: Southeast Asian governments use existing laws and draft new ones to stifle dissent, violating international statutes upholding freedom of expression that they themselves have signed onto. The report calls for governments in Southeast Asia to “repeal, amend or otherwise rectify existing legal and regulatory frameworks to bring them in line with their international obligations” — and argues that “legislation framed in human rights terms is also the best and most effective way to protect against the very real threats posed by the spread of hate speech, disinformation online, cyber-attacks and other cybercrimes.”
From left: ICJ director of Asia and the Pacific Frederick Rawski, Myanmar surgeon Ma Thida, human rights defender Sutharee Wannasiri, Singaporean activist Jolovan Wham and Malaysian cartoonist Zunar (Photo by Dave Kendall)
“It’s not a pretty picture,” Frederick Rawski, ICJ director of Asia and the Pacific told the forum. “Laws are used to harass and threaten human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists and others…New legal frameworks are being seen as an opportunity to consolidate and protect political power.” Corporations, too, have joined the party. “Businesses are using strategic lawsuits to avoid criticism, claiming they are protecting their businesses interests,” Sutharee Wannasiri told the audience. [https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/05/04/international-civil-society-week-3-human-rights-defenders-engaging-business/]. The human rights activist is out on bail.
Governments have often cited vague concepts of “national security” and “public order” to justify using disproportionate means to shut down opposing views, sometimes even when privately expressed. “I was sentenced to 23 years in prison in 1993,” said Dr Ma Thida, a Myanmar surgeon, writer, and human rights activist. “The first charge was ‘endangering national serenity’.” She said the use of speech-suppressing colonial-era laws such as the National Secrets Act has actually increased since Aung San Suu Kyi joined the Myanmar government.
Governments across Southeast Asia vary in the subtlety — or otherwise — they employ in using the law to stifle dissent. “The police were very nice to me,” recalled Jolovan Wham, a Singaporean civil and labour rights activist [https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/02/24/human-rights-defender-jolovan-wham-in-singapore-sentenced-ngos-dismayed/]. “They asked me, ‘Is the room too cold? Would you like some biscuits?’ Singapore introduced its Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act this year. “Singapore has a very good PR machine… they use democratic processes for authoritarian ends,” said Mr Wham. “They made a show of democratic consultation to justify this repressive law.”
The ICJ report was welcomed by Sutawan Chanprasert, the founder of DigitalReach, a new organisation campaigning to protect digital rights in Southeast Asia. “The report shows that while technology gives more opportunities for people to express themselves on social media, the state is moving to control the online space too,” she told the Bangkok Post. “Under repressive ‘fake news’ laws, any content can be interpreted as ‘fake’, ‘false’ and ‘misleading’. And tech has provided a new kind of threat to freedom of expression– digital surveillance of political dissidents.”
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 