Posts Tagged ‘Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)’

Panayote Dimitras – a Greek migrants’ rights defender – suffers judicial harassment

August 22, 2024

August 14, 2024:The recent summons by the Athens Magistrate marks a new development in Mr Dimitras’ long history of judicial harassment, this time also prospecting the criminal prosecution of his wife, constituting a major violation of their right to defend human rights as well as of the recently adopted European Union (EU) anti-SLAPP Directive. The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (FIDH-OMCT) urges the Greek authorities to put an immediate end to this practice of harassment and to ensure that all human rights defenders in the country can carry out their legitimate activities without hindrance or fear of reprisals.

his earlier troubles

Panayote Dimitras is a Greek migrants’ rights defender and Spokesperson of the Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM) who, over the past ten years, has faced continuous episodes of judicial harassment as well as vicious smear campaigns deliberately aimed at discrediting him and his work. In the latest development, Mr Dimitras and his wife – Nafsika Papanikolatou – were summoned on May 31, 2024, by an Athens Magistrate carrying out a preliminary criminal investigation into alleged breach of trust and money laundering (in violation of paragraph 1 of Article 390 of the Greek Criminal Code and paragraphs 1 b) and 1 c) of Article 39 of Law 4557/2018, respectively), following the opening of a criminal case by the Athens First Instance Prosecutor. Mr Dimitras and Ms Papanikolatou replied to the summons and their file is in the hands of the Athens First Instance Prosecutor since then.

Exactly one year earlier, on May 31, 2023, the Greek Anti-Money Laundering Authority had already ordered the freezing of Mr Dimitras’ and Ms Papanikolatou’s personal account, pending an investigation into alleged misuse of donations to the Communication and Political Research Society (ETEPE) – a non-profit research organisation co-founded in 1990 by Mr Dimitras that manages human rights NGOs like GHM and Minority Rights Group – Greece (MRG-G). The same day the order was issued, Greek media published apparently leaked and inaccurate information about the case, reporting that all Mr Dimitras’ personal assets as well as those of the NGOs headed by him had been frozen, and that the alleged money laundering concerned funding received mainly from the EU “to support human rights causes” that “was used for other purposes than those claimed.” In fact, only a joint personal account of Mr Dimitras and Ms Papanikolatou had been frozen, and Mr Dimitras was accused of misusing, between 2010 and 2015, private donations to ETEPE amounting to 178.666,80 Euros and not EU funding.

Mr Dimitras and Ms Papanikolatou received the official notification from the Anti-Money Laundering Authority only one month and a half after the decision to freeze their personal account was taken, thereby delaying their right to access a remedy. The account freeze was initially ordered for nine months and then renewed for another nine months in February 2024. At the time of publication of this statement, the freeze is still effective notwithstanding Mr Dimitras’ and Ms Papanikolatou’s repeated requests to terminate it.

In another court case, the Three-Member Misdemeanours Court of Athens acquitted, in April 2024, Panayote Dimitras after five years of judicial harassment. Mr Dimitras was prosecuted under criminal charges of “false accusation” and “aggravated defamation” (Articles 229 and 363 of the Criminal Code of Greece, respectively) for having denounced racist comments from a public official, Christos Kalyviotis, who in return filed a complaint against Mr Dimitras for defamation.

The Observatory recalled, already at that time, that the procedure initiated by Mr Kalyviotis was only one of many abusive cases brought against Mr Dimitras over the past few years and constitutive of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), abusive civil proceedings aimed at criminalising human rights defenders and journalists.

Notably, since November 2022 a criminal case is ongoing against Panayote Dimitras at the Kos Court of First Instance in which he is accused of “forming or joining for profit and by profession a criminal organisation with the purpose of facilitating the entry and stay of third country nationals into Greek territory” under several articles of Law 4251/2014 (Immigration and Social Integration Code), for having provided humanitarian assistance to asylum-seekers. On January 23, 2023, preventive measures were imposed pending trial. Mr Dimitras was banned from carrying out activities with the GHM, a measure which was subsequently lifted. He was also banned from leaving the country, subjected to the obligation to report to the police station of his place of residence every 15 days, and required to pay a bail of 10,000 Euros.

More than one-and-a-half year later, these last three measures are still in place, with the consequence that Mr Dimitras cannot travel abroad for GHM human rights activities. In August 2023, he requested that the travel ban be lifted so that he could attend international meetings, and to be allowed temporarily to report to the police station in Kelafonia, where he has a summer home. Both requests were rejected by the First Instance Court of Kos. The European Parliament expressed concern about these measures in its resolution of February 7, 2024, on the rule of law and media freedom in Greece (2024/2502(RSP)). The responses provided by the Supreme Court and the Greek government to the resolution are of particular concern and seem to constitute both smear campaigns against Mr Dimitras as well as violations to his right to a fair trial, as it was falsely claimed that he had been arrested and that he had contacted a human smuggler.

The Observatory recalls that the anti-SLAPP Directive adopted by the European Parliament entered into force on May 6, 2024. The Observatory encourages the Greek authorities to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive and to ensure its effective implementation to protect human rights defenders from abusive proceedings.

The Observatory expresses concern about the continued judicial harassment against Mr Dimitras and its recent enlargement towards his wife. The Observatory urges the Greek authorities to put an immediate end to all acts of harassment against Panayote Dimitras and Nafsika Papanikolatou and to allow their free exercise of the right to defend human rights.

https://www.fidh.org/en/region/europe-central-asia/greece/greece-continued-judicial-harassment-of-migrants-rights-defender

UNDP report says Thai human rights defenders are targeted by businesses

February 23, 2024

A new UN report claims that, between 2001 and 2021, 30% of outspoken Thai activists experienced violence resulting in a loss of life, by the businesses against which they had campaigned. Released by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), on 11 February 2024, the report says that businesses have used legal action, intimidation and violence to silence human rights defenders.

The categories of abuse faced by human rights defenders, per the report.

Activists, affected villagers and attorneys are among the groups considered to be human rights defenders in the report. Over the last 25 years, businesses filed 109 lawsuits against human rights defenders. 68.9% of these were by those with stakes in the mining, livestock and energy industries.

One anonymous interviewee said the lawsuits are used as strategic roadblocks and that they found themselves “going to court approximately once a month, incurring expenses and losing time.” Outside of the judicial system, human rights defenders were reportedly spied upon, or threatened with violence and job loss.

“After making a turn in my car, someone fired shots at me,” claims another anonymous interviewee, adding “I was in the orchard, a single home in the orchard. It was dark. Five shots were fired. I did not report the case, thinking it was an act of intimidation.”

4% of human rights defenders have died or been forcibly disappeared in the 25 years covered by the report, published on February 12th, the International Day for the Prevention of Violent Extremism.

In 2015, Thailand pledged to work towards the fulfilment of the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), alongside other members of the organisation. SDG 16, one of the goals, asks countries to “uphold peace, justice and strong institutions,” and another, SDG 10, aims for “reduced inequalities”.

The report recommends that government and relevant agencies recognize the status and importance of human rights defenders and develop measures that protect them from violence and harassment.

https://www.undp.org/thailand/blog/human-rights-defenders-reports

https://www.thaipbsworld.com/undp-report-says-human-rights-defenders-are-targeted-by-businesses-30-are-victims-of-violence-resulting-in-loss-of-life

EU observes International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists:

November 2, 2023

Ahead of the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists on 2 November, and in the year that marks the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, High Representative Josep Borrell and Vice-President Věra Jourová issued the following statement:

“In these difficult times, marred by wars*, conflict and terrorist acts, we recall and praise the essential role played by journalists and media workers in fighting for the truth and for human rights. Journalists contribute to counter disinformation and hate speech and to keep checks and balances on governments and public institutions. They shed light on war crimes and human rights violations, sometimes at the risk of their own lives.

We firmly condemn the killings, physical attacks, arbitrary detentions, online and offline intimidation, harassment, and surveillance, that journalists at times face while exercising their profession. Media worldwide continue to be raided or closed, and journalists are increasingly targeted by legislation that curtails freedom of expression, and by abusive litigation, thus limiting pluralism, editorial independence, and infringing freedom of expression.

The EU remains committed to support independent journalists and media workers everywhere. We will continue to mobilise all the diplomatic tools at our disposal to raise attention to individual cases of journalists in detention or at risk. We have also established ProtectDefenders.eu to provide journalists at high risk with physical and digital protection, legal support, and relocation.

Under the Global Europe Human Rights and Democracy programme, the EU provides €185 million for support to independent media, harnessing digitalisation worldwide.

Protecting journalists means protecting our own rights. Democracy cannot work without free and independent media. This is why the EU is also taking unprecedented steps at home to protect journalists.

We call on Member States to implement the Commission Recommendation on the safety of journalists. The proposal for a Media Freedom Act aims to safeguard their independence and media pluralism. The Commission also took action to fight strategic lawsuits against public participation, which put pressure on journalists and want to silence them. These legislative proposals should be adopted swiftly to improve the environment in which journalists and media operate and to set global standards. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/07/02/eu-directives-for-slapps-and-media-freedom-being-weakened-european-parliament-should-come-to-the-rescue/

The European Union stands with journalists around the world who, each and every day, exercise their freedom of expression for the benefit of us all.”

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/de/statement_23_5447

EU directives for SLAPPs and Media Freedom: a long journey

July 2, 2023
Protesters hold photos of slain journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia outside the office of the Prime Minister of Malta on Nov. 29, 2019

Maria Psara – writing for Euronews of 27June 2023 – says that European Union member States are trying to water down the directives for SLAPPs and Media Freedom…European lawmakers are accusing member states of trying to water down EU legislation aimed at strengthening protections for journalists and media freedom. 

The European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) will on Tuesday vote on an anti-SLAPP directive first proposed by the Commission in April 2022 and that would enable judges to swiftly dismiss manifestly unfounded lawsuits against journalists and human rights defenders.  [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/04/28/eu-finally-moves-on-law-to-protect-media-from-legal-abuse-slapps/]

It would also establish several procedural safeguards and remedies, such as compensation for damages, and dissuasive penalties for launching abusive lawsuits. The JURI vote will form the basis of the Parliament’s position in negotiations with member states if it is also endorsed by the plenary in mid-July.

SLAPPs or Strategic lawsuits against public participation are a particular form of harassment used primarily against journalists and human rights defenders to prevent or penalise speaking up on issues of public interest. The Commission’s proposal has been dubbed as the ‘Daphne Law’ in honour of murdered Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.

Member states, which together form the Council of the EU, have however sought to water down the text, drawing criticism for the Commission.

“I would like to express my regret concerning the weakening of the remedies against abusive court proceedings, in particular the deletion of the provision on compensation of damage and the weakening of the provision on award of costs,” Didier Reynders, Commissioner for Justice, said earlier this month after member states agreed on their negotiating position. 

Parliament is seeking to redress that with German MEP Tiemo Wölken (S&D), the rapporteur on the draft directive, telling Euronews: “We made it stronger and we also added other provisions such as a creation of an ‘one stop shop’ which the SLAPPs targets can contact to receive help by dedicated national networks of specialized lawyers, legal practitioners and psychologists.”

It is not the first time member states are accused of trying to water down a proposal on media freedom.  Earlier this month, a deal among the 27 member states on the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) made a lot of eyebrows rise, because of a planned exemption to allow for the wiretapping of journalists. The regulation, first proposed by the Commission in September 2022, included safeguards against political interference in editorial decisions and against surveillance. The EU’s executive wanted to put focus on the independence and stable funding of public service media as well as on the transparency of media ownership and the allocation of state advertising.

“We have welcomed in particular as a political symbol the draft regulation for EMFA, as the Commission for the first time has adopted a legislative act dealing with all media, a traditionally sensitive subject dealt with at national level only,”  Renate Schroeder, director of the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), told Euronews. Yet, the EPJ and other NGOs, still criticised the proposal as “not ambitious enough”.

“In particular we believed that Article 4 on the protection of journalists’ sources and protection from surveillance has not met Council of Europe standards. We also advocated for stronger binding rules on media transparency,” Schroeder added.

But member states are seeking to add an exemption to Article 4, introduced by France and opposed by Germany only, that would allow them to spy on journalists in the name of national security.

The original proposal sought to ensure that governments could not “detain, sanction, intercept, subject to surveillance or search and seizure” journalists in order to uncover their sources, unless “justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest” while the deployment of spyware was to be restricted only to “serious crimes”. 

The Council’s is hoping to broaden the number of offenses allowing such surveillance from 10 to 32.

“The text doesn’t protect journalists anymore and thereby makes the Act almost useless for journalists’ protection at least,” Schroeder said. 

“It still proposes useful tools when it comes to independence of public service media, transparency on state advertisement, some minimum rules on media ownership and on editorial independence. But yes, some member-states are afraid of journalism and thereby give hands to illiberal countries such as Hungary who oppose the Act. We hope the European Parliament will be firm, but we are not too optimistic,” underlined the director of EFJ.

However, on 12 July, with 498 votes to 33 and 105 abstentions, MEPs adopted their negotiating position on new rules to protect those working on matters of public interest like fundamental rights, the activities of public officials or corruption allegations.

On 27 February 2024, the European Parliament formally adopted that text, which has now been published. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=105f78e8-27de-4fa3-99b1-6ed97c4d659f

See also: https://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2023-07-11/local-news/Protection-of-journalists-in-the-EU-MEPs-back-rules-to-stop-abusive-legal-cases-6736253272

for Latin America, see: https://www.article19.org/resources/inter-american-commission-on-human-rights-ensure-protection-against-slapps/

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/06/26/meps-accuse-eu-countries-of-undermining-attemps-to-protect-journalists

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2023-0223_EN.html

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/08/23/record-number-of-abusive-slapp-lawsuits-filed-in-europe-in-2022-report

and then on 30 November 2023: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/11/30/council-and-eu-parliament-reach-provisional-agreement-on-eu-law-protecting-journalists-and-human-rights-defenders/

and on 29 April 2024 the UN came with: https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/brochures-and-leaflets/impact-slapps-human-rights-and-how-respond

Finally:

https://commission.europa.eu/news/new-eu-rules-protect-against-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-enter-force-2024-05-03_en

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/05/07/joint-statement-civil-society-reaction-adoption-eu-directive-combating-violence

HRW asks to drop charges against Human Rights Defenders in Thailand

March 20, 2023
Three Thai human rights defenders—Angkhana Neelapaijit, Puttanee Kangkun, and Thanaporn Saleephol—face criminal defamation charges for reporting abuses.
Three Thai human rights defenders—Angkhana Neelapaijit, Puttanee Kangkun, and Thanaporn Saleephol—face criminal defamation charges for reporting abuses. © 2022 Prachatai

Prosecutors in Thailand should immediately withdraw the criminal defamation cases brought by Thammakaset Company Ltd. against three prominent human rights defenders for their support of other activists facing criminal charges, Human Rights Watch said on 16 March 2023. The Thai government should act to repeal criminal defamation provisions and introduce strong safeguards to prevent the use of frivolous, vexatious, or malicious legal actions that would have chilling effects on free speech.

On March 14, 2023, the Bangkok South Criminal Court began the trial that involves 28 counts of alleged criminal defamation under Thailand’s Criminal Code sections 326 and 328. The charges stem from posts or re-posts on social media by Angkhana Neelapaijit, Puttanee Kangkun, and Thanaporn Saleephol expressing solidarity with other human rights defenders already facing lawsuits brought by Thammakaset for alleging labor rights abuses at the company’s chicken farm in Lopburi Province. The company has filed at least 37 civil and criminal cases against rights defenders, journalists, and workers since 2016.

See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/03/03/fortify-rights-calls-on-thailand-to-drop-charges-against-human-rights-defender-angkhana-neelapaijit/

The Thai authorities should not help companies use criminal defamation or other legal avenues to silence workers from filing complaints about their working conditions or human rights defenders or journalists for reporting about alleged abuses at the company,” said Elaine Pearson, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The charges against Angkhana, Puttanee, and Thanaporn should be immediately dropped, and Thai authorities should act to prevent similar cases from being filed in the future.”

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has stated in its General Comment No. 34 on freedom of expression that governments “should put in place effective measures to protect against attacks aimed at silencing those exercising their right to freedom of expression, including persons who engage in the gathering and analysis of information on the human rights situation who publish human rights-related reports.”

On December 16, 2022, the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights urged Thai authorities to take action to stop the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) lawsuits increasingly used by Thai companies to intimidate reporters and human rights advocates.

The Working Group specifically mentioned Thammakaset, stating that: “The cases filed by companies, such as Thammakaset Company Limited, against human rights defenders are a clear example of businesses abusing the legal system in order to censor, intimidate, and silence criticism through SLAPPs as a method of judicial harassment.” See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/04/28/eu-finally-moves-on-law-to-protect-media-from-legal-abuse-slapps/

Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha has repeatedly emphasized the importance of companies respecting human rights in their operations and upholding the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. In October 2019, Thailand was the first country in Asia to announce a National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, committing to protect human rights defenders and prevent judicial harassment. But the charges against Angkhana, Puttanee, and Thanaporn, as well as the failure to assist those still facing many of the other civil and criminal cases filed by Thammakaset, stand in stark contradiction to the Thai government’s pledges to take action to protect rights, Human Rights Watch said.

In 2018, the National Assembly amended the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent the misuse of criminal cases. While that is a useful step, the Thai government should repeal all criminal defamation provisions. Neither prosecutors nor courts in Thailand have actually carried out, much less considered, amended section 161/1, which allows judges to dismiss and forbid the refiling of a criminal complaint by a private individual if the complaint is filed “in bad faith or with misrepresentation of facts to harass or take advantage of a defendant.” Furthermore, section 165/2 allows the presentation of evidence to show that the complaint “lacks merit.”

These reform provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code remain unused and untested, though. It is also crucial to provide prosecutors with adequate resources and support to exercise their powers under section 21 of the 2010 Public Prosecutor Organ and Public Prosecutors Act to screen out frivolous cases.

Human Rights Watch, along with an increasing number of governments and international agencies, has consistently called for the repeal of criminal defamation laws because they are an inherently disproportionate punishment for expressions of speech judged to damage reputations. Civil defamation laws, when supplemented by strong anti-SLAPP safeguards, balance the need for fair reporting in the public interest with concerns about reputational harm to private actors. In addition, as the charges against Angkhana, Puttanee, and Thanaporn show, criminal defamation laws in Thailand are easily abused and can have adverse impacts on free expression in the public interest.

Thailand should enact comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation to strengthen safeguards to protect freedom of speech and expression and prevent retaliation against workers, human rights defenders, and journalists, Human Rights Watch said.

The UN special rapporteur on rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and association recommended that “States should protect and facilitate the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association to ensure that these rights are enjoyed by everyone” including by “enacting anti-SLAPPs legislation, allowing an early dismissal (with an award of costs) of such suits and the use of measures to penalize abuse.”See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapps/

“The UN and governments from around the world should share with Thailand their reform efforts to strengthen anti-SLAPP protections and point out that criminal defamation laws coupled with the absence of strong anti-SLAPP protections impede the ability of businesses to conduct essential human rights and environmental due diligence,” Pearson said. “Unless the Thai government moves now to protect Angkhana, Puttanee, and Thanaporn from retaliation, the promises that Thai officials made on business and human rights will ring hollow.”

https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/03/16/thailand-drop-charges-against-rights-defenders

EU finally moves on law to protect media from legal abuse (SLAPPs)

April 28, 2022

I have devoted posts to this important issue before [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapps/]. Let us not forget that Daphne Caruana Galizia was facing 40 lawsuits when she was murdered. See: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/70b0bee4-9af2-40c6-a11e-5b9ad159b96f

Andrew Rettman writing in the EUObserver of 27 April 2022

Independent media should have less to fear in future from malicious lawsuits, after the EU Commission put forward a new law to shield them.

Billionaires, big corporations, and autocrats have, in recent years, resorted ever more frequently to so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) in order to try to gag adversaries.

But if EU states and MEPs back the commission’s proposed anti-SLAPP directive, then judges will soon get a fresh mandate to throw out bogus cases — and compensate their victims.

With these measures we are helping to protect those who take risks and speak up when the public interest is at stake,” EU values commissioner Věra Jourová said in Brussels.

We promised to defend better journalists and human rights defenders,” she said. “The new law does that,” Jourová said.

The directive lists criteria which individual judges can, using their discretion on a case-by-case basis, use to decide whether litigation is genuine or abusive.

These include seeking disproportionately huge financial damages or launching multiple cases at the same time, for instance.

The anti-SLAPP law applies to non-EU or “third” countries, giving European judges leeway to annul vexatious judgments against EU nationals if they are doled out in London, for example.

It is delimited to civil cases “with cross-border implication”. This is because EU competences do not cover national and criminal media laws in member states under the terms of Europe’s treaties. It means a Polish journalist or LGBTI rights activist, for example, who is sued by a Polish entity would normally not be covered.

But the “cross-border” element has been drafted by Jourová’s lawyers in a canny way so that if their case arguably had relevance beyond their national borders then the EU law would kick in.

EUobserver has faced three lawsuits in the past three years that were designated as SLAPPs by leading pro-free media NGOs.

The first saw a Luxembourg-based firm sue us in Belgium about an article on disinformation in Malta — an archetypal example of a “cross-border” lawsuit falling under the directive.

The second saw a Belgian firm sue EUobserver in Belgium, but as the story covered VIP-jet leasing security for EU and Nato heads of state from all over Europe this would also be covered under the cross-border clause.

The final one, which is ongoing, involves a Belarusian firm suing EUobserver in Belgium over an article about alleged money-laundering in Cyprus, but this would also likely fall under both the “third-country” and “cross-border” provisions, NGO experts told this website Wednesday in a flash analysis.

The commission “did the best it could do”, given its jurisdiction, Julie Majerczak, from the Paris-based NGO Reporters Without Borders, said. “It’s not perfect, but it’s a big step forward — two years ago we were nowhere on this,” she added…

There were at least 438 SLAPP cases in 24 member states in 2021 targeting 978 people or entities, the commission noted. Journalists in Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Slovenia were being routinely targeted, Reporters Without Borders said. Journalists in Italy and environmental activists in France and Spain were also notable victims, it added.

https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/154815

https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/europe/116496/brussels_unveils_groundbreaking_proposal_to_prevent_and_penalise_slapp_lawsuits_#.Ymqx_5LP1TZ

https://eutoday.net/news/human-rights/2022/slapps-european-commission-seeks-to-tackle-abusive-lawsuits-against-journalists-and-human-rights-defenders

Fortify Rights calls on Thailand to drop charges against human rights defender Angkhana Neelapaijit

March 3, 2022

On 2 March 2022, Fortify Rights called on the Thai authorities to drop all remaining cases brought by Thai chicken company Thammakaset Company Limited against human rights defenders and protect the right to freedom of expression. On February 22, the Bangkok South Criminal Court rescheduled the start of the criminal defamation trial against Angkhana Neelapaijit to 25 April. See: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/0D5DED3E-F79F-4AB4-8261-F6A19486F062
 
Delaying the trial affects access to justice and leaves the defendant in fear and worry,” said Angkhana Neelapaijit. “It affects the person’s livelihood and freedom during the bail process. The delays are incredibly traumatizing.” 
 
Thammakaset first filed a complaint against Angkhana Neelapaijit more than two years ago, on October 25, 2019, alleging criminal defamation for posting two tweets on social media on December 3, 2018 and June 28, 2019 that expressed support for human rights defenders facing lawsuits by the company. On August 16, 2021, the court concluded that the case should proceed to trial following four preliminary hearings that spanned more than 17 months. The court originally scheduled the trial to start on March 3, 2022 but postponed the start due to rising COVID-19 cases in Thailand.
 
Angkhana Neelapaijit also faces a second criminal defamation complaint brought by Thammakaset in June 2020 that is part of a combined case that includes charges against Fortify Rights Senior Human Rights Specialist Puttanee Kangkun and Thanaporn Saleephol, a former Fortify Rights Communications Associate. The complaints against the three women all relate to similar social media posts expressing solidarity with others facing lawsuits brought by Thammakaset. The Bangkok South Criminal Court is scheduled to continue preliminary hearings on the combined case on March 21.

The Community Resource Center Foundationa Thai nonprofit and legal aid organization committed to promoting human rights, community rights, and environmental protection – is providing legal representation to human rights defenders facing complaints by Thammakaset, including in the cases against Angkhana Neelapaijit, Puttanee Kangkun, and Thanaporn Saleephol.

“Thailand should be proud and promote the work and achievements of Angkhana Neelapaijit as a strong Thai woman human rights defender, a winner of the prestigious Magsaysay award, and a former National Human Rights Commissioner,” said Amy Smith, Executive Director of Fortify Rights. “These types of lawsuits create an insecure environment for human rights defenders, hampering their ability to conduct critical activities that benefit the public. The case against Angkhana Neelapaijit and others should be dropped.” See: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2019/08/03/magsaysay-awards-2019-honor-4-outstanding-asians/

On March 31, the Court of Appeal will also decide whether to uphold an earlier decision by the Criminal Court to acquit human rights defender and former Thammakaset employee Nan Win and former Fortify Rights Thailand Human Rights Specialist Sutharee Wannasiri of criminal defamation charges brought by Thammakaset in October 2018.
 
Since 2016, Thammakaset has filed at least 37 complaints against 22 human rights defenders. The courts have dismissed or ruled against the company in almost all cases.
 
In 2018, the National Legislative Assembly amended Section 161/1 of the Thailand Criminal Procedure Code, allowing judges to dismiss and forbid the refiling of a complaint by a private individual if the complaint is filed “in bad faith or with misrepresentation of facts to harass or take advantage of a defendant.” Section 165/2 also allows the presentation of evidence to show that the complaint “lacks merit.” Despite these amendments and specific requests for the court to apply Section 161/1 to prevent cases brought by Thammakaset from moving forward, the courts have allowed these cases to proceed.

See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2020/07/09/andy-hall-finally-acquitted-of-criminal-defamation-in-thailand/

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO2203/S00035/thailand-drop-criminal-complaint-against-2019-magsaysay-award-winner-angkhana-neelapaijit.htm

Kristin Kallesen: another human rights defender victim of a SLAPP

March 16, 2021

I have blogged about Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (SLAPP) suits before [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2020/01/28/ngos-demand-that-rules-against-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-are-upgraded/] and am grateful for alert reader Eddie Laurijsen (former ICFTU and ILO official) to have drawn my attention to this piece by Sheree Bega on 1 March 2021 in the Mail & Guardian:

Century Property Developments and Riversands Developments are suing Kristin Kallesen and her nonprofit, Greater Equestrian Kyalami Conservancy (Gecko), for the income they have allegedly lost because of objections raised by her and Gecko against development approvals in and adjoining the conservancy.

A Johannesburg environmentalist and the conservancy she runs have been slapped with a R197-million lawsuit by two property developers after raising what they allege are “obstructive, delaying and frustrating” objections to their projects in Riversands and Helderfontein.

Century Property Developments and Riversands Developments are suing Kristin Kallesen and her nonprofit, Greater Kyalami Conservancy (Gekco), for the income they have allegedly lost because of objections raised by her and Gekco against development approvals in and adjoining the conservancy.

Kallesen said she and Gekco could not comment at this stage and are seeking legal advice from the Centre for Environmental Rights.

Helen Duigan, of Action for Responsible Management of Our Rivers, said Kallesen’s objections were made in terms of her rights as an interested and affected party. 

This threat against Kirstin and Gekco should be opposed vehemently,” said Duigan. “Gekco has been a bulwark against unremitting pressure from development, pushing the urban boundary further and further into natural areas that include essential wetlands and threatened species such as grass owls.

Developers too often use, “for their own profit”, ecosystem services that residents have conserved for many years at their own cost, she said. “In their advertising, developers glorify the open space, the lovely views, the fresh air — which the development tends to destroy.”

In legal papers, the developers say that Kallesen and Gekco have “abused” the statutory objection and public participation procedures because “frivolous and baseless” objections were filed against all the township applications by both defendants, none of which were upheld by the City of Johannesburg.

This, the developers allege, was to “procure delays”, prevent the developers from developing the properties and cause financial harm.

“The defendants, similarly, for the same reason, abused the statutory appeal procedures provided for in the prevailing town planning legislation and have lodged several entirely unsubstantiated and mala fide appeals against the decisions of the municipality, by virtue of which such townships have been approved. 

“Not a single one of such appeals lodged by or on behalf of the defendants have been upheld by the municipal appeal tribunal.”

The financial harm, the developers allege, includes the extension of the holding cost period in respect of such properties before these could be developed in terms of the approved township applications; the continuous escalation of construction costs to be incurred for the development of such properties; the extended period to which the developers were obliged to pay assessment rates charged by the municipality and interest on such amounts as well as the loss of rental income from the delayed occupation of developed structures.”

For Duigan, the lawsuit is a stark reminder of the Strategic Litigation against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit brought in 2005 against five members of the Rhenosterspruit Conservancy, now proclaimed as the Crocodile River Reserve, by Robbie Wray, the developer of Blair Atholl Estate.

“We were sued for R210-million — my share was R45-million. The case was concluded in December 2010 with the developer given short shrift, with costs at the maximum level against him.”

This was the first major SLAPP suit in South Africa, garnering astounding publicity, particularly after the verdict, she said. “It clearly struck a nerve nationally and we were bombarded by calls and letters from people who had been threatened by developers, warning them that they would be dealt with in the same way as the Rhenosterspruit Five. This made people realise that they could oppose intimidation tactics from developers.”

In early February, the high court in Cape Town held that a series of defamation lawsuits totalling R14.25-million brought by the Australian mining company, Mineral Commodities Ltd, and its local subsidiary, Mineral Sands Resources, against three environmental lawyers, two activists and a social worker who criticised its operations is an abuse of legal process.

https://mg.co.za/environment/2021-03-01-property-developers-slap-joburg-environmentalist-and-conservancy-with-r197m-lawsuit/

UN Spotlight on Killing of South African Environmental Defender Mama Fikile

March 16, 2021

.On 15 March 2021 Katharina Rall, Senior Researcher, Environment and Human Rights at Human Rights Watch, wrote about Mama Fikile’s murder, It is almost five months since an environmental activist, Mama Fikile Ntshangase, was gunned down in her home in Somkhele in KwaZulu-Natal province, after raising concerns about a coal mine in the area. No arrests have been made. Mama Fikile had received threats to her life but carried on with what she perceived to be the only way to protect her community’s health and livelihood.

On March 3, the UN expert on human rights defenders used Mama Fikele’s story to begin a new report to the Human Rights Council in Geneva that highlights the risks many environmental defenders operate under, and the widespread attempts to silence their voices.

South African environmental justice groups have urged the government to carry out a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation into Mama Fikile Ntshangase’s killing and ensure that those found responsible are held to account. But her family is still waiting for justice.

Beyond the individual tragedy and injustice, there is another reason the UN expert, Mary Lawlor, highlights the South African case in her global report. Killings of activists create an environment of fear and can have a chilling effect on the people around them. Or, as the UN expert frames it, “[t]here is no more direct attack on civil society space than the killing of human rights defenders.

As a community rights defender opposing coal mining in Fuleni, a small rural village not far from the place where Mama Fikile was killed, Billy Mnqondo once heard gunshots at the gate of his house and was warned by community members that he and his family will be in trouble if he continues to oppose mining. When, in 2018, Human Rights Watch visited Somkhele, Fuleni, and other communities affected by mining, some activists confirmed they were afraid to speak out about the impact of mining in their community, especially after Sikhosiphi “Bazooka” Rhadebe, another prominent environmental rights defender, was killed in Xolobeni in 2016.

Violence and intimidation against those who raise their voices to defend their right to a healthy environment is endemic in South Africa.  Human Rights Watch, in its 2019 report, published jointly with groundWork, the Centre for Environmental Rights, and Earthjustice,  documented how activists in mining-affected communities across the country have experienced threats, physical attacks, or property damage that they believe is retaliation for their activism. Most of these cases are not widely known and have not made headlines like the killings of Sikhosiphi “Bazooka” Rhadebe and Mama Fikile. Yet, investigations into these killings or other attacks are moving very slowly, if at all. 

Other, less brutal ways to silence the voices of environmental rights defenders are nuisance lawsuits, known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPPs) – baseless cases brought forward by companies to intimidate and burden activists with the onerous costs of mounting a legal defense.

South African courts are beginning to take a stance against these tactics. In February, the High Court in Cape Town issued a ruling that strengthens the constitutional right to freedom of expression. The court held that a defamation suit brought by an Australian mining company, Mineral Commodities Ltd (MRC), and its local subsidiary against three attorneys, two activists, and a social worker in relation to their statements about its operations is an abuse of legal process. The defamation trial may still proceed, but activists can now defend themselves by arguing that the Court should assess the SLAPP nature of the case.

Following this ruling it will be harder for corporations to use South Africa’s legal system against citizens and activists to silence and intimidate them when they raise human rights concerns or seek accountability for past abuses. The government should now do its part to follow the recommendations of the UN expert by bringing those responsible for killings of environmental defenders to justice. Unless there are prompt, effective, and impartial investigations into the killings—and those responsible are brought to justice— human rights defenders will continue to live in an environment of fear.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/03/15/un-spotlight-killing-south-african-environmental-defender

EU law on corporate due diligence and SLAPPs: crucial and urgent matters

November 19, 2020

European Parliament is deciding its position on what an EU law on corporate due diligence should look like. Richard Gardiner (a Senior Campaigner for Corporate Accountability at Global Witness) on 2 September  2020 explains more and more recently (11 November 2020) a group of 87 organisations and media freedom groups call on the EU to to protect journalists against gag lawsuits (SLAPPs)

As the European Parliament begins developing proposals for a new – and momentous – law to hold business to account for its impact on people and planet, Richard Gardiner sets out how this process came about and what needs to happen now to ensure this really delivers results.

Where are we now?

Following the publication of the European Commission study on due diligence requirements through the supply chain earlier this year, in April, European Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders announced to the European Parliament Responsible Business Conduct Working Group that he will introduce EU rules on corporate accountability and corporate due diligence in early 2021.

In response to this announcement, Members of the European Parliament are now starting work to develop a European Parliament position on what an EU law on corporate due diligence could look like. This work will take place within the European Parliament Legal Affairs Committee and will be led by MEP Lara Wolters.

The goal of this work is to influence the final Commission legislative proposal and ensure that the Commissioner follows through on his commitment to present an ambitious framework for this law.

Potential to be a real game changer?

Global Witness has long advocated for mandatory corporate accountability rules to tackle corporate abuse against people and planet.

Our recently published report ‘Defending Tomorrow’ shows that while land and environmental defenders continue to act as the first line of defence against climate breakdown, far too many businesses, financiers and governments either fail to protect them or – in the worst examples – can be complicit in the violence they face.

These brave people play a vital role challenging companies operating recklessly, rampaging unhampered through virgin forests, protected wetlands, indigenous territories and biodiversity hotspots. They are on the frontline of our global, collective fight against climate change. However, despite their importance to the preservation of our planet, our report shows that 212 land and environmental defenders were murdered in 2019 – the bloodiest on record, with the deadliest sectors for this violence being mining, agribusiness and logging.

Our findings show that an average of four land and environmental defenders are killed every week since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2016. These are reinforced by our previous investigations on continued deforestation, minerals that fuel and fund conflict, and grand-scale corruption.

There is clearly a legislative gap when governments and citizens have no legal means to hold corporations accountable for their human rights and environmental abuses. As the world’s largest trading bloc, the EU is now looking to lead the global debate on corporate accountability and this new law will shape not only corporate behaviour within the EU but also globally.

What needs to be in this new law?

Civil society united in their calls for the EU to introduce legislation on corporate due diligence. We have consistently pointed to the fact that voluntary measures have proved to be vastly insufficient and new legislation is urgently needed to establish clear, robust and enforceable cross-sectoral requirements on all business enterprises, including financial institutions, to respect human rights and the environment.

As the European Parliament begins to discuss the details of corporate accountability legislation, Global Witness is part of a coalition of NGOs that has published its call to action for the key elements needed to hold businesses to account:

  • The new law must apply to all businesses, including finance, of all sizes and sectors acting in the EU.
  • Business must have a duty to address all the adverse human rights, environmental and governance impacts in their global supply chains.
  • Businesses must conduct Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) Due Diligence to identify, cease, prevent, mitigate, monitor and account for their adverse risks.
  • Businesses must engage and consult with all relevant stakeholders, including human rights defenders and indigenous peoples, as part of their RBC due diligence.
  • Businesses must be made liable for the human rights, environmental and governance adverse impacts in their global value chains.

You can read the full paper here.

So what happens next?

The months between now and the end of the year promise to be extremely interesting on the topic of corporate accountability across all the EU institutions. Firstly, the European Parliament will aim to finalise its advice to the Commission by end 2020 in order to ensure that it can be taken into account in the Commission proposal. Secondly, the Commission has draft plans to release a public consultation on the new due diligence legislation in Autumn 2020 to get public input on how to draft their proposal.

And finally, the German Presidency of the European Council have indicated that due diligence is a key political priority for their Presidency and they will aim to have Council conclusions on this topic by the end of the year. At Global Witness, we will continue to engage with all the European institutions to ensure that EU policy makers live up to their commitments to introduce a meaningful and impactful new law.

SLAPPs: More and more journalists and civil society organisations are being sued by powerful businessmen and politicians. The International Press Institute (IPI) has joined a group of 87 organisations and media freedom groups calling on the EU to ensure those with a watchdog role are protected from gag lawsuits.

‘SLAPP’ stands for Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation. It’s a form of legal harassment designed to intimidate critical voices into silence. Expensive and unscrupulous law firms market this attack-dog service to powerful and wealthy individuals who can afford to drag on abusive proceedings for years just to shield themselves from unwanted public scrutiny. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2020/01/28/ngos-demand-that-rules-against-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapp-are-upgraded/]

This scrutiny is the lifeblood of healthy democratic societies. The European Court of Human Rights and other national and regional courts have consistently and explicitly recognised in their judgments the important role a free press, and more broadly civil society, plays in holding the powerful to account. Their judgments reaffirm the obligation states have to create an environment that is conducive to free speech. Because without this, democracy weakens and dies.

The holes in our laws that allow powerful people to hammer their critics into submission are a hole in European democracy. Cases of abuse pepper the continent. Poland’s second-biggest daily newspaper, Gazeta Wyborcza, has received over 55 legal threats and lawsuits by a number of actors, including from Poland’s ruling party, since 2015.

French businessman Vincent Bolloré and companies affiliated with the Bollore Group have blanketed journalists and NGOs in libel suits to stop them covering his business interests in Africa. In Spain, meat producer Coren is demanding €1 million in damages from an environmental activist for criticising its waste management practices, having previously threatened activists and scientists who were researching nitrate levels in its local waters.

The people we depend on for information about what is happening around us are being distracted, impeded, or entirely blocked from pursuing their work by these costly and resource-intensive legal attacks. The situation is becoming skewed beyond recognition. When it comes to certain people, governments, companies and topics, it’s not writers, film makers or journalists who decide what we read, watch and talk about.

It’s not even the courts, for SLAPPs rarely make it to a hearing, let alone a court judgment. Rather, it’s the oligarchs and their associates in politics, through the lawyers they pay, who are shaping the narrative and preventing the truth from emerging.

We’ve seen a worrying pattern emerge in Europe of government officials or beneficiaries of large public contracts adopting the tactics of celebrities and oligarchs to shield themselves from the heightened level of scrutiny that their positions or financial links to government warrant. The fact that the threats are often cross-border ratchets up the costs for journalists and activists, who find themselves summoned to court far from home in Europe’s most expensive legal jurisdictions.

Awareness of this problem is growing. European Commission Vice-President Věra Jourová has promised to ‘look into all possible options’ to counter the threat SLAPPs pose to European democracy. One promising solution lies in the institutions of the European Union, and it could help realter the balance between pursuers of SLAPPs and the public’s right to be informed of matters in the public interest.

EU-wide legislation should be adopted to protect people across the European Union from SLAPPs. This has to be a priority. As in other parts of the world, rules should be in place across the EU to allow SLAPP suits to be dismissed at an early stage of proceedings, to sanction SLAPP litigants for abusing the law and the courts, and to provide measures to allow victims to defend themselves.

When we consider the importance of public watchdogs such as investigative journalists, activists, and whistleblowers to the rule of law and the fight against corruption, the absence of safeguards is a threat not only to press freedom but to the proper functioning of Europe’s internal market and, increasingly, to Europe’s democratic life.

The reality is that for every journalist or activist threatened with violence in Europe, a hundred more are silenced discreetly by letters sent by law firms, perverting laws meant to protect the reputations of the innocent from attacks by the powerful.

SLAPPs are a far less barbaric means of silencing someone than a car bomb or a bullet to the head, but their silencing effect is often just as destructive.

Signatories