Hungary’s LGBTQI Amendment an Affront to Human Rights, Say Activists

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Editors’ Choice, Europe, Featured, Freedom of Expression, Gender, Headlines, Human Rights, Inequality, LGBTQ, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

LGBTQ

An amendment to Hungary’s constitution includes the banning and criminalisation of Pride marches and their organisers, with penalties including large fines and, in certain cases, imprisonment. Credit: Sara Rampazzo/Unsplash

An amendment to Hungary’s constitution includes the banning and criminalisation of Pride marches and their organisers. Credit: Sara Rampazzo/Unsplash

BRATISLAVA, May 13 2025 (IPS) – A controversial amendment to Hungary’s constitution has left the country’s LGBTQI community both defiant and fearful, rights groups have said.

The amendment, passed by parliament on April 14, includes, among others, the banning and criminalisation of Pride marches and their organisers, with penalties including large fines and, in certain cases, imprisonment.

It also allows for the use of real-time facial recognition technologies for the identification of protestors.

It has been condemned by domestic and international rights groups and members of the European Parliament (MEPs) as an assault on not just the LGBTQI community but wider human rights.

And there are now fears it will lead to a rise in violence against LGBTQI people whose rights have been gradually eroded in recent years under populist prime minister Viktor Orban’s authoritarian regime.

“There is serious concern that this legislative package could lead to an increase in threats, harassment, and violence against LGBTI communities in Hungary. When authorities criminalise Pride organisers and create a chilling effect on peaceful assembly, it not only emboldens hostile rhetoric but also signals impunity for those who wish to intimidate or harm LGBTI people,” Katja Štefanec Gärtner, Communications and Media Officer, ILGA-Europe, told IPS.

“The risks are not theoretical. Pride marches have long been a target for extremist groups, and this legal crackdown sends a dangerous message: that state institutions may no longer protect those marching but instead criminalise them. This creates an unsafe and unpredictable environment for all those standing up for human rights and democratic freedoms,” she added.

The amendment codifies legislation already passed in March banning LGBTQI events. It was met with widespread outrage in the LGBTQI community in Hungary. But there was also defiance, with Pride organisers insisting the event would go ahead.

Budapest’s mayor, Gergely Karácsony, also backed the organisers, pledging last month to help them find a way to hold the event despite the new legislation.

But while LGBTQI activists have said they will not give in to the new law, groups working with the community say some LGBTQI people have been shaken by the legislation.

“Depending on who you speak to, the mood now among the LGBTQI community is one of fear and worry or defiance,” Luca Dudits, press spokesperson for the Hatter Society, one of Hungary’s largest LGBTQI NGOs, told IPS.

“We will see how the new provisions [in the amendment] will affect the lives of LGBTQI people in the upcoming months, especially in June, which is Pride month, with the march taking place on the 28th,” she added, noting that after legislation was passed in 2021 banning the depiction and promotion of “diverse gender identities and sexual orientations” to under 18s, there had been  “a wave of violence and discrimination against LGBTQI people”.

“I’m hoping this will not be the case this time. A lot of people have expressed their solidarity and said that they will attend the Pride March for the first time because of this shameful constitutional amendment,” Dudits said.

Outside Hungary, organisations and politicians have also raised the alarm over the legislation.

In a letter sent to the European Commission (EC) on April 16, dozens of LGBTQI and human rights organisations demanded the EC take immediate action to ensure the event can go ahead and that people can safely attend.

They said the ban on LGBTQI events was an attack on EU fundamental rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression and that its provisions marked a significant infringement on privacy and personal freedoms protected under EU law.

Meanwhile, MEPs among a delegation which visited Hungary from April 14-16 attacked the ban and said they were calling on the EC to request the European Court of Justice to suspend the law pending further legal action.

One of the MEPs, Krzysztof Smiszek, of the Polish New Left, said the new law had led to a rise in violent attacks and hate crimes against the LGBTQI community in Hungary.

The government has defended the amendment, with Orban saying after the vote in parliament that it was designed to “protect children’s development, affirming that a person is born either male or female, and standing firm against drugs and foreign interference”.

The amendment also declares that children’s rights take precedence over any other fundamental right (except the right to life) and codifies in the Constitution the recognition of only two sexes – male and female – essentially denying transgender and intersex identities.

It also allows for the suspension of Hungarian citizenship for some dual nationals if they are deemed to pose a threat to Hungary’s security or sovereignty.

Many observers see the ban and the other measures included in the amendment as part of a wider attempt by Orban’s regime to suppress dissent and weaken rights protections as it looks to consolidate its grip on power by scapegoating parts of the population, including not just LGBTQI people but migrants and civil society groups, to appeal to conservative voters.

“Authoritarian governments around the world have discovered a playbook for keeping in power – it involves vilifying certain communities. That’s the logic behind attacks on LGBTQI communities and that’s what’s behind this. I don’t think Orban cares one way or the other about LGBT people; it’s just that they are an easy target,” Neela Ghoshal, Senior Director of Law, Policy, and Research at LGBTQI group Outright International, told IPS.

“Once you prohibit one form of protest or dissent, it becomes easier to prohibit all forms of dissent. I really do think Orban wants to prohibit all forms of dissent. He is seeking absolute power; he is not interested in the traditional architecture of democracy, i.e., checks and balances and accountability,” she added.

Dudits also pointed out the absurdity of the reasoning behind the government’s defence of the amendment.

“It is true that a large majority of society are either male or female. However, there are some people who have sex characteristics (chromosomes, hormones, external and internal sex organs, and body structure) that are common to both sexes. Intersex conditions occur in many different forms and cover a wide range of health conditions. The amendment is therefore even scientifically unsound, contradicting the very biological reality that it claims to be defending so belligerently,” she said.

If picking up voter support is behind the regime’s attacks on its perceived critics, it is unclear to what extent this policy is working.

Parliamentary elections are due to be held in Hungary in April next year and current polls put Orban’s Fidesz party – which has been in power since 2010 – behind the main opposition party, Tisza, amid voter concerns about a struggling economy, a crumbling healthcare system, and alleged government corruption.

Meanwhile, although some MEPs have publicly condemned the amendment, since the parliamentary vote the EC has said only that it needs to analyse the legislative changes to see if they fall foul of EU law but would not hesitate to act if necessary.

Rights groups say EU bodies must take action or risk allowing even greater curbs on freedoms in Hungary under Orban.

“From scapegoating LGBT people to suspending Hungarian citizenship of dual citizens, the Hungarian government is cementing a legal framework that is hostile to the rule of law, equality, and democracy in blatant violation of EU law,” Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said in a press release.

“Orban has shown once more his willingness to trample rights and shred protections, and there is no reason to think he won’t continue on this authoritarian path. EU institutions and member states should stand in solidarity with those in Hungary upholding EU values and do everything they can to halt the downward spiral toward authoritarianism,” he added.

Ghoshal said, though, that whatever happens, the LGBTQI community in Hungary would not give up their rights.

“The community has been through cycles of oppression and freedom. The younger members might not be able to remember it, but older members of the community will know what it is like to live under an authoritarian regime; it is in the country’s history. They have also had a taste of freedom too and they will not want to give that up.

“I think there will be a Pride march and I think there could be state violence and arrests there, but the community will remain defiant no matter what,” she said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

World Press Freedom Day 2025 Global Press Freedom Index Falls to Critical Low

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Freedom of Expression, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Press Freedom

Sea of red indicates the parlous state of press freedom in the world. Credit: Reporters Without Borders

Sea of red indicates the parlous state of press freedom in the world. Credit: Reporters Without Borders

BRATISLAVA, May 2 2025 (IPS) – Global press freedom across the world is at a “critical moment,” campaigners have warned, as a major index mapping the state of global press freedom hits an unprecedented low.

In the latest edition of the annual press freedom index produced by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which was published on May 2, the average score of all assessed countries fell below 55 points, falling into the category of a “difficult situation” for the first time in the index’s history.

More than six out of ten countries (112 in total) saw their overall scores decline in the index, while the conditions for practicing journalism are for the first time classified as poor in half of the world’s countries and satisfactory in fewer than one in four.

In 42 countries—harboring over half of the world’s population (56.7 percent)—the situation is “very serious,” according to the group. In these zones, press freedom is entirely absent and practicing journalism is particularly dangerous.

RSF says that while there has been a downward trend in press freedom globally for some time, the latest index scores are a distressing “new low.”

“Our index has been warning of this for the last ten years—the trajectory for press freedom has been a downward one—but this is a new low. Sixty percent of countries saw their scores [in the index] drop last year and the environment for media freedom globally has worsened. We are now at a critical moment for press freedom globally,” Fiona O’Brien, UK Bureau Director for RSF, told IPS.

Experts and campaigners have in recent years warned of growing threats to press freedom amid a rise of authoritarian regimes looking to muzzle dissent, as well as  growing economic pressures affecting the ability of independent media outlets to function.

RSF’s index is compiled using measurements of five different indicators—political context, legal framework, economic context, sociocultural context, and safety—to form an overall score. It says that this year the overall global index score was dragged down by the performance of the economic index.

It says that economic pressure is an often underestimated but major factor seriously weakening media in many countries. This pressure is being largely driven by ownership concentration, pressure from advertisers and financial backers, and public aid that is restricted, absent, or allocated non-transparently.

The group warns this is leaving many media trapped between preserving their editorial independence and ensuring their economic survival.

“The pressure on media sustainability is as bad as it has ever been,” said O’Brien.

The effects of this economic pressure have been severe. Data collected for the index indicates that in 160 out of the 180 countries assessed (88.9 percent), media outlets achieve financial stability “with difficulty” or “not at all.” Meanwhile, news outlets are shutting down due to economic hardship in nearly a third of countries globally.

While the struggles of media economies in some countries have been exacerbated by political instability, general lack of resources, and war, media in other rich, ostensibly more stable countries are also facing significant economic pressures.

RSF points out that in the US, a majority of journalists and media experts told the group that “the average media outlet struggles for economic viability.”

Meanwhile, independent media that rely heavily or exclusively on foreign funding have come under increasing pressure.

A freeze on funding for the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which halted US international aid earlier this year plunged hundreds of news outlets in different countries around the world into economic uncertainty or forced others to close.

This was particularly acute in Ukraine, where nine out of ten outlets receive international aid and USAID is the primary donor.

“The US cuts have had a profound effect there,” Jeanne Cavalier, head of RSF’s Eastern Europe and Central Asia desk, told IPS. “Independent media is vital in any country that is at war. It’s a real blow to press freedom in the country,” she said.

She added, though, that the cuts to US funding were “an existential threat to press freedom in all countries with authoritarian governments under Russian influence,” highlighting that exiled media in particular provide a vital service to people living under such regimes.

The Meduza news outlet is one of the most prominent exiled Russian media organizations. While more than half of its financing comes through crowdfunding, until earlier this year a part of its funding came via US grants.

The group said that the combined impact of the cut and previous financial problems presented a significant challenge to its operations. It was forced to cut its workforce by 15 percent and salaries were reduced.

Speaking to IPS at the time, Katerina Abramova, Head of Communications at Meduza, said the moves would “influence the diversity of our content.” But speaking this week after the release of RSF’s index, she said the group had managed to continue its work but admitted, “it is even more challenging now.”

“Our main goal is to maintain the quality of our reporting and to keep delivering news inside Russia,” she said.

However, she said she was concerned for the future of other organizations like Meduza as press freedom and the economic health of independent media wane globally.

“I hope that there will not be a complete loss of independent reporting on countries where free speech has become illegal. But I know that many independent newsrooms are suffering and are on the edge of closing. When you are in exile, you are in a vulnerable position, so such newsrooms face the most difficult challenges,” she told IPS.

“I am also worried that the USAID cuts may be seen as a ‘good sign’ for many authoritarian regimes around the world. They might say, ‘look, the USA also doesn’t like journalists anymore.’ It would be like a validation of what they are doing to independent media [in their own countries],” she added.

Meanwhile, other organizations have also raised the alarm over growing threats to press freedom, even in countries regarded as among the strongest democracies in the world.

While in the RSF index the European Union (EU)-Balkans zone had the highest overall score globally, and its gap with the rest of the world continued to grow, a report released this week by the Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties) group highlighted how some EU governments were attacking press freedom and undermining independent media.

The report, based on the work of 43 human rights groups from 21 countries, warned that press freedom was being eroded across the bloc. It said EU media markets “feature high media ownership concentration, with these owners remaining obscured behind inadequate ownership transparency obligations, the continued erosion of public service media’s independence, ongoing threats and intimidation against journalists, and restrictions on freedom of expression and access to information.”

“The findings of this report should put EU officials on high alert: media freedom and pluralism are under attack across the EU, and in some cases they are in an existential battle against overtly undemocratic governments,” according to the group.

Liberties also warned that “EU legislation to bolster media freedom is being greeted with hostility, making enforcement efforts in 2025 and beyond decisive in protecting the free and plural media that European democracy depends on.”

However, it is this legislation, including the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which is designed to guarantee the protection of journalists and sources, independence of regulatory bodies and full ownership transparency, and the Anti-SLAPP Directive (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) to protect journalists and human rights advocates from abusive legal proceedings, that experts see as providing hope that some of the threats to media freedom can be dealt with.

“At the individual country level within the EU, there are some problems. Where there has been a recent change in government away from authoritarianism, there has been some positive progress, e.g., in Poland. But in other countries, like Slovakia, we are seeing the reverse,” Eva Simon, Senior Advocacy Officer at Liberties, told IPS.

“But at the EU level, we see positive prospects for media freedom in new legislation. The EU Media Act is coming into force soon and the anti-SLAPP directive will come into effect next year.

“The EU has the power to intervene in countries where there are persistent problems and we have high hopes that the EU will use its powers to enforce the European Media Freedom Act. The EU has more tools than ever at its disposal to ensure media freedom in member states,” she added.

On April 30, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) issued a damning report on how, since the start of US President Donald Trump’s second term in January, press freedom has come under attack.

The report warned that press freedom is no longer a given in the United States as journalists and newsrooms face mounting pressures that threaten both their ability to report freely and the public’s right to know.

It said the executive branch of the government was taking “unprecedented steps to permanently undermine press freedom” through restricting access for some news organizations, increasingly using government and regulatory bodies against media, and launching targeted attacks on journalists and newsrooms.

In a statement, CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg said, “This is a definitive moment for U.S. media and the public’s right to be informed. Whether at the federal or state level, the investigations, hearings, and verbal attacks amount to an environment where the media’s ability to bear witness to government action is already curtailed.”

The current threats to press freedom in the US are among the most worrying anywhere, many media experts say.

“There is a head-on attack on media freedom in the US. If you look at the scores for the US [in the index], the social indicator has dropped hugely, which shows that within the US the press is operating in a hostile environment. The economic situation there has deteriorated too, which makes things difficult for them,” said O’Brien.

“But also, a lot of people look to America as a bastion of press freedom, with its constitution’s First Amendment, and what is happening there to independent media is an absolute gift to authoritarian rulers around the world. If the rest of the world just sits back and watches this and lets press freedom be restricted and attacked and does nothing, other regimes will look and just think, ‘oh, it’s OK to do this.’”

“World leaders have to now stand up for press freedom. Independent journalism is fundamental to democratic societies,” she added.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Pakistan: Freedom of Expression at Stake With New Cybercrime Law

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Democracy, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Freedom of Expression, Headlines, Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Freedom of Expression

Pakistani journalists speak out about cybercrimes law from left to right Hamid Mir, Munazza Siddiqui and Umar Cheema. Credits: Jang News, and TikTok

Pakistani journalists speak out about cybercrimes law from left to right Hamid Mir, Munazza Siddiqui and Umar Cheema. Credits: Jang News, and TikTok

KARACHI, Feb 5 2025 (IPS) – “I may not be able to continue hosting my show because the content I put up will most certainly land me in prison,” said senior correspondent Azaz Syed who works for a private TV channel, but who also has his own private online digital channel. He was referring to the recent amendment in the already existing cybercrime law, terming it a “wild” law which has been instituted to grapple with fake news among other online harms.

The new version—Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025—passed hurriedly, within a week, in both the houses without debate, and signed into a law by President Asif Ali Zardari on January 29, has triggered nationwide protests by the country’s media personnel.

“They have taken away my right to freedom of expression,” Syed told IPS.

“I fail to understand the uproar among journalists working in electronic media. They already have PEMRA, [the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority] which is responsible for facilitating and regulating private electronic media,” said Minister for Information and Broadcasting Atta­ullah Tarar. “This law is to regulate the social media and countries across the world have some codes or standards under which social media operate; but there was none in our country.”

He said the existing authority, which is the Federal Investigation Authority, that looked into cybercrimes seemed ill-equipped to handle the expanding nature of online crimes taking place—harassment, pornography, national security threats, spreading economic uncertainty; just look at the conviction rate, which is dismal,” he defended the amendment.

Tarar’s reference to the “uproar” stems from TV journalists, like Syed, who have gigs on online platforms and fear the restrictions on content imposed by PECA.

For the past two years, Syed has been hosting a popular show on YouTube called Talk Shock, focusing on sensitive topics like the Pakistan army, intelligence agencies, blasphemy laws, persecution of Ahmadis, and forced conversions of Hindu girls. He described it as a passion project addressing issues close to his heart, despite potential disapproval from authorities. His show has gained over eight million viewers and 174,000 followers, also providing him with extra income.

Hamid Mir, host of Capital Talk, one of the oldest and highest-rated political talk shows, launched his digital TV channel on YouTube after being banned from TV in 2021 (he had already been banned twice, in 2007 by military dictator Pervez Musharraf  and in 2008 by the ruling Pakistan People’s Party) for  speaking against the country’s powerful military for persecuting journalists. “I share my opinions there when I am unable to on the channel that I’m employed in. Having your own platform is liberating,” he told IPS. He has 263,000 viewers.

Azaz Syed, who has his digital TV programme on YouTube called Talk Shock. Credit: Azaz Syed

Azaz Syed, who has his digital TV programme on YouTube called Talk Shock. Credit: Azaz Syed

Mir’s greater worry though is the possibility of losing his voice on X, where he connects with over eight million followers. “If I can’t speak my mind, it will have a profound impact on me,” he said.

But even those journalists who otherwise feel social media is being misused find the law distasteful.

“I have zero tolerance for fake news, and am all for regulating the beast that social media has become, but not this way, certainly” said senior investigative journalist, Umar Cheema, terming it a “third class” law.

The law was originally passed in 2016, by the same ruling party that has brought the current amendments – the Pakistan Muslim League-N. It had been met with much criticism even then.

“The reason for the need for the law given back in 2016 was to counter hate speech, terrorist content and harassment of women—this time the ruse is fake news,” said Farieha Aziz’s co-founder of Bolo Bhi, an advocacy forum for digital rights. The suspicion and criticism against the law now and then is the same—the government is using this law to “stifle political dissent and rein in freedom of expression” she said.

The amendment to the law, criminalises fake news and its dissemination with a prison term of up to three years and a fine of up to Rs 2 million (about USD 7,200).

But, pointed out Aziz, the concern went beyond just the penalties associated with the amendment to the law—it is the “potential for misuse” in the process of determining what constitutes fake news. “People will be reluctant to share or even discuss information out of fear that it might be deemed false or harmful, leading to criminal charges,” she explained, adding the definition of fake news was vague and broad. “They have created a vagueness through the use of language taken from the anti-terrorism act, around the offence,” she pointed out.

“The government operates in grey areas and likes to keep people in a state of confusion,” agreed Cheema.

Moreover, pointed out, Munazza Siddiqui, senior producer on a private TV channel: “The law is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental right to freedom, a core principle enshrined in our Constitution.” She uses TikTok, a platform predominantly used for putting up entertaining content, for disseminating news and opinions. “It’s popular with young people but works superbly for me as they are my audience. The millennials and Gen Z want to stay informed about the world around them, but they lack the patience to sit through long articles or watch lengthy news segments on TV. I provide them with both in just a minute or so!”

However, Siddiqui acknowledged that her vlogging might be impacted. With the sword of Damocles hanging over her, in the form of the newly revised cyber law, she said, “We already navigate a space of self-censorship, and now there’s an added layer of fear.”

The law establishes four bodies—the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority, the Social Media Complaints Council, the Social Media Protection Tribunal, and the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency—concentrating significant power. Aziz warned that these bodies, appointed by the federal government, could lack independence, creating potential conflicts of interest and undermining fairness and accountability.

“And the window of appeal has also been closed as I can only go to the Supreme Court of Pakistan,” said Azaz, which was an expensive route to prove your innocence.

Although the 2016 cybercrime law was already considered draconian by experts, the reason to tweak it further, explained Cheema, was that “the nature and use of social media has changed and become more sophisticated since then, adding that the media needed to share the blame for the recent shape the law has taken.

Cheema said the media did not establish a code of conduct for responsible social media use which led the government to step in, using the fake news excuse to silence dissenting voices. He emphasized that while media can express opinions, facts must be solid, and journalists should hold each other accountable. “Yet, we don’t even call out our colleagues for lying.”

Finding the nationwide protest hypocritical, he questioned, “The bill wasn’t a surprise—everyone knew it was being revised. Why didn’t anyone speak up then? Where were the protests and revisions when it was in the National Assembly and Senate? There was silence, and now, after it’s law, they’re out on the streets.”

“The law is in place,” Tarrar said with finality. However, he added: “The rules are still being worked out, and we’re open to media input to refine them.”

“Recalling the law may be tough,” agreed Cheema, but if the media is concerned, “They can come up with their own system; no one is stopping them; but that’s the real test for our community.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

New Legislation Outlaws Dissenters in Venezuela

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Editors’ Choice, Freedom of Expression, Headlines, Human Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, Migration & Refugees, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Democracy

Venezuela's legislative National Assembly approves the Bolivar law to punish with unprecedented severity those who support or facilitate punitive measures against the country. Credit: AN

Venezuela’s legislative National Assembly approves the Bolivar law to punish with unprecedented severity those who support or facilitate punitive measures against the country. Credit: AN

WASHINGTON, Dec 18 2024 (IPS) – In Venezuela you can no longer say in public that the economic sanctions applied by the United States and other countries are appropriate, or even be suspected of considering any of the authorities illegitimate, because you can be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison and lose all your assets.

In late November, the ruling National Assembly passed the Simon Bolivar Organic Law (of superior rank) against the imperialist blockade and in defence of the Republic, the latest in a regulatory padlock closing civic space, according to human rights organisations.

“We see a process of authoritarian learning. When we look at democratic setbacks, we see things that are repeated as patterns, such as the closure of civic space, of civil organisations, of journalism, of democratic political parties”: Carolina Jiménez Sandoval.

The powers of the Venezuelan state thus responded to United States’ and the European Union’s sanctions, and to the protests and denunciations of opponents and American and European governments, to the effect that a gigantic fraud was committed in the presidential election of 28 July this year.

The ruling Nicolás Maduro was proclaimed by the electoral and judicial powers as re-elected president for a third six-year term beginning on 10 January 2025, even though the opposition claims, by showing voting records, that it was their candidate Edmundo González who won, with at least 67% of the vote.

Speaking to IPS, several human rights defenders agreed that the country is following the example of Nicaragua, where laws and measures are driving hundreds of opponents into prison and exile, stripping them of their nationality and property, and suppressing critical voices by shutting down thousands of civil, religious and educational organisations.

“A red line has been crossed and the Nicaraguan path has been taken. Arbitrariness has been put in writing, in black and white, the repressive reality of the Venezuelan state, something even the military despots of the past did not do,” said lawyer Alí Daniels, director of the organisation Acceso a la Justicia, from Caracas.

The law adopted its long name as an indignant response to the US Bolivar Act, an acronym for Banning Operations and Leases with the Illegitimate Venezuelan Authoritarian Regime, designed to block most of that country’s business dealings with Venezuela.

The president of the non-governmental Washington Office on Latin America (Wola), Carolina Jiménez Sandoval, observed that “the closer we get to 10 January, the day when whoever won the 28 July election must be sworn in, we see more and more laws meant to stifling civic space.”

Other laws along these lines include: one to punish behaviour or messages deemed to incite hatred; another “against fascism, neo-fascism and similar expressions”; a reform to promptly elect 30,000 justices of the peace; and a law to control non-governmental organisations.

Demonstration in Caracas demanding respect for human rights. Credit: Civilis

Demonstration in Caracas demanding respect for human rights. Credit: Civilis

Mere suspicion is enough

The Venezuelan Bolivar act considers that sanctions and other restrictive measures against the country “constitute a crime against humanity”, and lists conduct and actions that put the nation and its population at risk.

These include promoting, requesting or supporting punitive measures by foreign states or corporations, and “disregarding the public powers legitimately established in the Republic, their acts or their authorities.”

Those who have at any time “promoted, instigated, requested, invoked, favoured, supported or participated in the adoption or execution of measures” deemed harmful to the population or the authorities, will be barred from running for elected office for up to 60 years.

Any person who “promotes, instigates, solicits, invokes, favours, facilitates, supports or participates in the adoption or execution of unilateral coercive measures” against the population or the powers in Venezuela will be punished with 25 to 30 years in prison and fines equivalent to between US$100,000 and one million.

In the case of media and digital platforms, the punishment will be a heavy fine and the closure or denial of permits to operate.

The law highlights the creation of “a register that will include the identification of natural and legal persons, national or foreign, with respect to whom there is good reason to consider that they are involved in any of the actions contrary to the values and inalienable rights of the state.”

This registry is created to “impose restrictive, temporary economic measures of an administrative nature, aimed at mitigating the damage that their actions cause against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and its population.”

Daniels tells IPS that “this means that a mere suspicion on the part of an official, with good reason to believe that a sanction is supported, is sufficient for a preventive freezing of a person’s assets, prohibiting them from buying, selling or acting in a money-making business.”

“Without prior trial, by an official’s decision, without knowing where to appeal against the entry in that register, the person is stripped of means of livelihood. Civil death returns,” he added.

Archive image of a national meeting of human rights defenders. Credit: Civicus

Archive image of a national meeting of human rights defenders. Credit: Civicus

Other laws

The “anti-hate law” – without defining what is meant by it – has since 2018 prosecuted protesters, journalists, firefighters, political activists and human rights defenders on charges of directing messages inciting hatred towards the authorities.

This year, the state endowed itself with a law to punish fascism and similar expressions, a broad arc because it considers that “racism, chauvinism, classism, moral conservatism, neoliberalism and misogyny are common features of this stance.”

It has also reformed the justice of the peace law to promote the popular election of 30,000 local judges, under criticism from human rights organisations that see the process as a mechanism for the control of communities by pro-government activists and the promotion of informing on neighbours.

And, while the Bolivar act was being passed, the law on the control of NGOs and similar organisations was published, which NGOs have labelled an “anti-society law”, as it contains provisions that easily nullify their capacity for action and their very existence.

The law establishes a new registry with some 30 requirements, which are difficult for NGOs to meet, but they can only operate if authorised by the government, which can suspend them from operating or sanction them with fines in amounts that in practice are confiscatory.

“I think the application of the Bolívar law is going to be very discretionary, and if Maduro is sworn in again on Jan. 10, civic space will be almost completely closed and the social and democratic leadership will have to work underground,” sociologist Rafael Uzcátegui, director of the Venezuelan Laboratorio de Paz, which operates in Caracas, told IPS.

The president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, and his wife and vice-president, Rosario Murillo, have taken measures against dissent that are models of authoritarianism in the region. Human rights activists believe that in countries such as Venezuela and El Salvador their strategies and norms are being replicated by those who seek to remain in power indefinitely. Credit: Presidency of Nicaragua

The president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, and his wife and vice-president, Rosario Murillo, have taken measures against dissent that are models of authoritarianism in the region. Human rights activists believe that in countries such as Venezuela and El Salvador their strategies and norms are being replicated by those who seek to remain in power indefinitely. Credit: Presidency of Nicaragua

The Nicaraguan path

Daniels also argues that with the Bolívar law, the government “is going back 160 years, when the Venezuelan Constitution after the Federal War (1859-1863) abolished the death penalty and life sentences. A punishment that lasts 60 years in practice is in perpetuity, exceeding the average life expectancy of an adult in Venezuela.”

Along with this, “although without going to the Nicaraguan extreme of stripping the alleged culprits of their nationality, punishments are imposed that can turn people into civilian zombies, driven into exile. As in Nicaragua”.

For Jiménez Sandoval “there are similarities with Nicaragua, a harsh and consolidated case. It has cancelled the legal personality of more than 3,000 organisations, including humanitarian entities, national and international human rights organisations and universities, through the application of very strict laws.”

“In these cases… we see a process of authoritarian learning. When we look at democratic setbacks, we see things that are repeated as patterns, such as the closure of civic space, of civil organisations, of journalism, of democratic political parties,” she told IPS.

To achieve this, “they use different strategies, such as co-opting legislatures to make laws that allow them to imprison and silence those who think differently, to avoid any kind of criticism, because, at the end of the day, the ultimate goal of authoritarianism is to remain in power indefinitely”, concluded Jiménez Sandoval.

  Source

Press Freedom in Sri Lanka: A Long Road to Justice

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Freedom of Expression, Headlines, TerraViva United Nations

Press Freedom

At the gravesite of the late editor-in-chief of the influential English-language newspaper Sunday Leader Lasantha Wickrematunge, who was killed in his car on January 8, 2009, on his way to work in Colombo. Credit: Johan Mikaelsson/IPS

At the gravesite of the late editor-in-chief of the influential English-language newspaper Sunday Leader Lasantha Wickrematunge, who was killed in his car on January 8, 2009, on his way to work in Colombo. Credit: Johan Mikaelsson/IPS

COLOMBO, Oct 25 2024 (IPS) – Anyone interested in unsolved murders and disappearances will find much to study in Sri Lanka. Fifteen to twenty years ago, the country made global headlines, not only for the government’s military offensive against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) guerrillas but also for the numerous murders of journalists. The newly elected president, Anura Kumara Dissanayake—often referred to as AKD—seems determined to address the culture of impunity.

Local press freedom organizations in Sri Lanka have documented 44 cases of murdered and disappeared journalists and media workers between 2004 and 2010. International media watchdogs report lower numbers due to narrower definitions of who qualifies as a journalist. Regardless, it is well known that many journalists risk their lives. To date, no one has been convicted for the crimes committed against individual journalists or entire newsrooms.

One of the most iconic and globally recognized cases is the murder of Lasantha Wickrematunge, who was killed in his car on January 8, 2009, on his way to work in Colombo. As the editor-in-chief of the influential English-language newspaper Sunday Leader, Wickrematunge was a vocal critic of the government and a prominent figure in public debates.

The Rajapaksa brothers, ex-president Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his brother Mahinda, allegedly obstructed investigations into his murder as well as those involving journalists and members of parliament. Yet, the Wickrematunge family remains hopeful that justice will not only be served for Lasantha but also for all murdered journalists and their families, colleagues, and society as a whole.

Lal Wickrematunge, former owner of the now-defunct Sunday Leader, explained that a new process has begun, gaining momentum since the September 21 presidential election.

“This election was crucial because what’s needed now is political will, just political will,” Lal stated.

He had received assurances from two major presidential candidates, Sajith Premadasa and Anura Kumara Dissanayake, that the investigations would resume post-election.

“They requested to bring back retired CID inspectors to see if they can finally close these cases,” he added.

Since Dissanayake’s clear victory and his formation of an interim government, Lal confirmed that these promises have been fulfilled so far. With parliamentary elections set for November 14, Dissanayake’s leftist coalition, National People’s Power, is projected to secure a majority.

“The new president has reinstated investigators who were previously dismissed or even imprisoned on fabricated charges. These investigators are now back to work, aiming to bring those responsible for journalists’ murders—both in the South and North—to justice,” Lal said.

Hope for Accountability

After the election results were announced, a curfew was imposed, and security was heightened at international airports to prevent former politicians implicated in various crimes from leaving the country. With the upcoming parliamentary elections, Lal remains optimistic.

“I believe this is a step in the right direction. So far, the president has earned the trust of even those who didn’t vote for him, and it looks like his party will win a solid majority in parliament. He’s promised transparency and good governance, and he’s staying true to his word, gaining the confidence of people across the country,” Lal explained.

He then recalled the events of January 2009, when his brother Lasantha was murdered. Four men on two motorcycles smashed the windows of Lasantha’s car. Witnesses didn’t hear any gunshots, but Lasantha had a hole in his skull with no exit wound, and no bullets or gunpowder residue were found. It’s believed the killers used a bolt gun—typically used to slaughter livestock—which they concealed in a rolled-up newspaper.

The suspected mastermind behind the murder is Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who served as president from 2019 to 2022. After several months of widespread protests (known as Aragalaya, which means struggle in Sinhala) against his government over claims of resource mismanagement, fuel shortages, and skyrocketing food prices, he resigned. Rajapaksa, who returned to Sri Lanka after his resignation, now lives off the state like four other former presidents.

As Secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2015, Gotabaya allegedly ordered the assassination. The motive was linked to Sunday Leader’s reporting on corruption, particularly in the purchase of used Russian-made MIG fighter jets from Ukraine, where Rajapaksa was implicated as the main beneficiary. Rajapaksa sued the newspaper for defamation, and a court hearing was scheduled for 2009, but the case never proceeded due to Lasantha’s murder.

The Fight for Justice Continues

Though it has been 15 years since Lasantha’s death, his legacy endures, as do the memories of other murdered journalists. Of the 44 documented cases, 41 involved Tamil journalists. Many Sri Lankan journalists in exile, including those associated with JDS Lanka (Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka), continue to report on the situation back home.

In 2021-2022, a legal initiative called “A Safer World for the Truth” took place in The Hague under the auspices of The People’s Tribunal on the Murder of Journalists. This project, led by the Permanent People’s Tribunal in collaboration with Free Press Unlimited, Reporters Without Borders, and the Committee to Protect Journalists, reviewed three murder cases, including Lasantha’s.

Nishanta Silva, the lead investigator in the case, now in exile in Switzerland, presented evidence pointing to the involvement of the “Tripoli Platoon,” a secret military unit directly under Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s control.

Although targeted killings of journalists have ceased since 2009, Sri Lanka remains far down in global rankings for press freedom. In Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index, Sri Lanka ranks 150th out of 180 countries—a grim reflection of the ongoing challenges. Tamil journalists in the north face the greatest difficulties.

Press Freedom in Northern Sri Lanka: Challenges and Resilience

In Jaffna, the largest city in northern Sri Lanka with a population of 170,000, a vibrant Press Club brings together many local journalists who support one another. Similar press clubs exist in Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu, two other northern cities.

In October 2020, Mullaitivu Press Club president, journalist Shanmugam Thavaseelan, and photojournalist Kanapathipillai Kumanan were investigating illegal logging when a group of men approached and attacked them as they were photographing and filming a stack of about 200 tree trunks.

Both Thavaseelan and Kumanan were brutally beaten, with Thavaseelan losing two teeth. They spent three days in the hospital. Thavaseelan’s missing teeth serve as a lasting reminder of the assault.

During the attack, they were forced to delete the contents of a memory card; one card went missing, and one camera was damaged. The two journalists were also robbed of about 50,000 rupees, equivalent to USD 150. Their investigation revealed that the illegal logging was extensive and involved local authorities.

The attackers were identified and arrested by the police but were released on bail after a month. Four years later, the case remains ongoing in court.

“No journalist has been murdered or disappeared since 2009-2010. But they harass us and try to intimidate us in other ways. Over the past ten years, I’ve been involved in five court cases,” says Thavaseelan.

Journalists covering routine news, sports, and cultural events typically face no issues. However, those investigating corruption or misconduct often find themselves in trouble. Most journalists rely on motorcycles for transportation, making them vulnerable on the roads, where there have been multiple incidents of cars deliberately trying to run them over.

“There is no specific legal protection for journalists while we’re doing our work, unlike for government employees,” Thavaseelan explains.

Kumanan, who monitors and reports on the Mullaitivu region, is constantly under surveillance by military intelligence personnel. In this area, there is one Sinhalese soldier for every three Tamil civilians, and they regularly check on Kumanan and track his movements.

“I know my rights, and I stand up for myself, which usually makes them back off,” Kumanan says.

A Struggle for Justice

Freddy Gamage, a Sinhalese journalist from Negombo near Colombo, is president of the Sri Lanka Web Journalists Association and works to strengthen the bonds between journalists and press freedom advocates in the north and south. Over the years, he too has been the target of attacks.

“Our struggle for justice is incredibly difficult and has been going on for over a decade. It’s hard to see how justice will be served, even if the government changes, given how successive Sri Lankan governments have acted in the UN in Geneva, where these issues are raised,” Gamage says.

“But we can’t give up. We need to continue our efforts to unite journalists from the north, east, and south. After the elections, we need to consider what steps we can take, both nationally and internationally, to secure justice,” Gamage explains.

Every year, memorials for murdered journalists are held, where colleagues gather to renew their calls for justice. With the recent change in government, there is hope, but realizing justice will require strong political will, hard work, and perseverance.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

‘The Focus Should Be on Holding Social Media Companies Accountable, Not Punishing Individual Users’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Featured, Freedom of Expression, Global, Headlines, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Oct 7 2024 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the recent Twitter/X ban in Brazil with Iná Jost, lawyer and head of research at InternetLab, an independent Brazilian think tank focused on human rights and digital technologies.

Brazil’s Supreme Court recently upheld a ban on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, formerly Twitter, after it repeatedly refused to comply with orders to moderate content. The court ordered tech companies to remove X from app stores and imposed fines for continued access via VPNs in Brazil. This appeared to cause users to switch to alternatives such as Bluesky and Threads. Musk condemned the ban as an attack on free speech, but has since backed down and complied with the court’s orders. Debate continues over the controversy’s implications for democracy and accountability.

Iná Jost

Why did the Brazilian Supreme Court ban X?

The case began on 7 August when a Supreme Court justice, investigating ‘digital malicious activities’, ordered the blocking of seven X profiles for intimidating law enforcement officers and directly threatening the integrity of the court and democracy in Brazil.

X refused to comply with the order, claiming it violated freedom of expression. The judge then imposed a daily fine for non-compliance, which was subsequently raised and ended up amounting to over US$3 million as Musk continued to refuse to comply. At one point, the justice ordered the freezing of X’s financial assets in Brazil, but they weren’t enough to cover the fines.

After more back and forth, tensions escalated when the judge also froze the bank accounts of satellite internet company Starlink, arguing that both companies were part of the same economic group. This caused some controversy, as Starlink operates in a different sphere and its operations aren’t entirely linked to X.

The turning point came when X closed its headquarters in Brazil. Without a legal representative in the country, the court found it difficult to enforce its orders or impose additional penalties. It then gave X 24 hours to appoint a new representative, which it failed to do. As a result, on 30 August, the court ordered the closure of X.

It is important to mention that the court is not super transparent and the whole procedure was carried out under seal. We are unable to grasp the full picture because the process is closed and not all decisions are made public.

What was the legal basis for the decision to close X?

The Court based its decision on Brazil’s 2014 Civil Framework for the Internet. Under this law, platforms can be blocked for failing to comply with Brazilian laws or court orders. Some confusion arose over the notion that the ban was due to X’s lack of a legal representative in Brazil; however, the shutdown resulted from the company’s repeated refusal to comply with court orders.

Civil society raised concerns about some aspects of the decision. Initially, the order included blocking VPN services to prevent access to X, but this part was later reversed due to cybersecurity risks. Blocking VPNs that serve legitimate purposes would have been disproportionate. The order also proposed a US$9,000 fine for users trying to circumvent the ban, which many felt was excessive. We believe the focus should be on holding the company accountable, not punishing individual users.

Is it possible to strike a balance between regulating online platforms and protecting freedoms?

It is. Regulating platforms isn’t necessarily about censorship. In this case, it’s about ensuring a powerful company operates transparently and protects users. Platforms acting solely in their commercial interests can harm the public interest. Regulation can force them to provide clear terms and conditions and fair content moderation policies and respect due process for content removal.

The belief that any form of regulation threatens freedom of expression is misguided. Thoughtful regulation that allows users to express themselves while protecting them from harm such as hate speech or misinformation can balance the scales.

Musk’s stance in this case is deeply problematic. His selective compliance with court orders undermines the rule of law. While platforms like X are crucial to public communication, that doesn’t give them the right to defy the legal system they operate in. Freedom of expression does not absolve platforms of their legal responsibilities, particularly when those laws protect the integrity of democracy.

Musk’s claim that X represents absolute freedom of expression fails to consider the risks of a platform without proper rules. Without moderation, platforms can become havens for extremist groups, hate speech and disinformation. They should be regulated to ensure they remain a space for lawful discourse.

Do you think this case will set a precedent?

I don’t think so. Some people are worried other platforms could be blocked as well, but I don’t think that will happen. This is a unique scenario, and Brazil is a strong democracy. This wasn’t an act of censorship by the judiciary but a necessary measure given the platform owner’s refusal to comply with court orders.

States should develop regulatory mechanisms that allow them to hold platforms accountable and ensure compliance with national laws. This would avoid the need for outright blocking, which ultimately harms the users the most. While the company might incur some financial losses, journalists and citizens are losing access to a vital information and communication tool.

I hope states that are serious about regulating platforms will see this as an example of what shouldn’t happen. We shouldn’t allow things to escalate to this point. And we certainly shouldn’t use this as a leading case for blocking platforms.

Get in touch with InternetLab through its website or its Instagram and Facebook pages, and follow @internetlabbr on Twitte.

  Source