After observing more than 80 press freedom violations during El Salvador’s presidential election on 4 February, confirming a serious decline in the situation for media and journalists, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and seven other human rights organisations call on the country’s authorities to halt the decline and to establish safeguards for the right to information.

“The many obstacles to the work of journalists observed during the presidential election reflect a serious decline in press freedom in El Salvador. Above all, they reflect the restrictive, intimidating climate imposed under President Nayib Bukele since the start of his first term, which has included denying access to information about the functioning of the government and its decision-making, vilifying journalists, and waging smear campaigns. In this toxic environment, journalists and their sources are increasingly resorting to self-censorship. This cannot go on! Together with partner organisations, we call on the country’s authorities to end these disastrous practices and to provide safeguards for the right to information.”

Artur Romeu, Director of RSF’s Latin America bureau

Following an RSF-supported observation mission during the 4 February presidential election, RSF and seven partner organisations are issuing a joint statement calling on El Salvador’s national authorities, the judiciary and the parliament, to respect and protect press freedom and, in particular, to establish favourable and safe long-term conditions guaranteeing the ability of journalists to work freely. The coalition also urges the international community to adopt a critical and constructive public position on what is happening in El Salvador, and to do its duty to promote human rights.

The post Serious decline in press freedom in El Salvador: RSF and its partners call on national authorities to safeguard right to information appeared first on IFEX.

Your Excellency,

Our organizations – spanning civil society, industry, and the technical community – wish to urgently draw your attention to critical flaws in the latest draft of the UN cybercrime treaty. While we have diverse perspectives and often do not agree on a range of other policy issues, we share profound concerns over these critical shortcomings. As members of the multistakeholder community we could only support developing a treaty that would effectively address cybercrime and foster international cooperation in accordance with international human rights law and the rule of law in general. While we understand that the text is an attempt to synthesize the views of negotiating states, the result is a draft treaty that would make cyberspace less secure for everyone. The organizations signing this letter, who come from across the multistakeholder community, are deeply concerned by the adoption of such a flawed treaty without major changes.

Serious flaws of the latest draft include an unclear and overly broad scope, vague criminalization provisions and definitions, lack of meaningful human rights safeguards and effective gender mainstreaming, missing protections for good-faith cybersecurity researchers and others acting in the public interest, and overly broad provisions for real-time interception of content and traffic data that go far beyond what can reasonably be justified to fight cybercrime.

Particularly concerning is that the draft treaty authorizes states to conduct intrusive cross-border data collection without prior judicial authorization, without oversight, and in secrecy. Service providers would be unable to notify users or inform anyone about data collection being ordered. Civil society and individuals would not know when their data is being accessed, making it impossible for them to challenge arbitrary requests and protect their privacy. Given these flaws, this process is at real risk of producing an instrument that can be used to conduct broad data collection on a global scale under the guise of fighting cybercrime.

If adopted without major changes – changes we have consistently advocated for throughout the process – the risks of this treaty far outweigh its potential benefits. Notably, some elements of the treaty do not include any human rights safeguards at all, while other provisions would allow states considerable latitude to implement these safeguards. Allowing individual states to arbitrarily define what activities fall under the treaty’s scope would also inevitably lead to human rights violations and criminalize legitimate activity. Individuals, including political dissidents, journalists, human rights defenders, and those at risk of discrimination on the basis of their personal characteristics would face the risk of being subjected to investigations leveraging the procedural measures of this proposed treaty without notice, potentially resulting in extradition and prosecution for exercising fundamental human rights while using digital technology. Such an outcome – facilitated by an instrument adopted by the UN General Assembly –would damage UN credibility and legitimize state behavior that undermines the rule of law while eroding respect for human rights.

To make matters worse, the proposed treaty would weaken global cybersecurity and make both individuals and institutions less safe and more vulnerable to cybercrime, thereby undermining its very purpose. Expansive concepts of what activity may be subject to this treaty – and its significant procedural powers – create an unpredictable legal environment that will discourage critical security research. It may also subject good-faith security researchers, IT professionals, and journalists to criminal prosecution for cybersecurity work that keeps us all safer. The resulting environment would make it easier for malicious actors to create and exploit weaknesses in the digital ecosystem. This could, in turn, lead to an increase in the common harms suffered in connection with cyberattacks, such as unauthorized disclosure of personal information and the disruption of access to important networks and systems, including critical infrastructure.

Furthermore, the increased risk of this treaty facilitating broad government data collection without strong privacy, due process and human rights safeguards may deter individuals and groups from exercising their rights to free speech and expression. This climate of self-censorship will have a negative effect on democratic discourse and civic participation. In essence, instead of serving one of its goals, the protection of private personal information from cybercrime, the treaty would paradoxically increase the risk of such violations and undermine human rights in the process.

A UN treaty that authorizes broad government data collection, creates an uncertain legal landscape for legitimate cybersecurity research, and facilitates greater online censorship, without sufficient guardrails as a global standard is deeply concerning. Ultimately, such a treaty would significantly erode trust and cooperation among all stakeholders, whose joint efforts are essential to address the growing global scourge of cybercrime.

Given the broad-based and fundamental concerns from stakeholders, we urge governments to consider withholding support for the treaty in its current incarnation.

The post Open letter to the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime appeared first on IFEX.

Rights groups urge European Commission to take action

The European Commission should take immediate action to address the deterioration of media freedom and the rule of law in Greece and its impact on fundamental rights, 17 human rights and press freedom organizations said today in a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Threats to the rule of law include an ongoing major surveillance scandal allegedly implicating the government in the targeted hacking of journalists’ devices, government interference with the media, abusive lawsuits against journalists and activists, and an overall unsafe working environment for journalists. Two unresolved murders of journalists in 10 years underscore the risks they face. In addition, under the New Democracy government, the authorities have used the criminal justice system to threaten civil society groups and activists. Registration requirements for nongovernmental groups working on migration and asylum have imposed an unreasonable burden on them.

The Commission should take immediate action to address these concerns, including opening an independent investigation into the Greek authorities’ use of spyware to target journalists, activists, and opposition politicians. Greek authorities have taken steps to reduce transparency and scrutiny as well as to limit surveillance victims’ access to a remedy, exacerbating the fact that to date the remedies have been ineffective, the groups said.

Nongovernmental groups have repeatedly raised the alarm about attacks on the rule of law in Greece over the years, including in recent stakeholdersubmissions for the 2024 European Commission’s Rule of Law Report. For the second year in a row, Greece came last among European Union countries in Reporters Without Borders’ (RSF) 2023 World Press Freedom Index.

In the letter, the groups highlight the ongoing major spyware scandal and its aftermath. State surveillance of journalists raises urgent privacy and freedom of expression concerns and affects the ability of the media to hold the authorities to account. It interferes with media freedom and violates the confidentiality of journalistic sources, protected under the European Convention on Human Rights and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Such surveillance has a chilling effect on journalism and its role in a democratic society.

Despite these warnings, the European Commission has failed to take meaningful steps to hold the Greek government to account for the breach of its rule of law and fundamental rights obligations under EU law. The Commission, including in its 2023 Rule of Law report, has expressed concerns about the situation for journalists and civil society, but neither the report nor the Commission’s related statements on Greece reflect the severity of the situation, the groups said.

The Commission should take urgent action to address the rule of law crisis in Greece and ensure that Greek authorities comply with the country’s obligations under EU law, the groups said. The Commission should investigate the concerns raised by civil society and the UN expert thoroughly and publicly and provide clear and measurable recommendations to the Greek authorities. Finally, it should also assess whether Greece’s breaches of the rule of law and fundamental rights warrant the suspension of EU funds.

The post Greece: Rule of law under threat, media freedom deteriorating appeared first on IFEX.

Report produced by IPI assesses systemic threats to independent journalism in the EU’s lowest ranked country for press freedom

The International Press Institute (IPI) today publishes a new report examining media capture and the entanglement of the fourth estate in Greece and its impact on media freedom and independent journalism.

This report – available to download here – was authored by Danai Maragoudaki, a Greek journalist based in Athens who works for independent media outlet Solomon and is a member of investigative team The Manifold. The initial report is in English and will be folllowed by a Greek translation in the coming weeks.

In recent years, IPI has been documenting different forms of media capture across Europe in a series of reports. IPI’s monitoring and reporting have outlined the expansion of media capture tactics from Hungary to other Central European states, including Poland. Dedicated reports have been produced on media capture in the Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Slovakia.

In this report, the analysis of media capture in the EU moves for the first time beyond the borders of Central and Eastern Europe to its southern border: Greece – a country which has often been overlooked in analyses of media capture in Europe.

This report examines media capture in Greece through the four indicators of media capture: capture of private media, capture of public media, capture of the system of funding media and capture of media regulators.

It also provides an updated overview of the current media ownership landscape in the country. After outlining its conclusions about the current picture for media capture, it presents recommendations for how to protect the media ecosystem against capture by business and political interests.

Amidst wider backsliding on media freedom in Greece in the last three years, this report concludes that efforts by the government to improve the overall picture for press freedom in Greece cannot be decoupled from efforts to unwind media capture.

Oliver Money-Kyrle, Head of European Advocacy and Programmes at IPI, said: “We’re delighted to be able to publish this report jointly with Maragoudaki into the state of media capture in Greece. The control and misuse of media to serve vested interests, whether political or corporate, is a matter of deep concern for all those who believe in robust, independent journalism. Journalists are there to serve the public, everything else is public relations or propaganda. We hope this report serves to shine the light on the web of political and corporate connections that seek to control and limit the independence of Greek journalism.”

This report by IPI is part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response, which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries. The project is co-funded by the European Commission. This report was produced with the financial support of the European Commission and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation.

The post Greece: Media capture in the EU’s lowest ranked country for press freedom appeared first on IFEX.

This statement was originally published on cpj.org on 24 January 2024.

The Committee to Protect Journalists on Wednesday joined 17 other partner organizations in sending a letter to Josep Borrell, the High Representative for the European Union on Foreign and Security Policy, urging him to call for press freedom and journalists’ rights to be respected during the Israel-Gaza war.

The unprecedented killing of so many journalists in so brief a period of time “has obvious and profound implications for the ability of the public, including the citizens of the European Union, to be informed about a conflict with local, regional, and global implications,” said the letter. “We are writing to entreat you to act immediately and decisively to promote the conditions for safe and unrestricted reporting on the hostilities.”

According to CPJ data, more journalists were killed in the first 10 weeks of the Israel-Gaza war than have ever been killed in a single country in an entire year.

The letter reflects CPJ’s wider calls for action by the international community published in December 2023.

Download the joint letter to Josep Borrell

The post EU should speak out on killings of journalists in Israel-Gaza war appeared first on IFEX.

We, the undersigned organizations [and individual experts] call on the state delegations participating in the concluding session of the United Nations (UN) Ad Hoc Committee to ensure that the proposed Cybercrime Convention (the Convention) is narrowly focused on tackling cybercrime, and not used as a tool to undermine human rights. Absent meaningful changes to address these shortcomings, the Convention should be rejected.

Civil society groups have contributed time and expertise to improve the draft and fully align it with existing human rights law and standards, the principles of the UN Charter and the rule of law, as well as best practices to provide legal certainty in efforts to improve cybersecurity. Our concerns about the proposed text of the Convention are informed by our experience and human rights advocacy around the world. National and regional cybercrime laws are regrettably far too often misused to unjustly target journalists and security researchers, suppress dissent and whistleblowers, endanger human rights defenders, limit free expression, and justify unnecessary and disproportionate state surveillance measures.

Throughout the negotiations over the last two years, civil society groups and other stakeholders have consistently emphasized that the fight against cybercrime must not come at the expense of human rights, gender equality, and the dignity of the people whose lives will be affected by this Convention. It should not result in impeding security research and making us all less secure. Robust and meaningful safeguards and limitations are essential to avoid the possibility of abuse of relevant provisions of the Convention that could arise under the guise of combating cybercrime. Regrettably, the latest draft of the proposed Convention, which is due to be finalized by February 2024, fails to address many of our significant concerns. We believe that if the text of the Convention is approved in its current form, the risk of abuses and human rights violations will increase exponentially and leave us with a less secure internet.

We are particularly concerned that the latest draft of the Convention:

• Remains over-broad in the scope of the range of the activities it requires states to criminalize. It includes cyber-enabled offenses and other content-related crimes and creates legal uncertainty through an open-ended reference to crimes under other “applicable international conventions and protocols.” This overbroad scope gives rise to the danger that the Convention will be used to criminalize legitimate online expression, which is likely to create discriminatory impacts and deepen gender inequality;
• Fails to incorporate language sufficient to protect security researchers, whistleblowers, activists, and journalists from excessive criminalization;
• Contains insufficient references to states’ obligations under international human rights law, includes weak domestic human rights safeguards in its criminal procedural chapter, and fails to explicitly incorporate robust safeguards applicable to the whole treaty to ensure that cybercrime efforts provide adequate protection for human rights and are in accordance with the principles of legality, non-discrimination, legitimate purpose, necessity, and proportionality;
• Lacks effective gender mainstreaming which is critical to ensure the Convention is not used to undermine people’s human rights on the basis of gender;
• Proposes to create legal regimes to monitor, store, and allow cross-border sharing of information in a manner that would undermine trust in secure communications and infringe on international human rights standards, including the requirements for prior judicial authorization and the principles of legality, non discrimination, legitimate purpose, necessity, and proportionality;
• Permits excessive information sharing for law enforcement cooperation, beyond the scope of specific criminal investigations and without specific, explicit data protection and human rights safeguards.

The Convention should only move forward if it pursues a specific goal of combating cybercrime without endangering the human rights and fundamental freedoms of those it seeks to protect nor undermining efforts to improve cybersecurity for an open internet. The present draft text falls far short of this goal and these basic minimum requirements, and must be comprehensively revised, amended, or rejected.

Therefore, we call on all state delegations to:

• Narrow the scope of the whole Convention to cyber-dependent crimes specifically defined and included in its text;
• Make certain the Convention includes provisions to ensure that security researchers, whistleblowers, journalists, and human rights defenders are not prosecuted for their legitimate activities and that other public interest activities are protected;
• Guarantee that explicit data protection and human rights standards – including the principles of non-discrimination, legality, legitimate purpose, necessity and proportionality – are applicable to the whole Convention. Specific, explicit safeguards, such as the principle of prior judicial authorization, must be put in place for accessing or sharing data, as well as for conducting cross-border investigations and cooperation in accordance with the rule of law;
• Mainstream gender across the Convention as a whole and throughout each article in efforts to prevent and combat cybercrime;
• Limit the scope of application of procedural measures and international cooperation to the cyber-dependent crimes established in the criminalization chapter of the Convention;
• Avoid endorsing any surveillance provision that can be abused to undermine cybersecurity and encryption.

As the UN Ad Hoc Committee convenes its concluding session, we call on state delegations to redouble their efforts to address these critical gaps in the current draft. The final outcome of the treaty negotiation process should only be deemed acceptable if it effectively incorporates strong and meaningful safeguards to protect human rights, ensures legal clarity for fairness and due process, and fosters international cooperation under the rule of law. The proposed Convention must not serve as a validation of intrusion and surveillance practices harmful to human rights.

Absent these minimum requirements, we call on state delegations to reject the draft treaty and not advance it to the UN General Assembly for adoption.

Submitted by NGOS registered under operative paragraphs 8 or 9

Access Now
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
ARTICLE 19
Center for Democracy and Technology
CyberPeace Institute
Data Privacy Brasil
Derechos Digitales
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Freedom House
Global Partners – Digital
Hiperderecho
Human Rights Watch
Instituto Panamericano de Derecho y Tecnologia (IPANDETEC)
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
Jokkolabs Banjul
Jonction – Senegal
Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet)
Privacy International
R3D: Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales
Temple University, Institute for Law, Innovation & Technology (iLIT)

Full list of signatories supporting the letter

7amleh – The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media
ActiveWatch
Advocacy for Principled Action in Government
Afghanistan Journalists Center (AFJC)
Africa Freedom of Information Centre (AFIC)
AfroLeadership
Albanian Media Institute
Alliance of Independent Journalists Indonesia (AJI)
Alternatif Bilisim (AiA-Alternative Informatics Association)
Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN)
Bahrain Center for Human Rights
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio & Communication (BNNRC)
BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA)
Bytes for All
Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)
Cambodian Centre for Independent Media (CCIM)
Cartoonists Rights Network International
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility
Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy (CFFP)
Centre for Free Expression (CFE)
Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD)
Centre for Independent Journalism (Malaysia)
Chaos Computer Club (CCC)
Committee to Protect Journalists
Douwe Korff, Emeritus Professor of International Law, London Metropolitan University
Digital Empowerment Foundation
DigitalReach
Digital Rights Foundation
Digital Rights Ireland
Digitale Gesellschaft
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
Epicenter.works – for digital rights
European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL)
European Digital Rights (EDRi)
European Summer School in Internet Governance (EURO-SSIG)
Federation of Nepali Journalists
Foundation for Media Alternatives
Fundación Karisma
Fundación Internet Bolivia
Foundation for Information Policy Research
Freedom Forum, Nepal
Free Media Movement – Sri Lanka
Globe International Center
Government Information Watch
Gulf Center for Human Rights (GCHR)
Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda (HRNJ-U)
IFoX (Initiative for Freedom of Expression–Turkey)
Independent Journalism Center Moldova
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG)
International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH)
International Press Institute (IPI)
International Press Centre (IPC) Lagos-Nigeria
Institute for Research on Internet and Society (IRIS)
Instituto de Pesquisa em Direito e Tecnologia do Recife – IP.rec
Instituto Nupef
IT-Pol Denmark
Japan Comuter Access Network (JCA-NET)
Jinbonet (Korean Progressive Network Center)
Laboratory of Public Policy and Internet – LAPIN
LaLibre.net Tecnologías Comunitarias
Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH)
Maharat Foundation
Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA)
Media Rights Agenda (MRA)
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Media Policy Institute
Media Watch
Metamorphosis Foundation
Mizzima
OpenMedia
Pakistan Press Foundation
Palestinian Center for Development & Media Freedoms (MADA)
Paradigm Initiative (PIN)
PEN International
Restore the Fourth
Social Media Exchange (SMEX)
SocialTIC
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
South East European Network for Professionalization of Media (SEENPM)
Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (SAFEnet)
Statewatch
Surveillance Resistance Lab
Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP)
Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression
TEDIC
The Tor Project
Unwanted Witness
Valerie Steeves, Full Professor, Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa
Vigilance for Democracy and the Civic State
Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Professor Emeritus, University of Aarhus, former ICANN Board Member

The post UN Cybercrime Convention must not become a tool to undermine international human rights standards appeared first on IFEX.

The undersigned international freedom of expression and media freedom organisations today renew our condemnation of a groundless defamation lawsuit filed against Greek journalists and media by Grigoris Dimitriadis, the nephew of the Prime Minister, and urge the plaintiff to urgently withdraw the lawsuit ahead of an upcoming hearing.

With the first hearing due at an Athens court of First Instance on 25 January, 2024 after a year-and-a-half delay, our organisations restate our shared characterisation of this lawsuit as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) – a vexatious effort to muzzle investigative reporting on Dimitriadis’ links to the Greek spyware scandal.

The claim by Dimitriadis – who belongs to the powerful Mitsotakis family – was filed on 5 August 2022 against newspaper EFSYN and online investigative portal Reporters United and their reporters Nikolas Leontopoulos and Thodoris Chondrogiannos, plus freelance journalist Thanasis Koukakis. It demands compensation of €250,000 from EFSYN, €150,000 from Reporters United and its journalists. Dimitriadis also demanded that Koukakis, a journalist targeted with spyware, take down his sharing of Reporters United’s investigation on social media, which referred to Dimitriadis and the wiretapping scandal, and pay damages of €150,000. The total amount claimed is €550,000.

The defamation lawsuit was filed on the day Dimitriadis resigned from his position as the general secretary of Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, his uncle. The previous day, EFSYN and Reporters United made revelations about Dimitriadis’ connection to the surveillance scandal at a time when he oversaw the National Intelligence Agency. On June 3, another joint report had provided evidence Dimitriadis was connected to a network of businesspeople and companies linked directly or indirectly with businessman Felix Bitzios, former deputy administrator and shareholder of the spyware firm Intellexa, which at the time marketed the Predator spyware, which was revealed to have been used by unconfirmed actors to surveil multiple high-profile political and media figures.

After the lawsuit was filed, many of our organisations branded the lawsuit as a startling example of a SLAPP and an attempt to muzzle investigative reporting on a matter of significant public interest. This assessment was supported by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE). One-and-a-half years on, the frivolous nature of this lawsuit remains, and recent revelations have only further supported the reporting. Rather than being targeted by financially and psychologically draining lawsuits, both Reporters United and EFSYN instead deserve credit for their watchdog reporting.

Our organisations met with journalists from Reporters United during a recent international press freedom mission to Athens in September 2023 to discuss the lawsuit and its impact further. Through the Media Freedom Rapid Response, our organisations are proud to have helped provide support to cover the legal fees of the targeted media outlets and journalists in this court case.

Concerningly, we note that on 24 November 2023, Dimitriadis filed a second lawsuit against many of the same plaintiffs: EFSYN, three executives from the newspaper, as well as three journalists from Reporters United and Thanasis Koukakis. This second lawsuit – totalling €3.3 million for all the defendants – also stems from their reporting on Dimitriadis’ alleged links to the spyware scandal. Another lawsuit was filed against Alter Ego Media, as well as other threats of legal action.

Our organisations stress an alarming pattern of legal efforts to smother journalistic reporting on Dimitriadis’ connections to the spyware scandal. Ahead of the first-instance hearing, we urge Mr. Dimitriadis to withdraw the lawsuit and retract demands for the removal of the article and financial compensation. If the claim is not withdrawn, we urge the court to dismiss the complaint and to recognise the vexatious nature of this lawsuit, the accuracy and public interest of the report, and the pattern of legal intimidation by Mr Dimitriadis against independent journalistic reporting. We ask the judge to carefully assess international freedom of expression standards when making any decision.

Our organisations will continue to monitor the situation closely and report further attacks on the freedom of the press in Greece to international organisations and the European Union. We will also continue to raise SLAPP cases as a matter of concern with the Greek government and its Task Force for journalists’ safety. As the European institutions move to formally approve the EU anti-SLAPP Directive and the Council of Europe anti-SLAPP recommendation, the Greek authorities should take all national measures to ensure that journalists are not silenced by these vexatious lawsuits, in line with European standards. Our organisations remain committed to defending free and independent journalism in Greece and hope for a positive outcome in this case.

The post Greece: SLAPP lawsuit against media and journalists must be dropped appeared first on IFEX.

We, the undersigned nine human rights organisations working to defend freedom of opinion and expression, condemn the criminal charges against the creators of the film Mentega Terbang¹. On 17 January, the film’s producer, Tan Meng Kheng, and director, Khairi Anwar Jailani, were charged under Section 298 of the Penal Code for ‘hurting religious feelings’, a blasphemy provision. Khairi Anwar was given a bail order of RM 6,000 (approximately USD 1,270), and the court ordered him to report to the police station on a monthly basis. Meanwhile, Tan Meng was ordered to pay RM 6,500 (approximately USD 1,380) as bail. They both were ordered not to comment publicly about the charges pending disposal of their cases. They were released under bail, and the next hearing is fixed for 14 March 2024.

The film was banned in September 2023 under Section 26 of the Film Censorship Act (2002) on the grounds that it is ‘contrary to the public interest,’ two years after its release in 2021. From early 2023, the filmmakers suffered a distressing witch hunt and faced threats from the State, as well as from non-state actors, and people on social media. Instead of the safety and rights of the filmmakers being protected, authorities have used the law punish them. The producer and director filed a legal challenge against the ban in December 2023. 

Section 298 of the Penal Code makes the insult of any religion a criminal offence. Human rights violations monitoring reveals that these provisions are largely used against those deemed to have allegedly insulted Islam. The enforcement of these provisions has had a disproportionate and negative impact on minority communities, political dissidents, atheists, comedians, artists, religious scholars, and others who express opinions and, often, merely reflect lived realities on the ground, and especially as a response to questionable actions by those who wield power. 

While Malaysia is not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 19(2) of the ICCPR is considered part of customary international law and therefore binding upon Malaysia.

In General Comment 34 on Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN Human Rights Committee stated clearly that blasphemy laws are incompatible with the right to freedom of expression except in specific circumstances laid out under Article 20(2) of the ICCPR, such as when the speech or expression in question constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. International human rights bodies and experts have repeatedly warned that blasphemy provisions are inconsistent with international human rights law, including the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of religion or belief.

Blasphemy provisions are arbitrary and open to abuse. They inappropriately empower government authorities to decide the parameters of religious discourse. Minority groups and individuals holding unpopular opinions are often disproportionately targeted. The enforcement of blasphemy provisions is highly problematic, especially when criminal sanctions are applied. As a result, blasphemy provisions promote intolerance by restricting the rights to freedom of expression, thought, and religion. Such prejudice can result in devastating consequences for society. 

Human rights law holds that a State’s restrictions on the right to freedom of expression are permitted only if they are provided by law and in pursuit of a legitimate aim. Measures taken by the State must be necessary and proportionate to that aim.

In her report to the Human Rights Council after her visit to Malaysia in 2017, the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights found that ‘there is an urgent need to review and clarify the criteria for censorship of books and films and to make the decision-making process more transparent so as to guarantee freedom of artistic expression’. She also stressed that ‘the government of Malaysia needs to develop concrete plans to guarantee freedom of artistic expression’ and encouraged the government to ‘support a diversity of spaces and platforms for people to engage meaningfully with one another about culture, including in relation to issues upon which they do not agree’.

Freedom of artistic expression is an essential component of nation-building and in fostering a culture that celebrates creativity. We call upon the government to: 

1. Immediately and unconditionally drop the charges against Tan and Khairy. We also urge the Madani government to end the criminalisation of religious offence and the use of other vague provisions in the law to curtail freedom of expression and artistic freedom in Malaysia.

2. It is time for the government to adopt a comprehensive and evidence-based national implementation plan on Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 and the Rabat Plan of Action to promote inclusion and implement measures to guarantee equal and effective protection of the law while respecting the right to freedom of expression. 

3. In addition, we urge the Malaysian government to repeal or amend all laws restricting freedom of expression in Malaysia, including the Sedition Act, Film Censorship Act, Communication and Multimedia Act (CMA), Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA), Sections 504 and 505(b), and Sections 298 and 298A (1) of the Penal Code, and to ensure that they comply with international human rights laws and standards.

4. During the upcoming 4th Universal Periodic Review (UPR) session at the Human Rights Council in Geneva in January 2024, the government has another opportunity to renew its commitments to human rights protection by signing and ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and all other major international human rights treaties.

Download the statement as a PDF 

1. Mentega Terbang, which was released on a streaming site in 2021, tells the story of 15-year-old Aishah as she struggles with questions about life after death according to various religions when faced with her mother’s terminal illness. Conservative groups complained that the film went against Islamic religious doctrine.

The post Malaysia: ‘Drop charges against Mentega Terbang filmmakers’ appeared first on IFEX.

After approval following initial debate a year ago, on 12 January 2024 the parliamentary review process of the “Law on Control, Regulation, Performance and Financing of Non-Governmental and Related Organisations” resumed with the opening of a public consultation process. Dates for the consultation process, however, have not been made known and available to the public.

Since its presentation before parliament, the debate on the bill has been stigmatising in nature, depicting civil society organisations that carry out social, humanitarian and human rights work as “enemies of the country”, accusing them of using “illicit funds” to “finance terrorism”.

The legislative initiative grants the Executive Branch faculties to supervise, inspect, control and penalise organisations and their affiliates via legislative and oversight powers. These powers subject non-governmental organisations to the discretionary interests of the ruling government, violating their independence and autonomy.

The initiative imposes obligations to provide “information regarding the constitution, statutes, activities and origin, administration and destination of an organisations’ resources,” with specific details required regarding sources of funding. These requirements would be introduced within a context in which this type of information has been used to pursue and criminalise sectors critical of the government.

Transparency is a fundamental pillar of civil society work and is carried out as a matter of best practices. The obligations contained within this legislative initiative, however, are being imposed within a framework that lacks clarity regarding the institutional guarantees required to effectively provide respect and protection for the right to freedom of association.

Venezuela is in the midst of a structural crisis that negatively impacts guarantees relating to social, economic, civil and political rights. The consequences of this crisis are having an impact across the region, with the displacement of millions of people to other Latin American countries. Thousands of people within the country receive necessary social and humanitarian assistance to address complex humanitarian needs. If this legislative initiative receives approval the work of organisations that provide this assistance will be severely curtailed. In addition, under this legislation, any initiative that operates in a manner that is autonomous and independent from government interests would automatically be suspected of carrying out criminal activities. This would include the work of social, religious, union, educational, community, environmental and neighbourhood organisations, collectives and movements, among others.

Venezuelan organisations are already subjected to a series of registration activities and must comply with their financial obligations. There is already a restrictive regulatory environment in place, under regulations such as the Law against Organised Crime and Terrorism Financing or Administrative Ruling No. 002-2021, among others. These regulations effectively impede organisations from registering or updating their documentation. Within this scenario, there have been arbitrary interventions in civil society associations, and activists and rights defenders have been criminally persecuted. This situation has progressively worsened in the lead up the electoral process scheduled for 2024.

We call on the international community to support actions that prevent this and other similar legislation from moving forward in the region. The goal of these types of legislation is to take away freedoms in our countries. Initiatives of this sort feed into stigmatising narratives and encourage more restrictive and anti-democratic actions. If this bill is approved, the work of non-governmental organisations in Venezuela will be even more limited and threatened, which could trigger an escalation in criminal persecution of activists and rights defenders.

Recovery of democracy requires the active defence of civil society. Individuals, organisations, collectives, initiatives and movements, with their varied and unique mandates, can quell restrictive and illegitimate practices that seek to diminish institutions in order to preserve and concentrate power in the hands of a few at the cost of respect for the rights of all.

The post Venezuela: Civic space at risk of disappearing appeared first on IFEX.

ARTICLE 19 joined a coalition of international civil society organisations in signing a joint letter calling on the Slovak Parliament to reject proposed changes to the Whistleblower Protection Act. The proposed changes would severely limit whistleblower protections and significantly hinder the detection of corruption crimes and the sharing of information in the public interest. The changes would also make Slovakia the only state where whistleblowing does not trigger protection unless the government agrees that exposing its own corruption is a ‘necessity’. Read the letter below, and use the link at the bottom of this page to view all signatories.

SENT BY EMAIL TO:

Minister of Justice of the Slovak Republic, Mr. Boris Susko
Minister of Interior of the Slovak Republic, Mr. Matúš Šutaj Eštok
Speaker of Parliament of the Slovak Republic, Mr. Peter Pellegrini
All Members of Parliament of the Slovak Republic

8 January 2024

Dear Ministers, Speaker and Members of the Parliament of the Slovak Republic,

We, the undersigned organisations, are writing to you to express our serious concerns about proposed legislation – developed in secret – that would severely limit whistleblower protections in Slovakia. We seek your support in rejecting this new legislation and ensuring that Slovakia remains a European leader in protecting whistleblowers in the public interest.

On 6 December 2023, the Slovakian government sent legislation to Parliament that would eliminate whistleblower protection for police officers and cancel minimum free speech rights for everyone else based on the introduction of arbitrary, subjective judgments not contained in the European Union Whistleblower Directive. Indeed, the secret process of preparing this legal retreat may violate the EU’s Conditionality Regulation and could threaten funding to Slovakia.

ELIMINATING WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION FOR POLICE

The new language would amend current law to delete protection as follows:

§ 25aa Transitional provisions to the changes effective on the date of promulgation/adoption.
(1) The protection afforded to a whistleblower who is a member of the Police Force ceases on the date on which this Act comes into force.
(2) The protection afforded to a whistleblower before the date of commencement of this Act shall continue to be maintained only if it meets the conditions laid down in this Act.

The government defended the change with the following explanation:

This change is in line with Article 4(1)(a) of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons reporting infringements of Union law, as amended, according to which the personal scope is limited, inter alia, to ‘persons who have the status of worker within the meaning of Article 45(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, including civil servants’. The phrase ‘including civil servants’ must be read in the light of the excluded positions which constitute the performance of a public service. This conclusion is confirmed by the wording of Article 3(2) of Directive (EU) 2019/1937, which provides that: ‘This Directive shall be without prejudice to the responsibility of the Member States to safeguard national security or their competence to protect their essential security interests.’

This explanation cannot withstand scrutiny. Initially, Article 45(1) only makes it clear that civil servants are included. It does not limit any rights to those workers. In short, there is no police loophole for the sweeping rights in that Article.

Second, the Directive does not include any requirement for whistleblowers to be civil servants. Coverage in Article 4(1)(a) includes but is not limited to civil servants. As explained in Recital 38:

Protection should, firstly, apply to persons having the status of ‘workers’, within the meaning of Article 45(1) TFEU, as interpreted by the Court, namely persons who, for a certain period of time, perform services for and under the direction of another person, in return for which they receive remuneration. Protection should, thus, also be granted to workers in non-standard employment relationships, including part-time workers and fixed-term contract workers, as well as persons with a contract of employment or employment relationship with a temporary agency, precarious types of relationships where standard forms of protection against unfair treatment are often difficult to apply. The concept of ‘worker’ also includes civil servants, public service employees, as well as any other persons working in the public sector. (emphasis added).

Further, the legislation would violate the Directive’s non-regression clause. Transposition laws cannot weaken pre-existing whistleblower rights. As article 45(2) provides: ‘The implementation of this Directive shall under no circumstances constitute grounds for a reduction in the level of protection already afforded by Member States in the areas covered by this Directive.’

There was no police loophole in Slovakia’s prior 2019 law, whose purpose was explained in Article 1 to provide ‘protection to persons in an employment relationship in connection with reporting crime….’ Article 2(a) defined those protected as any ‘natural person who, in good faith, makes a notification to the authority responsible for receiving the notification, the office or the employer….’ Again, there was no exception that the law protected all natural persons except police.

The government further defended the legislation by saying that police exception is justified, because the Directive exempts national security issues. However, that only restricts the subject matter of disclosures. The Directive does not state that national security officers are unprotected for disclosing illegality or abuses of authority independent of national security. The government’s assertion is unprecedented. No other EU Member state has contended that all police work is a matter of national security. Slovakia cannot be a lawful precedent to drastically shrink the Directive’s scope.

CANCELLING MINIMUM FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS

The proposed legislation has numerous provisions to arbitrarily erase protection. The two most dangerous force whistleblowers to guess whether they have rights, which besides violating the Directive’s requirement for clear boundaries, would also create a severe chilling effect.

‘Necessity’ to report as a prerequisite for protection

Section 2(c) requires that whistleblowing is a ‘necessity,’ or the reporter is without rights and is defenceless against retaliation. This subjective test means the whistleblower will have to guess whether an official agrees the truth could not wait, which should and will have a severe chilling effect on the flow of evidence necessary to nip corruption in the bud. The requirement also is unrealistic in many cases until an investigation is complete. Most significantly, this prerequisite illegally weakens the Directive’s minimum standard, because Article 5(2) protects all reports and disclosures supported by a ‘reasonable suspicion’. There is no prerequisite that the whistleblowing be a necessity to receive the law’s protection. The prerequisite also violates the non-regression clause. There was no ‘necessity’ requirement in Slovakia’s prior law.

Disqualification for ‘apparent’ abuse of whistleblowing

Section 2(k) removes protection for any whistleblower who engages in ‘apparent abuse’ of reporting. Again, this completely subjective standard opens the door to arbitrary removal of whistleblowers covered by the Directive. Again, it reflects triple violations of the Directive’s requirements for clarity, minimum levels of protection, and non-regression. All the Directive requires for protection is that relevant evidence passes the reasonable suspicion test. It does not include this additional judgement call. An ‘apparent abuse’ could leave defenceless those who make honest mistakes, or those whose evidence is accurate but have allegedly nefarious motives. The point of the reasonable suspicion standard is to protect honest mistakes. The Directive’s Recital 32 is clear that motives are irrelevant for that assessment. Independent of evidence, whistleblowers will have to guess whether officials trust or distrust them, and guess right, to know whether they even have rights. There was no such loophole in Slovakia’s pre-transposition law, so it also violates the anti-regression clause. Most basic, the loophole is unnecessary. Anyone who makes an abusive report would not pass the reasonable suspicion test.

VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONALITY REGULATION THROUGH SECRET LAW

A fundamental principle of EU law is that government actions must be grounded in a transparent, pluralistic, democratic manner, as failure to respect that principle can lead to liability, including EU funding cut-offs. However, in the case of the legislative proposals challenged above, there was no engagement with society, and the entire process was shrouded in secrecy, resulting in a fait accompli.

The key question at the heart of this matter pertains to the alignment of the expedited procedure with the rule of law principles as defined in the EU Conditionality Regulation. Moreover, the rule of law principle also demands legal certainty. Rapid amendments to legislation may create uncertainty for various stakeholders, including whistleblowers. It is imperative to ensure that executive powers do not act arbitrarily, and the haste in secretly preparing this legislation has created vulnerability to arbitrary decisions, as proper scrutiny and evaluation have been circumvented. This departure from the fundamental principles of EU law not only raises questions about the legitimacy of the legislative process but also calls into question the commitment to upholding the rule of law within the European Union. These actions by the Slovak government give grounds for the European Commission to take measures, including financial sanctions, as outlined in the Conditionality Regulation.

****
Considering the serious problems the new law would create, it will not be enough merely to rescind the EU Directive violations as we have summarised above. We respectfully submit that neither these nor other significant changes to Slovakia’s law should be finalised without a legitimate process enfranchising the stakeholders and expert authorities with relevant competence. We therefore call on the government to withdraw the proposed law and for Members of Parliament to reject this proposal to amend the current protection of whistleblowers in Slovakia and to demand that any future proposals go through an open and legitimate process of consultation and review.

We remain at your disposal to answer any questions you may have or provide you with any further information you might need.

Yours sincerely,
The Undersigned Organisations

Cc: President of the Slovak Republic, Madame Zuzana Čaputová

View as PDF

The post Slovakia should reject draft legislation that weakens whistleblower protections appeared first on IFEX.