Free speech – Asia Pacific Report https://asiapacificreport.nz Independent Asia Pacific news and analysis Mon, 23 Mar 2026 09:38:49 +0000 en-US hourly 1 ‘From the river to the sea’ – swimming against the Queensland tide https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/03/23/from-the-river-to-the-sea-swimming-against-the-queensland-tide/ Sun, 22 Mar 2026 21:40:05 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=125440 A CAUTIONARY TALE: By Jim Dowling

Both my son Franz and I have been arrested, separately, for suspected thought crimes relating to Palestine and Israel.

We dared to display in public the words, “from the river to the sea”, using or displaying such words now being illegal in Queensland.

I say “thought crimes” because neither of our displays mentioned Palestine or Israel. So obviously they can only conclude we must have been illegally thinking the “wrong thoughts” about this conflict.

For nearly two years a group of us have been gathering weekly outside the office of Boeing in Brisbane, to draw attention to their terrorist activity in making missiles, fighter jets, attack helicopters and other weapons of mass destruction, used in present conflicts, especially the Gaza genocide.

When the Queensland government made it illegal to use the words “From the River to the Sea” in public, I went to the usual Wednesday action with a large placard saying “From the River to the Sea, Brisbane will be Free — of Boeing”.

Eventually police came and arrested me. My arresting officer asked me what the words on the banner meant. I gave him a good rave about Boeing and why we wanted them nowhere in Brisbane, from the river to the sea.

He took a while trying to get me to “incriminate” myself by making reference to Palestine etc. Eventually, after exposing the farcical nature of the law, I was happy do so.

Interrogated by ‘anti-terrorism squad’
He took me to the watchhouse where I was interrogated about my thought crimes by the “Anti-terrorism squad” (that is not a joke by the way).

This gave me a good chance to explain why we wanted Boeing out of Brisbane, and a lot more — about free speech, terrorism, nonviolence, etc. After an hour and a half they let me go.

I go to court on the April 14.

Now, 42 hours later at 7am, the same ever vigilant anti-terrorism squad raided Dorothy Day house of hospitality, with a team of eight officers.

Franz immediately confessed to his thought crimes, and actual crimes of displaying a banner on the side of the house reading, “From the river to the sea — come and get us [Premier] Crisafulli”.

Now I guess it is an exaggeration to call this elite squad “ever vigilant”, as the banner had been on the wall of the house for over a week. And, being on a main road and very visible from said road, there is no telling how many innocent citizens may have been infected by the thought crimes emanating from it.

Once at Dorothy Day house, the police searched all the rooms for? Hmm, illegal thinking maybe.

Phone and laptop confiscated
Anyhow, as I said, Franz broke down and confessed, so they eventually left everyone else alone. They confiscated Franz’s phone and laptop — probably the main reason for the raid.

They also took the banner and the very paints used to commit the crime. I asked Franz if they took the paper placed under the banner during the painting process. But they did not.

Now, they could find out a lot of information from Franz’s phone and laptop. They could find out who were being infected by these thought crimes, and how far they were spreading.

Perhaps they could investigate the words of the songs on Franz’s laptop sung by his church choir, to see if there was anything about rivers or seas. Perhaps, with names and phone numbers of his fellow choir members they could instigate more raids. (I know for a fact some choir members weren’t even born in Australia!)

In the end the police told Franz they would let him know next Tuesday, if or what he would be charged with.

You can read the ABC news report of the raid of Dorothy Day house here. You can also see him interviewed on Brisbane’s Channel Ten news on March 20 (if you can find it — ABC Tiktok video removed).

So there you have it. Another week in the state’s never ending battle against terrorism. Or is it a battle against a few pathetic people who believe they are the ones resisting terrorism?

Is it terrorism to say “from the river to the sea”, or is it terrorism to slaughter tens of thousands of innocents with the help of Boeing, Pine Gap and the Australian government? You decide.

Jim Dowling is a human rights, free speech and anti-war activist from Brisbane, Australia.

]]> Caitlin Johnstone: Oppose Israel’s abuses while you still can https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/01/23/caitlin-johnstone-oppose-israels-abuses-while-you-still-can/ Thu, 22 Jan 2026 21:51:49 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=122783 COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

I’ve seen some Australians expressing confusion as to whether or not they can still legally criticise Israel online after new “hate speech” laws were passed on Tuesday under the pretence of combatting “antisemitism”.

The answer is yes, and you definitely should keep opposing Israel and its genocidal atrocities.

I am worried that these new laws may indirectly have a bit of a chilling effect on pro-Palestine activism due to Australians not understanding these new laws and what people are allowed to do without being jailed.

So let’s clear this up thoroughly so we’re all on the same page.

To be perfectly clear: it is still legal for Australians to oppose Israel and to associate with pro-Palestine groups – and we should. What’s changed is that now those groups can be classified as “hate groups” and banned, similarly to how Palestine Action has been banned in the UK.

But this hasn’t happened yet, and hopefully never will. We need to push for these new laws to be repealed, because they look guaranteed to be abused at some point in the future.

Know your rights, Australians:

It is still legal to criticise Israel. So we should criticise it as much as possible, because we don’t know how much longer we’ll have that right.

It is still legal to associate with pro-Palestine groups. So we should do so at every opportunity, because we don’t know when they’ll start listing them as “hate groups” and imprisoning anyone who continues to associate with them.

Unless you are in certain parts of Sydney while the post-Bondi protest ban remains in effect, it is presently fully legal to hold pro-Palestine marches. So attend as many as you are able, because you don’t know when they’ll be shut down altogether.


Oppose Israel’s abuses . . .                              Video: Caitlin Johnstone

It is still legal to say that Israel is a genocidal apartheid state, and to share information and opinions about its abuses. So we should do so as much as we can, because we don’t know when that right will be taken away.

It is still legal to state the fact that Zionism is a racist and murderous political ideology and that everything we’ve seen in Gaza is the result of Zionists getting everything they want. So we should say it frequently, because that right could vanish at any time.

It is still legal to say “Fuck Israel, free Palestine.” So we should say it loud and say it often, because we don’t know how much longer we’ll be allowed to do so without getting thrown into prison.

The Israel lobby is working frenetically to crush free speech in Australia, and the swamp monsters in Canberra are either actively facilitating this agenda or doing far too little to stop it.

The more aggressively they work to take away our right to oppose Israel, the more aggressively we need to oppose both them and Israel.

We’re not just fighting for Gaza anymore, we’re fighting for our own civil rights, and for our children, and for our grandchildren. They’re actively assaulting our ability to speak critically of power and make this nation a more tyrannical place.

The only appropriate response to this is ferocious defiance.

Our future depends on it.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

]]> Censorship crusade: Israel targets platforms and online archives to ‘rewrite Gaza’ https://asiapacificreport.nz/2025/11/07/censorship-crusade-israel-targets-platforms-and-online-archives-to-rewrite-gaza/ Thu, 06 Nov 2025 12:24:22 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=120780 SPECIAL REPORT: By Robert Inlakesh

Israelis are determined to erase the evidence of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, through the use of paid and instructed propagandists to reshape the historical record.

Zionists have also taken over social media platforms. Those who are critical of Israel are being censored or arrested.

From YouTube to X, Wikipedia, and TikTok, Zionists are capturing all means of communication to erase the evidence of its genocide, reshape the historical record, and censor those critical of it.

Meanwhile, the Israel Lobby exercises its power through intimidation, paying influencers to endorse it, and arresting dissenters whom they frame as terrorists.

Last December, Israel announced it was boosting its Foreign Affairs Ministry “hasbara” (propaganda) budget by an extra US$150 million.

Back in August, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu admitted to reporters that Tel Aviv was losing to “propaganda” war.

“I think that we’ve not been winning [the propaganda war], to put it mildly … There are vast forces arrayed against us,” he stated at the time, blaming the algorithms for this defeat.

Dismantling free speech
Since then, Israel has been working to dismantle free speech and censor everything critical of it, across social media, as part of an all-encompassing crackdown.

This press conference was no accident; instead, it was part of a much larger scheme that began in July with a targeted campaign aimed at brainwashing right-wing conservatives in the West.

The propaganda plan was hatched in three parts: One being Netanyahu going on a number of right-wing podcasts; another being a social media censorship campaign, along with the financing of propaganda trips to Israel for right-wing influencers.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s appearance on the Nelk Boys podcast was his first stop in his attempt to revive right-wing support for him personally, yet it received enormous backlash at the time.

The podcasters were widely condemned for both “normalising” and asking no critical questions of the Prime Minister, who currently has an International Criminal Court (ICC) war crimes warrant out for his arrest.

The Israeli Prime Minister then went on a round of coordinated interviews across the American corporate media, as a range of other right-wing podcasters hosted him. The difference between the corporate media and the podcasters who hosted him was that the podcasters were even less critical and actively worked to bolster his image.

These disingenuous podcast hosts even attempted to frame themselves as defying cancel culture, being edgy and going against the mainstream, despite the fact that they were simply doing a worse job than that of the corporate media, battling nothing more than their own followings.

Erica Mindel – censorship Tsar
Meanwhile, in the background, TikTok hired Erica Mindel, an ex-Israeli soldier and ex-ADL employee who openly bragged of her loyalty to Israel, as its new “Hate Speech” censorship Tsar.

A move that appeared to have gone relatively unnoticed, but began to shape what was deemed acceptable discourse on the platform.

As this was in the works, the Israeli foreign ministry had already funded trips for 16 right-wing influencers to travel to Israel on closely coordinated propaganda trips. Their goal was to bring 550 such influencers on fully financed tours by the end of the year, which later included figures like Tommy Robinson and even former rapper Azealia Banks.

Upon visiting the White House in October, Benjamin Netanyahu attended a meeting with right-wing influencers and openly discussed ideas to capture social media platforms.

At this point, the agenda to kill content critical of Israel was already underway, as the TikTok app that the Israel Lobby sought to ban just a year prior fell into the hands of pro-Israel billionaires.

The world’s second-richest man and top donor to the Israeli military, Larry Ellison, is a key figure in this picture, as his company, Oracle, is poised to take over TikTok. The move was recently praised by The Times of Israel as “raising hopes for tougher anti-Semitism rules”.

Meanwhile, Ellison was busy buying up CBS News and installing the completely inexperienced, vehemently pro-Israel journalist, Bari Weiss, as the channel’s top executive.

Inexperienced for role
Weiss, whose claim to fame was being a temporary opinion piece writer at The New York Times before leaving and attempting to carve out a career as a right-wing commentator and, later, news outlet owner, is clearly inexperienced for taking on her current role.

Ellison just so happens to be a major stakeholder in Elon Musk’s Tesla and X.

In early October, YouTube also decided to quietly delete at least 700 videos from the platform that documented Israeli human rights violations, along with the accounts of three prominent Palestinian human rights groups: Al-Haq, Al-Mezan Center, and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights.

The Intercept published an article explaining the move as a “capitulation” to President Donald Trump’s recent sanctions, enacted to shield Israel from accountability for its copiously documented war crimes.

Then there is Wikipedia co-founder, Jimmy Wales, who came out against the website’s page covering the Gaza Genocide, asserting that it “needs immediate attention”.

“At present, the lead and overall presentation state, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Israel is committing genocide, although that claim is highly contested,” Wales stated, claiming it violates the platform’s “neutral” point of view.

At present, every major human rights organisation, including Israel’s own B’Tselem, all the top legal organisations relevant to the issue, the United Nations, and the most representative body of genocide scholars, all agree that Israel is committing genocide.

ICJ’s “plausible genocide’
In fact, the International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s ruling on the matter considers it a plausible genocide. The only ones disputing this fact are the Israelis themselves, ideologically committed and/or paid Zionist propagandists, in addition to Israeli allies who are also implicated in the crime of all crimes.

Objective truth is, however, not relevant to any of these bad-faith actors. This is because Israel and its powerful lobbying arms are actively pursuing a total crackdown on criticism of Israeli war crimes.

On X (Twitter), a new censorship warning has been placed over all images and videos from Gaza that show Israeli war crimes, also.

What is currently happening is a widespread attempt to wipe content from the internet, erase the truth, ban, deport, and arrest those critical of Israel. All this as the Israel Lobby brings social media and corporate media under its direct control, using the excuse of “anti-Semitism” and “terrorism” to do so.

Israel’s censorship crackdown, which the Trump administration is working alongside to complete, is by far the worst iteration of cancel culture yet.

The ongoing crackdown on academic freedom, for example, in order to silence criticism of Israel, is by far the most severe in US history.

Meanwhile, the ADL has just set up a “Mamdani monitor” to track the democratically elected incoming New York City mayor.

Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specialising on Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle and it is republished with permission.

]]> Amid Dutton’s ‘hate media’ and Trump’s despotism, press freedom is more vital than ever https://asiapacificreport.nz/2025/04/30/amid-duttons-hate-media-and-trumps-despotism-press-freedom-is-more-vital-than-ever/ Wed, 30 Apr 2025 09:00:45 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=113838 COMMENTARY: By Alexandra Wake

Despite all the political machinations and hate towards the media coming from the president of the United States, I always thought the majority of Australian politicians supported the role of the press in safeguarding democracy.

And I certainly did not expect Peter Dutton — amid an election campaign, one with citizens heading to the polls on World Press Freedom Day — to come out swinging at the ABC and Guardian Australia, telling his followers to ignore “the hate media”.

I’m not saying Labor is likely to be the great saviour of the free press either.

The ALP has been slow to act on a range of important press freedom issues, including continuing to charge journalism students upwards of $50,000 for the privilege of learning at university how to be a decent watchdog for society.

Labor has increased, slightly, funding for the ABC, and has tried to continue with the Coalition’s plans to force the big tech platforms to pay for news. But that is not enough.

The World Press Freedom Index has been telling us for some time that Australia’s press is in a perilous state. Last year, Australia dropped to 39th out of 190 countries because of what Reporters Without Borders said was a “hyperconcentration of the media combined with growing pressure from the authorities”.

We should know on election day if we’ve fallen even further.

What is happening in America is having a profound impact on journalism (and by extension journalism education) in Australia.

‘Friendly’ influencers
We’ve seen both parties subtly start to sideline the mainstream media by going to “friendly” influencers and podcasters, and avoid the harder questions that come from journalists whose job it is to read and understand the policies being presented.

What Australia really needs — on top of stable and guaranteed funding for independent and reliable public interest journalism, including the ABC and SBS — is a Media Freedom Act.

My colleague Professor Peter Greste has spent years working on the details of such an act, one that would give media in Australia the protection lacking from not having a Bill of Rights safeguarding media and free speech. So far, neither side of government has signed up to publicly support it.

Australia also needs an accompanying Journalism Australia organisation, where ethical and trained journalists committed to the job of watchdog journalism can distinguish themselves from individuals on YouTube and TikTok who may be pushing their own agendas and who aren’t held to the same journalistic code of ethics and standards.

I’m not going to argue that all parts of the Australian news media are working impartially in the best interests of ordinary people. But the good journalists who are need help.

The continuing underfunding of our national broadcasters needs to be resolved. University fees for journalism degrees need to be cut, in recognition of the value of the profession to the fabric of Australian society. We need regulations to force news organisations to disclose when they are using AI to do the job of journalists and broadcasters without human oversight.

And we need more funding for critical news literacy education, not just for school kids but also for adults.

Critical need for public interest journalism
There has never been a more critical need to support public interest journalism. We have all watched in horror as Donald Trump has denied wire services access for minor issues, such as failing to comply with an ungazetted decision to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

And mere days ago, 60 Minutes chief Bill Owens resigned citing encroachments on his journalistic independence due to pressure from the president.

The Committee to Protect Journalists is so concerned about what’s occurring in America that it has issued a travel advisory for journalists travelling to the US, citing risks under Trump administration policies.

Those of us who cover politically sensitive issues that the US administration may view as critical or hostile may be stopped and questioned by border agents. That can extend to cardigan-wearing academics attending conferences.

While we don’t have the latest Australian figures from the annual Reuters survey, a new Pew Research Centre study shows a growing gap between how much Americans say they value press freedom and how free they think the press actually is. Two-thirds of Americans believe press freedom is critical. But only a third believe the media is truly free to do its job.

If the press isn’t free in the US (where it is guaranteed in their constitution), how are we in Australia expected to be able to keep the powerful honest?

Every single day, journalists put their lives on the line for journalism. It’s not always as dramatic as those who are covering the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, but those in the media in Australia still front up and do the job across a range of news organisations in some fairly poor conditions.

If you care about democracy at all this election, then please consider wisely who you vote for, and perhaps ask their views on supporting press freedom — which is your right to know.

Alexandra Wake is an associate professor in journalism at RMIT University. She came to the academy after a long career as a journalist and broadcaster. She has worked in Australia, Ireland, the Middle East and across the Asia Pacific. Her research, teaching and practice sits at the nexus of journalism practice, journalism education, equality, diversity and mental health.

]]> Free press under threat in US – Columbia J-School speaks out https://asiapacificreport.nz/2025/03/18/free-press-under-threat-in-us-columbia-j-school-speaks-out/ Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:33:27 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=112323 Columbia Journalism School

Freedom of the press — a bedrock principle of American democracy — is under threat in the United States.

Here at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism we are witnessing and experiencing an alarming chill. We write to affirm our commitment to supporting and exercising First Amendment rights for students, faculty, and staff on our campus — and, indeed, for all.

After Homeland Security seized and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a recent graduate of Columbia’s School of Public and International Affairs, without charging him with any crime, many of our international students have felt afraid to come to classes and to events on campus.

They are right to be worried. Some of our faculty members and students who have covered the protests over the Gaza war have been the object of smear campaigns and targeted on the same sites that were used to bring Khalil to the attention of Homeland Security.

President Trump has warned that the effort to deport Khalil is just the first of many.

These actions represent threats against political speech and the ability of the American press to do its essential job and are part of a larger design to silence voices that are out of favour with the current administration.

We have also seen reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is trying to deport the Palestinian poet and journalist Mosab Abu Toha, who has written extensively in the New Yorker about the condition of the residents of Gaza and warned of the mortal danger to Palestinian journalists.

There are 13 million legal foreign residents (green card holders) in the United States. If the administration can deport Khalil, it means those 13 million people must live in fear if they dare speak up or publish something that runs afoul of government views.

There are more than one million international students in the United States. They, too, may worry that they are no longer free to speak their mind. Punishing even one person for their speech is meant to intimidate others into self-censorship.

One does not have to agree with the political opinions of any particular individual to understand that these threats cut to the core of what it means to live in a pluralistic democracy. The use of deportation to suppress foreign critics runs parallel to an aggressive campaign to use libel laws in novel — even outlandish ways — to silence or intimidate the independent press.

The President has sued CBS for an interview with Kamala Harris which Trump found too favourable. He has sued the Pulitzer Prize committee for awarding prizes to stories critical of him.

He has even sued the Des Moines Register for publishing the results of a pre-election poll that showed Kamala Harris ahead at that point in the state.

Large corporations like Disney and Meta settled lawsuits most lawyers thought they could win because they did not want to risk the wrath of the Trump administration and jeopardize business they have with the federal government.

Amazon and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos decided that the paper’s editorial pages would limit themselves to pieces celebrating “free markets and individual liberties.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration insists on hand-picking the journalists who will be permitted to cover the White House and Pentagon, and it has banned the Associated Press from press briefings because the AP is following its own style book and refusing to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.

The Columbia Journalism School stands in defence of First Amendment principles of free speech and free press across the political spectrum. The actions we’ve outlined above jeopardise these principles and therefore the viability of our democracy. All who believe in these freedoms should steadfastly oppose the intimidation, harassment, and detention of individuals on the basis of their speech or their journalism.

The Faculty of Columbia Journalism School
New York

]]> J’accuse!… the Jew who accuses his fellow Jews of being antisemites https://asiapacificreport.nz/2025/02/26/jaccuse-the-jew-who-accuses-his-fellow-jews-of-being-antisemites/ Wed, 26 Feb 2025 01:23:17 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=111296 A rally on the steps of the Victorian Parliament under the banner of Jews for a Free Palestine was arranged for Sunday, February 9. At 11:11pm on the eve of that rally, Mark Leibler —a  lawyer who claims to have a high profile and speak on behalf of Jews by the totally unelected organisation AIJAC — put out a tweet on X (and paid for an advertisement of the same posting) as follows:

COMMENTARY: By Jeffrey Loewenstein

As someone Jewish, the son of Holocaust survivors and members of whose family were murdered by the Nazis, it is hard to know whether to characterise Mark Leibler’s tweet as offensive, appalling, contemptuous, insulting or a disgusting, shameful and grievous introduction of the Holocaust, and those who were murdered by the Nazis, into his tweet — or all of the foregoing!

Leibler’s tweet is most likely a breach of recently passed legislation in Australia, both federally and in various state Parliaments, making hateful words and actions, and doxxing, criminal offences. It will be “interesting” to see how the police deal with the complaint taken up with the police alleging Leibler’s breach of the legislation.

In the end, Leibler’s attempted intimidation of those who might have been thinking of going to the rally failed — miserably!

There are many Jews who abhor what Israel is doing in Gaza (and the West Bank) but feel intimidated by the Leiblers of this world who accuse them of being antisemitic for speaking out against Israel’s actions and not those rusted-on 100 percent supporters of Israel who blindly and uncritically support whatever Israel does, however egregious.

Leibler, and others like him, who label Jews as antisemites because they dare speak out about Israel’s actions, certainly need to be called out.

As a lawyer, Leibler knows that actions have consequences. A group of concerned Jews (this writer included) are in the process of lodging a complaint about Leibler’s tweet with the Commonwealth Human Rights Commission.

Separately from that, this week will see full-page adverts in both the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age — signed by hundreds of Jews — bearing the heading:

“Australia must reject Trump’s call for the removal of Palestinians from Gaza. Jewish Australians say NO to ethnic cleansing.”

Jeffrey Loewenstein, LLB, was a member of the Victorian Bar and a one-time chair of the Anti-Defamation Commission and member of the Jewish Community Council of Victoria. This article was first published by Pearls & Irritations public policy journal and is republished here with permission.

]]> Trump’s ‘free speech’ vision comes at expense of press freedom https://asiapacificreport.nz/2025/01/27/trumps-free-speech-vision-comes-at-expense-of-press-freedom/ Sun, 26 Jan 2025 12:54:00 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=110070 Pacific Media Watch

Among his first official acts on returning to the White House, President Donald Trump issued an executive order “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship”.

Implicit in this vaguely written document: the United States is done fighting mis- and disinformation online, reports the Paris-based global media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

Meanwhile, far from living up to the letter or spirit of his own order, Trump is fighting battles against the American news media on multiple fronts and has pardoned at least 13 individuals convicted or charged for attacking journalists in the 6 January 2021 insurrection.

An RSF statement strongly refutes Trump’s “distorted vision of free speech, which is inherently detrimental to press freedom”.

Trump has long been one of social media’s most prevalent spreaders of false information, and his executive order, “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” is the latest in a series of victories for the propagators of disinformation online.

Bowing to pressure from Trump, Mark Zuckerberg, whose Meta platforms are already hostile to journalism, did away with fact-checking on Facebook, which the tech mogul falsely equated to censorship while throwing fact-checking journalists under the bus.

Trump ally Elon Musk also dismantled the meagre trust and safety safeguards in place when he took over Twitter and proceeded to arbitrarily ban journalists who were critical of him from the site.

‘Free speech’ isn’t ‘free of facts’
“Free speech doesn’t mean public discourse has to be free of facts. Donald Trump and his Big Tech cronies like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg are dismantling what few guardrails the internet had to protect the integrity of information,” said RSF’s USA executive director Clayton Weimers.

“We cannot ignore the irony of Trump appointing himself the chief crusader for ‘free speech’ while he continues to personally attack press freedom — a pillar of the First Amendment — and has vowed to weaponise the federal government against expression he doesn’t like.

“If Trump means what he says in his own executive order, he could start by dropping his lawsuits against news organisations.”

Trump recently settled a lawsuit out of court with ABC News parent company Disney, but is still suing the Des Moines Register and its parent company Gannett for publishing a poll unfavourable to his campaign, and the Pulitzer Center board for awarding coverage of his 2016 campaign’s alleged ties with Russia.

Trump should immediately drop both lawsuits and refrain from launching others while in office.

After a campaign where he attacked the press on a daily basis, Trump has continued to berate the media and dismissed its legitimacy to critique him.

During a press conference the day after he took office, Trump reproached NBC reporter Peter Alexander for questions about Trump’s blanket pardons of the January 6th riot participants, saying, “Just look at the numbers on the election.

“We won this election in a landslide, because the American public is tired of people like you that are just one-sided, horrible people, in terms of crime.”

An incoherent press freedom policy
The executive order also flies in the face of his violent rhetoric against journalists.

The order asserts that during the Biden administration, “the Federal government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.”

It goes on to state, “It is the policy of the United States to ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”

This stated policy, laudable in a vacuum, even if made redundant by the First Amendment, is rendered meaningless by Trump’s explicit threats to weaponise the government against the media, which have recently included threats to revoke broadcast licenses in political retaliation, investigate news organizations that criticise him, and jail journalists who refuse to expose confidential sources.

Instead, the policy appears designed to amplify disinformation, which benefits a President of the United States who has proven willing to spread disinformation that furthered his political interests on matters small and large.

“If Trump is serious about his stated commitment to free speech, RSF suggests he begin by ensuring his own actions serve to protect the free press, rather than censoring or punishing media outlets,” the watchdog said.

“The United States has seen a steady decline in its press freedom ranking in RSF’s World Press Freedom Index over the past decade to a current ranking of 55th out of 180 countries, with presidents from both parties presiding over this backslide.

“While Trump is not entirely responsible for the present situation, his frequent attacks on the news media have no doubt contributed to the decline in trust in the media, which has been driven partly by partisan attitudes towards journalism.

“Trump’s violent rhetoric can also contribute to real-life violence — assaults on journalists nearly doubled in 2024, when his campaign was at its apex, compared to 2023.”

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with RSF.

]]> Murdoch to Musk: how global media power has shifted from the moguls to the big tech bros https://asiapacificreport.nz/2024/09/20/murdoch-to-musk-how-global-media-power-has-shifted-from-the-moguls-to-the-big-tech-bros/ Thu, 19 Sep 2024 23:45:41 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=105613 ANALYSIS: By Matthew Ricketson, Deakin University and Andrew Dodd, The University of Melbourne

Until recently, Elon Musk was just a wildly successful electric car tycoon and space pioneer. Sure, he was erratic and outspoken, but his global influence was contained and seemingly under control.

But add the ownership of just one media platform, in the form of Twitter — now X — and the maverick has become a mogul, and the baton of the world’s biggest media bully has passed to a new player.

What we can gauge from watching Musk’s stewardship of X is that he’s unlike former media moguls, making him potentially even more dangerous. He operates under his own rules, often beyond the reach of regulators. He has demonstrated he has no regard for those who try to rein him in.

Under the old regime, press barons, from William Randolph Hearst to Rupert Murdoch, at least pretended they were committed to truth-telling journalism. Never mind that they were simultaneously deploying intimidation and bullying to achieve their commercial and political ends.

Musk has no need, or desire, for such pretence because he’s not required to cloak anything he says in even a wafer-thin veil of journalism. Instead, his driving rationale is free speech, which is often code for don’t dare get in my way.

This means we are in new territory, but it doesn’t mean what went before it is irrelevant.

A big bucket of the proverbial
If you want a comprehensive, up-to-date primer on the behaviour of media moguls over the past century-plus, Eric Beecher has just provided it in his book The Men Who Killed the News.

Alongside accounts of people like Hearst in the United States and Lord Northcliffe in the United Kingdom, Beecher quotes the notorious example of what happened to John Major, the UK prime minister between 1990 and 1997, who baulked at following Murdoch’s resistance to strengthening ties with the European Union.

In a conversation between Major and Kelvin MacKenzie, editor of Murdoch’s best-selling English tabloid newspaper, The Sun, the prime minister was bluntly told: “Well John, let me put it this way. I’ve got a large bucket of shit lying on my desk and tomorrow morning I’m going to pour it all over your head.”

MacKenzie might have thought he was speaking truth to power, but in reality he was doing Murdoch’s bidding, and actually using his master’s voice, as Beecher confirms by recounting an anecdote from early in Murdoch’s career in Australia.

In the 1960s, when Murdoch owned The Sunday Times in Perth, he met Lang Hancock (father of Gina Rinehart) to discuss potentially buying some mineral prospects together in Western Australia. The state government was opposed to the planned deal.

Beecher cites Hancock’s biographer, Robert Duffield, who claimed Murdoch asked the mining magnate, “If I can get a certain politician to negotiate, will you sell me a piece of the cake?” Hancock said yes.

Later that night, Murdoch called again to say the deal had been done. How, asked an incredulous Hancock. Murdoch replied: “Simple [. . . ] I told him: look you can have a headline a day or a bucket of shit every day. What’s it to be?”

Between Murdoch in the 1960s and MacKenzie in the 1990s came Mario Puzo’s The Godfather with Don Corleone, aided by Luca Brasi holding a gun to a rival’s head, saying “either his brains or his signature would be on the contract”.

Changing the rules of the game
Media moguls use metaphorical bullets. Those relatively few people who do resist them, like Major, get the proverbial poured over their government. Headlines in The Sun following the Conservatives’ win in the 1992 election included: “Pigmy PM”, “Not up to the job” and “1001 reasons why you are such a plonker John”.

If media moguls since Hearst and Northcliffe have tap-danced between producing journalism and pursuing their commercial and political aims, they have at least done the former, and some of it has been very good.

The leaders of the social media behemoths, by contrast, don’t claim any Fourth Estate role. If anything, they seem to hold journalism with tongs as far from their face as possible.

They do possess enormous wealth though. Apple, Microsoft, Google and Meta, formerly known as Facebook, are in the top 10 companies globally by market capitalisation. By comparison, News Corporation’s market capitalisation now ranks at 1173 in the world.

Regulating the online environment may be difficult, as Australia discovered this year when it tried, and failed, to stop X hosting footage of the Wakeley Church stabbing attacks. But limiting transnational media platforms can be done, according to Robert Reich, a former Secretary of Labor in Bill Clinton’s government.

Despite some early wins through Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, big tech companies habitually resist regulation. They have used their substantial influence to stymie it wherever and whenever nation-states have sought to introduce it.

Meta’s founder and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, has been known to go rogue, as he demonstrated in February 2021 when he protested against the bargaining code by unilaterally closing Facebook sites that carried news. Generally, though, his strategy has been to deploy standard public relations and lobbying methods.

But his rival Musk uses his social media platform, X, like a wrecking ball.

Musk is just about the first thing the average X user sees in their feed, whether they want to or not. He gives everyone the benefit of his thoughts, not to mention his thought bubbles. He proclaims himself a free-speech absolutist, but most of his pronouncements lean hard to the right, providing little space for alternative views.

Some of his tweets have been inflammatory, such as him linking to an article promoting a conspiracy theory about the savage attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of the former US Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, or his tweet that “Civil war is inevitable” following riots that erupted recently in the UK.

As the BBC reported, the riots occurred after the fatal stabbing of three girls in Southport. “The subsequent unrest in towns and cities across England and in parts of Northern Ireland has been fuelled by misinformation online, the far-right and anti-immigration sentiment”.

Nor does Musk bother with niceties when people disagree with him. Late last year, advertisers considered boycotting X because they believed some of Musk’s posts were anti-Semitic. He told them during a live interview to “Go fuck yourself”.

He has welcomed Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, back onto X after Trump’s account was frozen over his comments surrounding the January 6, 2021, attack on the capitol. Since then both men have floated the idea of governing together if Trump wins a second term.

Is the world better off with tech bros like Musk who demand unlimited freedom and assert their influence brazenly, or old-style media moguls who spin fine-sounding rhetoric about freedom of the press and exert influence under the cover of journalism?

That’s a question for our times that we should probably begin grappling with.The Conversation

Dr Matthew Ricketson is professor of communication, Deakin University and Dr Andrew Dodd is director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

]]> Landmark PNG Supreme Court ruling toughens cybercrime law https://asiapacificreport.nz/2024/08/06/landmark-png-supreme-court-ruling-toughens-cybercrime-law/ Mon, 05 Aug 2024 13:23:23 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=104626

By Boura Goru Kila in Port Moresby

People accused under Papua New Guinea’s Cybercrime Code Act may not always find free speech protection offered by the Constitution.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that this law does not contravene the provisions of Section 46 which provides for freedom of expression.

The decision is a serious warning to offending users of social media and the internet that they might find themselves with fines of up to K1 million (NZ$430,000), or jail terms of between 15 and 25 years.

A Supreme Court panel comprising Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika and Justices Les Gavara-Nanu, David Cannings, Kingsley Allen David and Derek Hartshorn made this determination in Waigani on Friday.

The constitutional reference was made by National Court judge Teresa Berrigan during the trial of Kila Aoneka Wari, who was charged with criminal defamation under section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code Act 2016.

Judge Berrigan then referred for Supreme Court interpretation on whether Section 21 contravened the Freedom of Expression provision of the National Constitution.

Reading the judgment on behalf of his fellow judges, Sir Gibbs said: “We (Supreme Court) consider there is a clear and present danger to public safety, public order and public welfare if publication of defamatory material by use of electronic systems or devices were allowed to be made without restriction, including by criminal sanction.”

Sir Gibbs said the court had determined that the regulation and restriction of the exercises of the right to freedom of expression imposed by section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code is “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society having a proper respect for the rights and dignity of mankind.”

‘Necessary’ for public safety
Sir Gibbs said the court was satisfied that the first, second and third interveners had discharged the burden in showing that section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code complied with the three requirements of section 38 (1) of the Constitution in that:

  •  FIRST, it has been made and certified in accordance with section 38 (2) of the Constitution.
  •  SECONDLY, it restricts the exercise of the right to freedom and expression and publication that is “necessary” for the purpose of giving effect to the public interest in public safety, public order and public welfare; and
  •  THIRDLY, it is a law that is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society having a proper respect to the rights and dignity of mankind.

“We conclude that no, section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code Act is not invalid. Although it (Cybercrime Code Act) restricts the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and publication in section 46 of the Constitution it is a law that complies with Section 38 of the Constitution and the restriction it imposes is permissible under section 46 (1) (C) of the Constitution.

The questions that Justice Berrigan referred to the Supreme Court were:

  •  DOES section 21(2) of the cybercrime Code Act regulate or restrict the right of freedom of expression and publication under section 46 of the Constitution?
  •  IF yes to question 1, does section 21 (2) of the Cybercrime Code Act comply with section 38 of the Constitution?
  •  IS section 21(20 of the Cybercrime Code Act) invalid for being inconsistent with section 46 of the Constitution?

The court answered yes to questions and one and two and answered no to question three.

The court also ordered that each intervener will bear their own costs.

Wari is the fourth intervener in the proceedings.

Others are Attorney-General Pila Niningi (first intervener), acting public prosecutor Raphael Luman (second intervener), Public Solicitor Leslie Mamu (third intervener).

Section 21(2) of the Cybercrime Code Act is the law on defamatory publication.

It makes any defamatory publication using any electronic device as an offence with a penalty of K25,000 to K1 million fine, or imprisonment not exceeding 15 to 25 years.

Boura Goru Kila is a reporter for PNG’s The National. Republished with permission.

]]> In Australia, pro-Palestinian voices face a frenzy of Zionist McCarthyism https://asiapacificreport.nz/2024/07/25/in-australia-pro-palestinian-voices-face-a-frenzy-of-zionist-mccarthyism/ Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:20:58 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=104002 ANALYSIS: By Randa Abdel-Fattah

Since 7 October 2023, across every profession and social realm in Australia — teachers, students, doctors, nurses, academics, public servants, lawyers, journalists, artists, food and hospitality workers, protesters and politicians — speaking out against Israel’s genocide and the Zionist political project has been met with blatant anti-Palestinian racism.

This has manifested in repressive silencing campaigns, disciplinary processes and lawfare.

As coercive repression of anti-Zionist voices escalates at a frenzied pace in Western society, what is at stake extends beyond individuals’ livelihoods and mental health, for these ultimately constitute collateral damage.

The real target and objective of anti-Palestinian racism is discursive disarmament, specifically, disarming the Palestinian movement of its capacity to critique and resist Zionism and hold Israel to account.

This disarmament campaign — the immobilising of our discursive and explanatory frameworks, our analysis and commentary, our slogans, protest language and chants — is emboldened and empowered by the collusion and complicity of institutions, media outlets and employers.

The past fortnight alone has seen a frenzy of Zionist McCarthyism. Both I and Special Broadcasting Service veteran journalist, Mary Kostakidis, were defamed as “7 October deniers” and rape apologists, and as being on a par with Holocaust deniers.

Complaint lodged
A week later, the Zionist Federation of Australia announced it had lodged a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) against Kostakidis, alleging racial vilification for her social media posts on Gaza.

On July 11, Australian-Palestinian activist and businessman Hash Tayeh was notified of arrest for allegedly inciting hatred of Jewish people over protest chants including “all Zionists are terrorists” and other statements equating Zionism with terrorism.

The same day, right-wing shock jock radio host Ray Hadley interrogated the AHRC about Australian-Palestinian Sara Saleh, employed as legal and research adviser to the AHRC’s president.

In violation of Saleh’s privacy, the AHRC went on the defensive and revealed that Saleh had resigned. Saleh had been subjected to months of anti-Palestinian racism and marginalisation at the commission.

On July 15, documents released under a freedom of information request revealed that the State Library of Victoria was actively surveilling the social media activity of four writers and poets — Arab and Muslim poet Omar Sakr, Jinghua Qian, Alison Evans and Ariel Slamet Ries, specifically around Palestine.

The documents provided more evidence that the writers’ pro-Palestine social media posts were the likely reason for the State Library cancelling a series of online creative writing workshops for teens which the writers had been contracted to host — corroborating what library staff whistleblowers had revealed earlier this year.

Political ideology
It is impossible to overstate how the repression we are witnessing is occurring because governments, media, institutions and employers are legitimating disingenuous complaints and blatant hit-jobs by acquiescing to the egregious and false equivalence between Zionism and Judaism.

Despite pro-Palestine voices explicitly critiquing and targeting Zionist ideology and practice in clear distinction to Judaism and Jewish identity, and despite standing alongside anti-Zionist Jews, we are accused of antisemitism.

Zionism is a political ideology that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century. It explicitly argued for settler colonialism to replace the majority indigenous population of Palestine.

Zionism is not a religious, racial, ethnic or cultural identity. It is a political doctrine that a member of any culture, religion, race or ethnic category can subscribe to.

Not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews. Jews and Judaism existed for thousands of years before Zionism. These are not controversial contentions. They are borne out by almost a century of academic scholarship and have been adopted by anti-Zionist Jewish scholars, lawyers, human rights organisations and clerics.

They are supported by facts. Consider, for example, that the largest pro-Israel organisation in the United States is Christians United for Israel.

A Zionist can be an adherent of any religion and come from any ethnic or racial background. US President Joe Biden is an Irish-American Catholic and a Zionist.

Australia’s former prime minister, Scott Morrison, is an evangelical Christian and a Zionist. Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong is an Australian-Malay Christian and a Zionist.

Inherently racist
Zionist ideology is recognised as inherently racist because it denies the inalienable right of indigenous Palestinian people to self-determination, and the right to live free of genocide, apartheid, settler colonialism and domination.

Palestinian subjugation is an existential necessity for the supremacist goal of Israel’s political project. This is not even contested.

Israel’s 2018 nation-state law explicitly states that “the right to exercise national self-determination” in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people” and established “Jewish settlement as a national value”, mandating that the state “will labour to encourage and promote its establishment and development”.

Anti-Zionism is directed at a state-building project and a political regime. Rather than protect people’s right to subject Zionism to normative interrogation, as is the case with all political ideologies, institutions panic at complaints and uncritically legitimate the false claim that anti-Zionism equals antisemitism.

Protected cultural identity
Indulging vexatious claims and dishonest conflations is why we are seeing extraordinary coercive repression and anti-Palestinian racism across institutions.

To posit Zionism as a religious or ethnic identity is like saying white supremacy, Marxism, socialism or settler colonialism are all categories of identity. The perverse logic we are being asked to indulge is essentially this: Zionism equals Judaism therefore a white Christian Zionist is a protected cultural identity category.

Indulging the notion that the ideology of Zionism is a protected cultural identity sets a precedent that would be absurd if it were not so dangerous.

By this logic, communists can claim the status of a protected category of identity on the basis that there are Chinese communists who feel threatened by critiques of communism.

Adherents of doctrines and ideologies including white supremacy, homophobia, transphobia, socialism, liberalism and communism could claim to be protected identities.

Adherents of doctrines and ideologies including white supremacy, homophobia, transphobia, socialism, liberalism and communism could claim to be protected identities

Further, if Zionism is a protected cultural identity, what does this mean for anti-Zionist Jews? And what is Zionism from the standpoint of its victims, as Edward Said famously said?

Genocide in name of Zionism
What does it mean for Palestinians whose lives are marked by dispossession, exile, refugee camps, land theft and now, as I write, genocide explicitly enacted in the name of Zionism?

In the context of a genocide that has so far, on a recent conservative by The Lancet, one of the world’s highest-impact academic journals, caused an estimated 186,000 deaths and counting, governments, institutions and mainstream media are prepared to effectively destroy any vestige of democratic principles, fundamental rights and intellectual rigour in order to exceptionalise Zionism and Israel and shield a political ideology and a state from critique.

While institutions stand with Israel, the vast majority of the public, witnessing the massacres, are daring to question Israel’s actions. This includes questioning the Zionist ideology that underpins that state.

Institutions and employers may choose to discipline and sack those calling out Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in this moment, but will be held to account for their complicity in the political suppression of our collective protest against crimes against humanity.

Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah is a Future Fellow at Macquarie University. Her research areas cover Islamophobia, race, Palestine, the war on terror, youth identities and social movement activism. She is also a lawyer and the multi-award-winning author of 12 books for children and young adults. This article was republished from Middle East Eye.

]]> Anti-corruption former MP Kramer appeals to PNG Supreme Court https://asiapacificreport.nz/2023/09/19/anti-corruption-former-mp-kramer-appeals-to-png-supreme-court/ Tue, 19 Sep 2023 04:35:50 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=93257 PNG Post-Courier

Former MP for Madang Open and anti-corruption campaigner Bryan Kramer has filed a Supreme Court appeal against a National Court ruling dismissing his application for leave to review a Leadership Tribunal’s decision to dismiss him from office.

His appeal to the Supreme Court follows the refusal of a leave to review application in the National Court presided by Justice John Carey on August 18.

Kramer said in a statement that he had filed an application on the 23 May 2023 in the National Court to review the decision of the Leadership Tribunal.

He later withdrew this and refiled on June 30.

The refiled application raised nine primary grounds, including breach of natural justice, procedural unfairness, apprehension of bias in being denied a fair hearing, unreasonableness and being oppressive and harsh and not “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society”.

After waiting almost three months for a judge to hear his leave application, the matter was listed before Justice John Carey on August 18. However, straight after hearing detailed submission from counsels, Justice Carey delivered an oral judgement refusing Kramer’s application.

Justice Carey ruled that Kramer had not satisfied all the requirements, in particular an arguable case

Further nine grounds
Kramer is now appealing the judge’s ruling on a further nine grounds that include an allegation that the judge had failed to properly deliver a reasoned judicial decision.

He will submit that the judge had erred in directing Kramer’s counsel to narrow his submissions to the ground of apprehension of bias to the exclusion of the issues raised in the eight other grounds.

Further, the judge had failed to consider specific matters raised in each of nine grounds.

The judge had delivered two judgments, the first oral and the second published without indicating to parties, and that was altered and expounded on the reasons in the oral judgement.

He was dismissed in May this year by a a Leadership Tribunal comprising Justice Lawrence Kangwia and senior Magistrates Josephine Nidue and Edward Komia.

The Tribunal found him guilty on seven of thirteen allegations of misconduct in office

Five of the seven misconduct charges were in relation to decisions concerning the Madang District Development Authority (DDA) that he had failed to comply with legislative administrative requirements, and the misapplication of district funds to which they could not be lawfully applied.

Facebook publications
The remaining two misconduct charges were in relation to his Facebook publications that were found to have “scandalised the judiciary”.

The background of the two charges of him scandalising the judiciary were that in October 2019 he had published a three-part series of articles on Facebook concerning an arrest warrant against former Prime Minister Peter O’Neill.

The first charge was over part of his publication insinuating a conflict of interest by Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika in publishing the words “a relevant matter to note is that the Chief Justice was only recently appointed by O’Neill late last year”.

The second charge was over publishing the words “What was not anticipated was that O’Neill and his lawyers would solicit the assistance from the Chief Justice and desperate enough to submit fabricated documents to mislead the court that the warrant was defective as a means to obtain a stay order”.

The Tribunal had recommended by majority that Kramer pay a fine of K2000 (about NZ$922) for each for the five charges in relation to the Madang District Development Authority as they were decisions made by the DDA Board and not Kramer alone.

However, it recommended unanimously for his dismissal from office in relation to his Facebook publications in scandalising the judiciary.

Pacific Media Watch reports that in a profile by The Guardian in 2019, Bryan Kramer — BK as he is known — was described as a “rising star in PNG politics” and as an anti-corruption campaigner who was instrumental in bringing to light the UBS scandal that helped to bring down former Prime Minister Peter O’Neill’s leadership.

Republished from the PNG Post-Courier with permission.

]]> NGOs work in ‘public interest – not foreign lackeys’, says activist in Jakarta libel case https://asiapacificreport.nz/2023/06/14/ngos-work-in-public-interest-not-foreign-lackeys-says-activist-in-jakarta-libel-case/ Wed, 14 Jun 2023 02:25:35 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=89738 Asia Pacific Report

A defendant in an Indonesian case of alleged defamation, Fatia Maulidiyanti, has hit back at a statement by Coordinating Minister for Maritime and Investment (Menko Marves) Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan who said in his testimony that he wanted to audit all non-government organisations (NGOs) in the country.

According to Maulidiyanti, many of the investment projects worked on by Pandjaitan are in fact funded by foreign investors.

“Actually, in my opinion it’s the same, like for example Pak [Mr] Luhut is the Menko Marves, where in a number of investment projects, the RPJMN [National Medium-Term Development Plan], PSN [National Strategic Projects] and all kinds that Pak Luhut has worked on in the Jokowi [President Joko Widodo] era, they’re all funded by foreign [investors],” Maulidiyanti said following a hearing at the East Jakarta District court last Thursday.

“Even the companies are foreign companies, many workers are foreigners too.”

The coordinator of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) said that the aim of the work done by NGOs in Indonesia was in the public interest, not foreign interests.

She said that suspicions about NGOs being “foreign lackeys” was a relic of the past.

“The context of foreign agents or foreign lackeys and so on it’s very old-fashioned, because actually no one works for foreigners, and we see today where a lot of foreign investment also enters Indonesia, so there’s no difference,” Maulidiyanti said.

“Our work in the NGOs — yes, it’s for the public, we have goals, aims, we have objectives which are for the public [good] and not foreign lackeys,” she added.

During his testimony earlier, Pandjaitan said that the government would audit all NGOs in Indonesia.

This, according to Pandjaitan, was necessary in order to determine the flow of funds that were obtained by the NGOs in Indonesia. Pandjaitan suspected that there was foreign interference through the NGOs.

“That’s why I want to audit all of the NGOs who get [funds] and from where,” said Pandjaitan during the court hearing.

Clash with police
Meanwhile, protesters from the Indonesian Trade Union Congress Alliance Confederation (KASBI) who had come to show their support for Maulidiyanti and fellow defendant and rights activist Haris Azhar were involved in a clash with police when a convoy of cars accompanying Pandjaitan was leaving the court last Thursday.

About 3.30 pm, a line of police officers tried to block KASBI protesters who wanted to stop Pandjaitan’s convoy from leaving.

People from the KASBI command vehicle warned their colleagues to allow the convoy through but a scuffle between the police and workers erupted.

While the scuffle was taking place, Maulidiyanti and Azhar — along with their legal team — were still inside the court. They also wanted to leave the location.

The crowd of Maulidiyanti and Azhar supporters, who had rallied in front of the district court’s front gate since the beginning of the trial, were not allowed to enter grounds of the court.

In contrast, pro-Pandjaitan supporters were allowed in and occupied most of the benches in the visitors’ section.

KASBI chairperson Sunarno said that the hundreds of people from his union were refused permission by police to enter the courtroom, yet they had wanted to witness the trial for themselves.

“From the KASBI confederation, there are around 200 or so from Jakarta, Tangerang, Bekasi, Bogor, Karawang, Subang, maybe from Cimahi and Bandung [as well]”, said Sunarno.

Indicted for ‘defamation’
Azhar and Maulidiyanti are standing trial for alleged defamation against Pandjaitan.

In his indictment, the public prosecutor (JPU) said that statements made by Azhar and Maulidiyanti in a video uploaded on Azhar’s YouTube channel had brought Pandjaitan’s good name into disrepute.

The video titled There is Lord Luhut behind the Economic Relations-Military Operations in Intan Jaya!! There are also State Intelligence Agency Generals!! discusses the results of a brief study by the Clean Indonesia Coalition entitled The Economics and Politics of Military Deployment in Papua: The Case of Intan Jaya.

Azhar and Maulidiyanti have been charged under Article 27 Paragraph (3) in conjunction with Article 45 Paragraph (3) of the Information and Electronic Transaction (ITE) Law, Article 14 Paragraph (2) and Article 15 of Law Number 1/1946 and Article 310 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) on defamation.

This abridged translation for IndoLeft News by James Balowski is based on two articles published by CNN Indonesia on June 8. The original title of the lead article was Fatia Respons Luhut Mau Audit LSM: Proyek Investasi Dia Dibiayai Asing.

]]> Does public safety trump free speech? History’s case for banning anti-trans activist Posie Parker from NZ https://asiapacificreport.nz/2023/03/22/does-public-safety-trump-free-speech-historys-case-for-banning-anti-trans-activist-posie-parker-from-nz/ Wed, 22 Mar 2023 00:50:02 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=86275 ANALYSIS: By Bevin Veale, Massey University

The impending arrival of Kelly-Jean Keen-Minshull — aka Posie Parker — has put the spotlight on the tension between free speech and protecting vulnerable communities in Aotearoa New Zealand.

In particular, it raises questions about Immigration New Zealand’s role in limiting who can visit and speak in the country.

Keen-Minshull is an anti-transgender rights activist and founder of a group called Standing for Women. On the back of a controversial Australian tour, she is planning to speak at a series of events across Aotearoa at the end of March.

But Immigration New Zealand is now reviewing her status after about 30 members of the far-right Nationalist Socialist Movement supported her rally in Melbourne, clashing with LGBTQI supporters.

The Melbourne police were also criticised by legal observers, accused of protecting and supporting the neo-Nazis while focusing “excessive violence” on the LGBTQI supporters.

Meanwhile, National Party leader Chris Luxon has said Keen-Minshull should be allowed into New Zealand on the grounds of free speech. He argued there should be a “high bar” to stop someone entering the country because of what they say.

At the same time, Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has said he condemned people who used their right to free speech in a way that deliberately sought to create division. Therein lies the core of the debate.

Threat to public order
Keen-Minshull has allegedly had ties to white supremacist organisations, featuring in videos with Jean-François Gariépy, a prominent far-right YouTuber, and posting a selfie with Hans Jørgen Lysglimt Johansen, a Norwegian neo-Nazi known for Holocaust denial.

Keen-Minshull has also tweeted racist diatribes against Muslims.

The key question is whether the threat of unrest seen at Keen-Minshull’s events poses sufficient risk to public order to justify revoking her visa. It turns out there is a precedent for blocking entry to controversial figures.

In 2014, hip hop collective Odd Future was prevented from entering New Zealand on the grounds they and their audience had been implicated in violence against police and directing harassment towards opponents.

In one instance, members of Odd Future reportedly urged fans to attack police, leaving one officer hospitalised.

Odd Future member Tyler the Creator also unleashed a tirade against an activist who tried to have his Australian concert cancelled. Both instances were offered as reasons to prevent the collective from entering New Zealand.

Rapper Tyler
Rapper Tyler the Creator of the Odd Future collective was banned from entering New Zealand. Immigration New Zealand said the group posed a risk to public order. Image: Scott Dudelson/FilmMagic

Character judgements
The Immigration Act stipulates that individuals who are likely to be “a threat or risk” to security, public order or the public interest should not be eligible for a visa or entry permission.

In the past, good character requirements outlined by the act, including criminal background or deportation from other countries, have been used as a reason to block controversial speakers from entering New Zealand.

For example, Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church was denied entry to New Zealand after being deported from other countries.

Anderson has been known to promote Holocaust denial and has confirmed he believes in “hating homosexuals”.

On the flip side, alt-right speakers Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern were granted entry visas in 2018 after meeting character requirements, despite calls for the pair to be banned from entering New Zealand.

Potential harm
Arguably, Keen-Minshull should not be granted entry under the banner of free speech. Rallies like those recently held in Australia do appear to cause concrete harm.

Research after the Christchurch Call, a political summit initiated by former prime minister Jacinda Ardern in 2019 after the Christchurch massacre, found expanding extremist communities increased the risk of physical attacks in the future.

According to the 2018 Counting Ourselves survey, some 71 percent of trans people reported experiencing high or very high rates of mental distress, and 44 percent experienced harassment during the 2018 survey period.

Research shows that trans people experience “minority stress” — high levels of chronic stress faced by socially marginalised groups, caused by poor social support, low socioeconomic status and prejudice.

A key part of “minority stress” is linked to anticipating and attempting to avoid discrimination.

Being consistent
Beyond the question of free speech, Immigration New Zealand needs to be consistent in its application of the law. In the case of Odd Future, an Immigration official admitted it was unusual to ban musical acts:

Generally it’s aimed at organisations like white supremacists and neo-Nazis, people who have come in here to be public speakers, holocaust deniers – those kinds of people.

However, Immigration stood by its decision based on the lead singer’s incitement of violence against police and harassment of an activist. Considering the ruling on Odd Future as a risk to public order, it would surely be inconsistent to allow Keen-Minshull entry.

In 2018, she was spoken to by UK police for making videos criticising the chief executive of transgender charity Mermaids. And, in 2019, Keen-Minshull recorded herself in Washington DC confronting trans advocate Sarah McBride after breaking into a private meeting.

Encouraging the far-right?
In the post-covid era, New Zealand has already seen a more visible far-right anti-LGBTQI movement. There has been a rise in harassment and attacks against LGBTQI communities across the country, including the arson of the Tauranga Rainbow Youth and Gender Dynamix building.

We need to listen to those targeted by hate groups — it is their safety that is at risk from speakers who deny their existence and humanity.

The line between free speech and causing harm is complicated to draw. But this case seems clear cut. Whether you agree or disagree with the 2014 decision to bar Odd Future entry to New Zealand, the precedent has been set for visitors who pose a threat to public order.The Conversation

Kevin Veale, Lecturer in Media Studies, part of the Digital Cultures Laboratory in the School of Humanities, Media, and Creative Communication, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

]]> Information chief defends PNG’s draft policy as ‘strengthening’ media https://asiapacificreport.nz/2023/02/24/information-chief-defends-pngs-draft-policy-as-strengthening-media/ Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:00:02 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=85210 The National in Port Moresby

Papua New Guinea’s draft National Media Development Policy is not intended to give the government power to control the media or to infringe constitutional rights of freedom of expression, an official says.

Department of Information and Communications Technology Secretary Steven Matainaho made this known after saying the government’s intentions were “misinterpreted” by media critics in Papua New Guinea and overseas.

“The draft media policy aims to provide a legislative framework to strengthen the work of the PNG Media Council and enable structural and budget reforms to fund development programmes for the council and universities,” Matainaho said in a statement yesterday.

Matainaho added that the draft policy sought to promote the media industry and “unlock several benefits”, including improving the conditions surrounding the media profession.

He said the council would continue to operate independently of the government, similar to other professions such as law (PNG Law Society), medical (PNG Institute of Doctors), and engineering (Institute of Engineers) professions.

Matainaho said the government was focused on working towards one of its pillars in Vision 2050 on having a “knowledgeable society” and the media policy could help stakeholders work together to achieve that goal.

He said the government through the policy would support the development of a diverse media ecosystem, with a range of independent media outlets that were free to report and disseminate informative contents.

‘Diversity of voices’
“This can help ensure that a diversity of voices and perspectives are represented in the media landscape, which is essential for promoting an informed and engaged citizen,” he said.

“By the government’s input in investing in education and training, promoting media literacy, and supporting a diverse media ecosystem, it can further add value to the creation of a knowledgeable society where citizens are well-informed and engaged in the public sphere,” he said.

Matainaho said the department acknowledged concerns raised by the Community Coalition of Corruption in its press statement last week regarding certain functions proposed to be established in the Department of ICT.

He said the department was currently working to address the concerns in the next draft (second version) and welcomed input from stakeholders to improve the draft policy.

Republished with permission.

]]> Journalists risk prosecution under Australia’s ‘foreign interference’ law https://asiapacificreport.nz/2022/10/06/journalists-risk-prosecution-under-australias-foreign-interference-law/ Wed, 05 Oct 2022 23:00:57 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=79649 UQ News

Journalists may face decades in prison for “foreign interference” offences unless urgent changes are made to Australia’s national security laws, according to a University of Queensland researcher.

PhD candidate Sarah Kendall from UQ’s School of Law warned that reporting on issues relating to Australian politics, national security or international relations while working with overseas media organisations could place journalists at risk of criminal prosecution under the Espionage and Foreign Interference Act 2018.

“The law could apply to any journalist, staff member or source who works for or collaborates with foreign-controlled media organisations,” Kendall said.

“There could also be repercussions for journalists working overseas, as any news published in Australia is subject to these laws.”

The Espionage and Foreign Interference Act 2018 covers nine foreign interference offences, with penalties ranging from 10 to 20 years imprisonment.

“While these offences require some part of the person’s conduct to be covert or involve deception, this does not exclude legitimate journalistic activities,” Kendall said.

“Journalists could be acting covertly whenever they liaise with a confidential source using encrypted technologies or engage in undercover work using hidden cameras.”

Public interest protection
In a Foreign Interference Law and Press Freedom briefing paper, Kendall recommended that the government introduce an occupation-specific exemption to protect journalists working in the public interest.

The paper argues that the scope of offences be narrowed to remove “recklessness” and “prejudice to Australia’s national security” as punishable elements.

“For example, a journalist could be accused of recklessly harming national security when they publish a story that reveals war crimes by members of the Australian Defence Force,” Kendall said.

“Journalists and their sources could face up to 20 years in prison if any part of their conduct was covert, even if they are engaged in legitimate, good faith reporting.”

Kendall said the law’s Preparatory Offence, which carries a potential jail term of 10 years, risked creating a dangerous precedent when combined with the offence of conspiracy.

“This offence can capture the earliest stages of investigative reporting so a discussion between a journalist and source about a potential story on Australian politics could see them charged with conspiring to prepare for foreign interference,” Kendall said.

Foreign Interference Law and Press Freedom is the latest report in UQ Law School’s Press Freedom Policy Papers series, a project aimed at laying the groundwork for widespread reform in laws spanning espionage, whistleblowing and free speech as they affect the media.

]]> Fiji ministers ‘held on tight leash’ – afraid to speak up, claims Sharma https://asiapacificreport.nz/2022/04/12/fiji-ministers-held-on-tight-leash-afraid-to-speak-up-claims-sharma/ Tue, 12 Apr 2022 11:43:44 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=72723 By Pekai Kotoisuva in Suva

Some Fiji government ministers are “held on a tight leash” and afraid to make open ended statements in public, claims former health minister Dr Neil Sharma.

He said this during a live video interview on Sashi Singh’s Talking Point page on Facebook.

Dr Sharma claimed that the perception of the public that this country was governed by a “one man rule” was true.

“A lot of government ministers are fearful of making open ended statements to the public,” Dr Sharma said.

“They will read from prepared statements and speeches and those speeches go through the government’s communications unit.”

He said government ministers feared being reprimanded for sharing their personal or ministerial views.

“Let me put it this way, they are on a tight leash,” he said.

Dr Sharma also alleged that the perception by the public that government ministers were “just mere puppets” in Parliament was true.

Questions sent to the Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama remained unanswered.

Pekai Kotoisuva is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

]]> New media freedom advocacy institute formed in Marshall Islands https://asiapacificreport.nz/2022/03/25/new-media-freedom-advocacy-institute-formed-in-marshall-islands/ Fri, 25 Mar 2022 09:30:34 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=71998 Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

The first media freedom advocacy group has formed in the Marshall Islands. Organisers this week were in the initial phase of outreach to launch the Pacific Media Institute, which was incorporated last month as a non-profit organisation.

Despite a small but robust independent news media in the Marshall Islands, there has never been an advocacy group for media freedom in this nation.

“If ever there was a ‘right time’ to form an advocacy organisation for freedom of expression and transparency in government, now is it,” said Marshall Islands Journal editor Giff Johnson, one of the founding members of the institute.

“Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine is a prime example of a violation of a sovereign, independent democracy that undermines the rule of law.

“Moreover, we watch as Russia suppresses access to independent media at home to prevent its citizens from knowing what is happening in the Ukraine and the world’s reaction to the invasion.”

Founders of PMI said closer to home, there were indications of democracy and media freedoms eroding in island nations that banned visits by foreign independent media and attempted to restrict their own media and freedom of expression by their citizens.

“We are fortunate in the Marshall Islands to have clear free speech rights enshrined in the Constitution and to have had governments for decades that respect this essential element of democracy,” Johnson added.

Freedoms ‘cannot be taken for granted’
“But these freedoms here and in the region should not be taken for granted. We need to celebrate them where they exist, strengthen them where we can, and advocate for them where they don’t.”

A growing concern is the increasingly active presence in the islands of governments outside the region that do not support media freedom and transparency in government operations at home and bring this philosophy with them into the region, he said.

The PMI is a joint effort of three people in independent media in the Marshall Islands.

Joining Johnson as co-founders of PMI are Daniel Kramer, CEO of Six9Too Productions and Power 103.5FM, and Fred J. Pedro, a long-time broadcaster and talk show host.

They said PMI hoped to promote independent media and transparency in government in the Marshall Islands as well as neighbouring nations.

The purpose of the new non-profit organisation is to:

• Advocate for and engage in media freedom and freedom of expression;

• Promote transparency and accountability in government;

• Support expansion of independent, non-government media; and

• Promote training and other initiatives to increase the number and skills of people working in media and the quality of reporting in the Marshall Islands and regionally.

‘Watershed moment’
Veteran Pacific islands journalist Floyd K. Takeuchi said: “This is a watershed moment in the history of independent journalism in the Western Pacific.

“And what better country to see a media freedom group organized than the Marshall Islands, which for more than half a century has shown how democratic values, chiefly and cultural traditions, and a free press can comfortably coexist.”

PMI has already reached out to Takeuchi and other journalists with extensive experience in the region to collaborate on proposed training for media and outreach dialogues with top-level government authorities in the initial phase of the organisation.

“We want to see more young people take up careers in media in the future,” said Kramer.

“We hope that PMI can help interest young people in media careers through training and other opportunities that our new group plans to offer for journalists here and in the island region.”

Kramer’s Six9Too Productions has established an ongoing record of collaboration among musicians from the Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands and Polynesian countries that have produced hit songs and music videos.

He said PMI hoped to see this type of collaboration among working journalists here and in the region to bolster reporting skills and media freedom in general.

The PMI founders said they were hopeful that countries internationally that supported media freedom, democracy and transparency in government would be supportive of PMI training and other initiatives.

“We want to start tapping opportunities for synergy among working journalists in the Marshall Islands and in other Pacific islands through collaborative training programs and reporting initiatives,” said Johnson.

]]> Are New Zealand’s universities doing enough to define the limits of academic freedom? https://asiapacificreport.nz/2021/11/24/are-new-zealands-universities-doing-enough-to-define-the-limits-of-academic-freedom/ Tue, 23 Nov 2021 20:16:29 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=66681 ANALYSIS: By Matheson Russell, University of Auckland

The news last week that University of Auckland public health researcher Dr Simon Thornley was retracting a co-authored paper about supposed vaccination risks during pregnancy raised deeper questions about the limits of academic freedom.

Dr Thornley’s own head of department had called for the paper to be retracted due to “the anxiety it is creating for expectant parents and those planning to have a child”. Other experts in the field had strongly criticised the paper’s methodology and conclusions.

The university itself responded publicly by asserting, “As an academic staff member […] Dr Thornley has the right to exercise his academic freedom.”

The vice-chancellor later said, “While the university supports academic freedom, we do require research to be conducted with a high degree of integrity.”

The controversy follows an earlier one in July, when a group of academics published an open letter questioning the scientific status of mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge). The Royal Society Te Apārangi issued a statement rejecting their views and affirming the value of mātauranga Māori as a knowledge system.

The society is now reported to be investigating two of its fellows who were co-authors of the letter.

In response, a group calling itself the Free Speech Union has called the Royal Society’s response an attack on free speech, saying it sends “a chilling message” to other academics.

Freedom and integrity
These are just two of several conflicts currently playing out in Aotearoa New Zealand over the limits of academic freedom.

Tricky trade-offs surround particular cases like these, and they are not easily resolved. But debates over difficult cases are too often hampered by shallow conceptions of the role of universities within society and flimsy understandings of academic freedom.

Public universities have a public mission: they serve society through generating new knowledge and teaching students. They also, in the language of the Education and Training Act 2020, serve as a “repository of knowledge and expertise” and play a role as “critic and conscience of society”.

University staff and students are granted certain freedoms under the act to fulfil these socially valuable functions.

Two fundamental ideas provide the rationale for academic freedom. The first is that freedom of inquiry is essential for the advancement of knowledge.

Without the freedom to explore new ideas and to test received wisdom, the quest for knowledge cannot progress.

The second is the idea that universities should be free from interference that would corrupt the integrity of research and the dissemination of research findings. It is in the public’s interests that neither the state nor private individuals and corporations are allowed to muzzle researchers from publicising what they know when the public would benefit from knowing.

High ethical standards
Institutional autonomy and the right to critically question are essential if universities are to be reliable sources of knowledge and expertise for society at large. But neither implies academics should be free to do what they like or to say what they like with impunity.

The Education and Training Act couples the freedoms granted to universities with expectations of public accountability. It says tertiary institutions should have

as much independence and freedom to make academic, operational, and management decisions as is consistent with the nature of the services they provide, the efficient use of national resources, the national interest, and the demands of accountability.

In turn, the legislation places on tertiary institutions the responsibility to ensure the “highest ethical standards” are maintained.

That’s as it should be. Just as we expect medical associations to hold doctors accountable to high standards of competent practice and ethical conduct, so should we expect tertiary institutions to hold academics to the same high standards.

Critic and conscience
Controversial or unpopular opinions are sometimes just what society needs to hear. That’s why the law recognises a “critic and conscience of society” role for academics — the role of speaking truth to power, as we like to say.

But the usefulness of dissenting views to society cannot be defended if these opinions rest on faulty evidence or demonstrable falsehoods. Misinformation is incompatible with performing a role as critic and conscience of society.

From the public’s point of view, a university is malfunctioning if it harbours and protects misinformation. It ceases to be a reliable source of knowledge and expertise.

Likewise, academic freedom does not provide an exemption from ethical standards. Like all public institutions, we should expect universities to be places that foster healthy and respectful relationships, and serve wider societal goals of improving well-being, overcoming injustices and combating environmental destruction.

Universities that tolerate bullying and harassment of staff and students, or marginalise already disadvantaged social groups, fail to live up to their public mission.

Leadership needed
New Zealand universities need to look hard at these issues. In today’s political and media environment, the challenge of mis- and disinformation is only going to intensify. Institutional culture, practices and policies need to account for this.

And universities have barely begun to address the reality that campuses are often experienced as hostile spaces by minority groups, not least Māori and Pacific staff and students.

A genuine democratisation of university life — including tackling institutional racism — is also vital to ensure all communities in Aotearoa New Zealand can see themselves as participants in and beneficiaries of what universities do. Principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi should not only be acknowledged but given meaningful expression.

Hard work will be required for our universities to become highly trusted institutions by all communities. This is especially true of tangata whenua and Pacific people.

In fact, our tertiary institutions have a lot to learn from tangata whenua about handling disagreements and responding to unethical behaviour in a way that upholds the mana of all involved.

We would do well to take a lead from legal scholar Moana Jackson who has envisioned universities as “a marae ātea where robust debate and criticism should flourish”, but also as “a whare where relationships should be nurtured and enhanced, and where all students and staff should feel safe and free”.

To realise such a vision will require clear-headed and courageous leadership at all levels within our universities.The Conversation

Dr Matheson Russell is associate professor of philosophy, University of Auckland. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

]]> Arrested doctor claims Fiji police acted ‘irresponsibly’ over covid safety rules https://asiapacificreport.nz/2021/08/27/arrested-doctor-claims-police-acted-irresponsibly-over-covid-safety-rules/ Fri, 27 Aug 2021 08:00:55 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=62584 Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

Arrested medical practitioner Dr Jone Hawea has claimed that Fiji police officers acted irresponsibly by not following to covid-19 safety protocols and exposed him to transmission of the disease, reports The Fiji Times.

Fiji Human Rights Anti-Discrimination Commission director Ashwin Raj reported this after a commission team visited Dr Hawea at Totogo Police Station in Suva on Thursday, following his arrest in Lautoka on Tuesday.

He has since been released.

Dr Hawea was being questioned and investigated for allegedly sharing misinformation regarding covid-19.

Raj said Dr Hawea was in sound health, but had expressed concerns about his safety and his right to health.

“He [Dr Hawea] has questioned the rationale behind his transfer from Lautoka Police Station to Totogo when the Suva-Nausori corridor, as he described to the commission, is a “hot spot” for covid positive cases,” Raj said.

‘Risk of transmission’
“He stated that some police officers acted irresponsibly by not adhering to the covid-19 safety protocols and exposing him to risk of transmission.”

Raj also confirmed Dr Hawea had access to legal counsel. Questions sent to police spokeswoman Ana Naisoro remained unanswered.

Fijivillage News reports that Dr Hawea had been released from police custody on Thursday night.

The news website reported that the police stated that ordinary Fijians got arrested during curfew hours and Dr Hawea was no exception.

Republished with permission.

]]> AG raises Suva lawyers’ ‘little confidence’ social media posts https://asiapacificreport.nz/2021/06/08/ag-raises-suva-lawyers-little-confidence-social-media-posts/ Tue, 08 Jun 2021 01:59:31 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=58841 By Luke Nacei in Suva

Social media posts by two outspoken Suva-based lawyers have been raised in Parliament over a critical culture “that has been created”.

Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum told Parliament the lawyers, Jon Apted and Richard Naidu, were from a law firm that specialised in commercial law.

“But talking about confidence, let me read out these two Twitter or Facebook posts, I think: this one says, ‘Oh, well, who are we li’l folks to com-plane’.

“The next one says, ‘May be it could do a fly-past of the Minister of Economy to symbolise their strategy which, as far as I can see, is hope and prayer’.

“If we have principals of these types of law firms who Honourable Prasad [opposition National Federation Party leader Biman Prasad] and them get the advice from, they used to be the former lawyers of NFP on record, what is the hope of instilling confidence in the private sector?

“I think, I was told that they may have pulled this down after that, we got screenshots of it, but Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the kind of culture that has been created.

“We need to be able to refocus, if you really are concerned about the future, to be able to ensure that we are focused on the future, be able to provide the assistance to the people who require it now, but only God knows what is going to happen in six months’ time.

“Is there going to be another fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth variant? What are you going to do then? So, Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot just simply think about it here and now.”

Pacific Media Watch comments that this is an astonishing assault on freedom of speech by a government minister.

Besides being a leading Fiji lawyer, Richard Naidu, is a former award-winning journalist and widely regarded as a social justice and media commentator.

Last month, he was the keynote speaker by Zoom for the Auckland-based Coalition for Democracy in Fiji’s Dr Timoci Bavadra memorial lecture in honour of Fiji’s 1987 prime minister who was deposed in the first coup.

Pacific Media Watch says that the minister should be more concerned with Fiji’s spiralling covid infection crisis than spending time criticising social media posts.

Luke Nacei is a Fiji Times journalist.

]]> To publish or not to publish? The media’s free-speech dilemmas in a world of division, violence and extremism https://asiapacificreport.nz/2021/01/22/to-publish-or-not-to-publish-the-medias-free-speech-dilemmas-in-a-world-of-division-violence-and-extremism/ Thu, 21 Jan 2021 20:46:35 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=54018 ANALYSIS: By Denis Muller, University of Melbourne

Terrorism, political extremism, Donald Trump, social media and the phenomenon of “cancel culture” are confronting journalists with a range of agonising free-speech dilemmas to which there are no easy answers.

Do they allow a president of the United States to use their platforms to falsely and provocatively claim the election he has just lost was stolen from him?

How do they cover the activities and rhetoric of political extremists without giving oxygen to race hate and civil insurrection?

How do they integrate news-making social media material into their own content, when it is also hateful or a threat to the civil peace?

Should journalists engage in, or take a stand against, “cancel culture”?

How should editors respond to the “assassin’s veto”, when extremists threaten to kill those who publish content that offends their culture or religion?

The West has experienced concrete examples of all these in recent years. In the US, many of them became pressing during the Trump presidency.

Lying and endangering civil peace
When five of the big US television networks cut away from former President Trump’s White House press conference on November 6 after he claimed the election had been stolen, they did so on the grounds that he was lying and endangering civil peace.

Silencing the president was an extraordinary step, since it is the job of the media to tell people what is going on, hold public officials to account, and uphold the right to free speech. It looked like an abandonment of their role in democratic life.

Against that, television’s acknowledged reach and power imposes a heavy duty not to provide a platform for dangerous speech.

Then on January 6 – two months later to the day – after yet more incitement from Trump, a violent mob laid siege to the Capitol and five people lost their lives. The networks’ decision looked prescient.

They had acted on the principle that a clear and present danger to civil peace, based on credible evidence, should be prioritised over commitments to informing the public, holding public officials to account and freedom of speech.

This case also raised a further dilemma. Even if the danger to peace did not exist, should journalists just go on reporting – or broadcasting – known lies, even when they come from the president of the United States?

Newspaper editors and producers of pre-recorded radio and television content have the time to report lies while simultaneously calling them out as lies. Live radio and television do not. The words are out and the damage is done.

So the medium, the nature and size of the risk, how the informational and accountability functions of journalism are prioritised against the risk, and the free-speech imperative all play into these decisions.

Former President Donald Trump
Should the media report known lies, even if uttered by the president of the United States? Image: AAP/EPA/White House handout

Similar considerations arise in respect of reporting political extremism.

The ABC’s Four Corners programme is about to embark on a story about the alt-right in the US. Having advertised this in a promotional tweet, the ABC received some social media blow-back raising the question of why it would give oxygen to these groups.

The influence of the alt-right on Western politics is a matter of real public interest because of the way it shapes political rhetoric and policy responses, particular on race and immigration.

To not report on this phenomenon because it pursues a morally reprehensible ideology would be to fail the ethical obligation of journalism to tell the community about the important things that are going on in the world.

It is not a question of whether to report, but how.

The Four Corners programme will not be live to air. There will be opportunity for judicious editing. Journalists are under no obligation to report everything they are told. In fact they almost never do.

Motive matters
Whether the decision to omit is censorship comes down to motive: is it censorship to omit hate speech or incitement to violence? No. Because the reporter doesn’t agree with it? Yes.

Integrating social media content into professional mass media news presents all these complexities and one more: what is called the news value of “virality”.

Does the fact something has gone viral on social media make it news? For the more responsible professional mass media, something more will usually be needed.

Does the subject matter affect large numbers of people? Is it inherently significant in some way? Does it involve some person who is in a position of authority or public trust?

Trump’s use of Twitter was an exploitation of these decision-rules, but did not invalidate them.

Social media is also the means by which “cancel culture” works. It enables large numbers of people to join a chorus of condemnation against someone for something they have said or done.

It also puts pressure on institutions such as universities or media outlets to shun them.

How voiceless can exert influence
It has become a means by which the otherwise powerless or voiceless can exert influence over people or organisations that would otherwise be beyond their reach.

There are those who are worried about the effects on free speech. In July 2020, Harper’s magazine published a letter of protest signed by 152 authors, academics, journalists, artists, poets, playwrights and critics.

While applauding the intentions behind “cancel culture” in advancing racial and social justice, they raised their voices against what they saw as a new set of moral attitudes that tended to favour ideological conformity.

In the aftermath of the police killings of black people in 2020 and the law-and-order response of the Trump administration, “cancel culture” began to affect journalism ethics. Some journalists on papers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times began taking public positions against the way their papers were reporting race issues.

Black Lives Matter
In the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter protests, some journalists began to question how their papers covered race issues. Image: AAP/AP/Evan Vucci

It led to a lively debate in the profession about the extent to which moral preferences should shape news decisions. The riposte to those who argued that they should, was: whose moral preferences should prevail?

This was yet another illustration of the complexities surrounding free speech issues arising from the social media phenomenon, the Trump presidency and the combination of the two.

Terrorism added contribution
Terrorism has also added its contribution. Over the decade 2005-2015, what became known as the Danish cartoons confronted journalists and editors with life-and-death decisions.

In 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten (Jutland Post) published cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammed. It was a conscious act of defiance against “the assassin’s veto”, violent threats to free speech by Islamist-jihadis.

In 2009, a Danish-born professor of politics wrote a book, The Cartoons that Shook the World. Yale University Press, which published it, refused to re-publish the cartoons after having taken advice from counter-terrorism experts about the risks.

In November 2011, the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo published an issue called Charia Hebdo, satirically featuring the Prophet as editor. The real editor was placed on an Al-Qaeda hit list and in January 2015, two masked gunmen opened fire on the newspaper office, killing 12 people, including the editor.

The world’s media were confronted with the decision whether to re-publish the cartoons again in defiance of “the assassin’s veto”. Some did, but most – including Jyllands Posten – did not.

The necessary limits of free speech
Free speech is an indispensable civil right under assault from all these forces. But none of the philosophers whose names we immediately associate with free speech have claimed it to be absolute.

The social media platforms, having for years proclaimed themselves extreme libertarians, have in recent times begun to recognise this is indefensible, and strengthened their moderating procedures.

Some of Australia’s senior politicians seem baffled by the issue.

When Twitter shut down Trump’s account, acting Prime Minister Michael McCormack did not seem to know where he stood, saying in one breath it was a violation of free speech to shut down Trump while in the next that Twitter should also take down the false image of an Australian soldier slitting the throat of an Afghan child.

And he is a former country newspaper editor.

This was followed by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s remark that he was “uncomfortable” with the Twitter decision. He quoted Voltaire as saying something Voltaire never said: the famous line that while he disagreed with what someone said, he would defend to the death his right to say it. It was a fabrication put into Voltaire’s mouth by a biographer more than 100 years after his death.

Voltaire, Milton, Spinoza, Locke and Mill, to say nothing of the US Supreme Court, have not regarded free speech as an absolute right.

So while the media face some extremely difficult decisions in today’s operating environment, they do not need to burden themselves with the belief that every decision not to publish is the violation of an inviolable right.The Conversation

By Dr Denis Muller, senior research fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

]]> Chancellor defends UP as ‘bastion of academic freedom’ against military https://asiapacificreport.nz/2021/01/20/academic-chief-defends-up-as-bastion-of-media-freedom-against-military/ Wed, 20 Jan 2021 07:18:51 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=53971 By Lorraine Ecarma in Cebu City

The University of the Philippines Visayas (UPV) will continue to stand against any threats to human rights, chancellor Clement Camposano has declared in response to the termination of a long-standing accord preventing military incursion on campus.

In a Facebook post, Camposano said the academic freedom in the university was “not something anyone can abrogate”.

“The University of the Philippines Visayas like the rest of the UP System, will remain a bastion of academic freedom,” he wrote.

“This is not something anyone can abrogate. We will stand firm against any and all attempts to deprive us of our democratic rights.”

The brief statement was posted on Monday, hours after news broke of Defence Secretary Delfin Lorenzana’s decision to unilaterally terminate the decades-old pact between the University of the Philippines and the Department of National Defence preventing military and police presence in all UP System campuses.

In his official statement posted yesterday, the UP Visayas chancellor pointed to the tumultuous history between UP and the DND as the cause of the university’s apprehension.

“Historical events that have shaped the relationship of UP and the country’s security forces—many of these leaving wounds that have yet to heal—explain the university’s strong apprehensio,” he wrote.

‘Sordid reality of recent killings’
“While the Department of National Defence has given assurances that constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms would not be suppressed, these historical events and the sordid reality of recent killings, abductions, and other forms of human rights abuses widely believed to have been perpetrated by security forces cannot but leave us unassured.”

Even before the scrapping of the accord, UP System universities in the Visayas have long decried unwarranted military and police presence in their campuses.

One of the most recent instances was the arrest of 8 protestors, collectively known as Cebu 8, during a picket rally against the then anti-terror bill held in front of the UP Cebu campus last June.

Videos of the arrest in social media showed police breaching the walls of UP Cebu to chase students and activists seeking refuge inside the campus.

And despite the government’s assurance that the accord’s termination was not meant to suppress activism and academic freedom in UP, students, faculty, and staff from UP Cebu said they have not forgotten about the arrest of Cebu 8.

The Unified Student Organisations of UP Cebu, along with the University Student Council, the All UP Academic Employees Union, and the university’s student publication Tug-ani came out with a joint statement condemning the termination.

“We remember the violent dispersal of the June 5th protest against the then Anti-Terrorism Bill last year, wherein armed non-uniformed PNP personnel chased protesters inside the campus and groundlessly detained 8 individuals, including a bystander, now collectively known as the Cebu 8,” the statement reads.

Death threats against union president
The unified organisations also pointed out the arrest of UP Cebu alumna Myles Albasin of Mabinay 6 and the death threats received by faculty union president Regletto Imbong earlier this month as “one of one of the many UP-DND Accord violations and harassments” that had been committed.

They added the termination of the UP-DND agreement was a disrespect to the martyrs from the university who died in the pursuit of democracy during martial law, and enjoined the administration to remain firm against any threats academic freedom.

“For the DND to end this accord is already an admission of either their ignorance of the country’s history or their blatant disrespect of the martyrs who fought for the freedoms we enjoy today and now the Duterte administration is desperately trying to snatch away from us again,” they said.

“We collectively call upon the UP administration, UP board of regents to affirm their mandate in ensuring that UP shall remain a zone of peace and refuge; to defend the university against the DND’s attempt of militarising our schools, and to stand and fight against all fascist manoeuvres that threaten our academic freedom and basic rights,” they added.

In her official statement, UP Cebu chancellor Liza Corro said the abrogation without consultation of the agreement was “deeply concerning to say the least,” considering the many threats faced by UP Cebu.

“Especially for us here in UP Cebu, as it came at a time, when our students and faculty members have been subjected to direct intimidation and threats, including red-tagging… We strongly condemned such acts of transgression and bullying,” Corro wrote.

She went on to defend Imbong, describing him as an “academic scholar of good standing” who was active not only in the academe but also in campaigning for social justice.

“His active engagements to help elevate social ills, is inherent in his basic task as a UP constituent, in fact as a good and responsible Filipino citizen. This does not make him an insurgent or a terrorist.

“We strongly condemn any and all forms of baseless accusations and red-tagging among our constituents, faculty and students alike. They deserve our respect, not harassment,” she added.

Asia Pacific Report republishes Rappler articles with permission.

]]> RSF hails UK court blocking of US bid to extradite Julian Assange https://asiapacificreport.nz/2021/01/05/rsf-hails-uk-court-blocking-of-us-bid-to-extradite-julian-assange/ Mon, 04 Jan 2021 22:57:46 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=53511 Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is relieved by the January 4 ruling of UK District Judge Vanessa Baraitser to block the United States’ attempt to extradite WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.

However, it is extremely disappointed by the court’s failure to reject the substance of the case, leaving the door open to further prosecutions on similar grounds, RSF says in a statement today.

Although Judge Baraitser decided against extradition, the grounds for her decision were strictly based on Assange’s serious mental health issues and the conditions he would face in detention in the US.

On the substantive points in the case – in which the US government has pursued Assange on 17 counts under the Espionage Act and one count under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act – the judge’s decision was heavily in favour of the prosecution’s arguments, and dismissive of the defence.

“We are immensely relieved that Julian Assange will not be extradited to the US. At the same time, we are extremely disappointed that the court failed to take a stand for press freedom and journalistic protections, and we disagree with the judge’s assessment that the case was not politically motivated and was not centred on journalism and free speech,” said RSF’ Director of International Campaigns, Rebecca Vincent.

“This decision leaves the door open for further similar prosecutions and will have a chilling effect on national security reporting around the world if the root issues are not addressed.”

The US government has indicated that it intends to appeal against the extradition decision.

Detained on remand
Assange remains detained on remand in high-security Belmarsh prison, pending the judge’s consideration of his bail application on January 6.

RSF has called again for his immediate release, and will continue to monitor proceedings.

Despite extensive difficulties securing access – including refusal by the judge to accredit NGO observers and threats of arrest by police on the scene – RSF monitored the January 4 hearing at London’s Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey).


Rebecca Vincent’s RSF live briefing on Twitter.

It has been the only NGO to monitor the full extradition proceedings against Assange.

The UK and US are respectively ranked 35th and 45th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2020 World Press Freedom Index.

Asia Pacific Report’s Pacific Media Watch collaborates with RSF in Paris.

Julian Assange
Julian Assange … still detained on remand at high-security Belmarsh prison. Image: RSF
]]> Media under strain in Melanesia during challenging era https://asiapacificreport.nz/2020/08/07/media-under-strain-in-melanesia-during-challenging-era/ Fri, 07 Aug 2020 04:00:18 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=49061 By RNZ Pacific

Hostile media environments pose growing challenges to Melanesia’s democracies, according to a new edition of the Pacific Journalism Review.

With its first special edition focused on Melanesia, the New Zealand-based research journal warned that laws and cultural restrictions were providing barriers to open information, as well as silencing journalists.

The region’s pressing media problems are explored in depth in what the journal’s editor, David Robie, describes as the most significant volume of Pacific journalism research ever produced.

READ MORE: The full PJR Melanesia edition and past issues online

He said with the region now in a challenging period, when countries confront the pandemic, it was worrying that the climate change crisis was sidelined.

“Because really climate change is the overwhelming issue for their future. And if we’re dealing with media that is being sort of screwed down by governments and prevented from freely reporting information that the public need for democracy, it’s a very disturbing future.”

Professor Robie said this edition of the PJR stemmed from a partnership with the Melanesia Media Freedom Forum which was founded last year at a Brisbane conference in November in conjunction with Griffith University.

In a sign of the pressures on journalists and media practitioners in Melanesia, Vanuatu’s government attempted to deny one of the delegates at the conference, the former Vanuatu Daily Post media director Dan McGarry, permission to re-enter the country.

Recent examples of threats
This is one of a number of recent examples of threats facing journalism in Melanesia which are fleshed out in this edition of the Pacific Journalism Review.

Among the articles and editorials by regional journalists and researchers are examinations of state repression of media freedom in Fiji, Indonesia’s Papua region and Papua New Guinea.

The PJR highlighted how both of PNG’s main daily newspapers were owned by overseas multinationals – the Post-Courier by Australian-US media tycoon Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, and The National by the Malaysian logging company Rimbunan Hijau.

It also looked at how PNG’s burgeoning telecommunications sector was changing the way people accessed media and information in the Pacific’s biggest country.

LISTEN: Dateline Pacific interview with David Robie (duration 35s)

Professor Robie said the internet was vitally important to citizens in this region, as public trust was low in mainstream media in countries like PNG, but warned there was also a critical need for balance and verification.

“With such reliance on social media, it’s pretty rampant.. all sorts of scare stories and things that aren’t checked out, and so on,” he said.

“So it’s pretty hard to get a situation with the media where there’s reliable information.”

The PJR’s latest edition ‘Media Freedom in Melanesia’ can be accessed here.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

]]> Stop harassing USP protesters, global human rights groups tell Fiji https://asiapacificreport.nz/2020/06/20/stop-harassing-usp-protesters-global-human-rights-groups-tell-fiji/ Sat, 20 Jun 2020 08:31:09 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=47476 Pacific Media Watch

The Fiji authorities must respect the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly for university staff and students and immediately cease intimidation tactics, say international human rights groups Amnesty International and Civicus.

About 200 university staff and students held peaceful protests from 8 June 2020 to show support for the vice-chancellor Professor Pal Ahluwalia who was suspended later that day.

The vice-chancellor was suspended because of his role in exposing mismanagement of funds and cronyism at the university and he was reinstated yesterday by the USP Council.

READ MORE: Special reports on the USP leadership crisis

On 9 June, police entered the USP campus to shut down the protest, stating that any continuation of the protest would require a permit.

Following the peaceful protests, the police obtained photos of protesters from journalists.

The police also confiscated some of the photos from the office of The Fiji Times newspaper on 12 June, using a search warrant.

On 16 June 2020, the police questioned staff from the university, focusing on possible breaches of covid-19 rules by participating in the peaceful protests.

Gatherings prohibited
Since March 2020, the Fiji government has prohibited all gatherings of more than 20 people as part of its covid-19 response.

On 5 June 2020, Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama announced that all 18 people who had confirmed cases of covid-19 nationally had recovered, and that there had not been a new positive test result in more than 45 days.

Under international human rights law, the right to peaceful assembly may be limited in a public health emergency, but such restrictions must be reasonable, necessary and proportionate to a legitimate aim.

“Given Fiji’s effective response in containing cases of covid-19 in the country, continuing restrictions on gatherings need to be specifically justified and may amount to a violation of human rights,” said Amnesty International and Civicus in a statement.

“Preventing people from protesting collectively in public as a result of covid-19 measures must be a last resort based on compelling needs, and due weight must be given to the importance of the right to peaceful assembly and the need of people to jointly raise their voices.

“There have been a number of instances over the last few years where peaceful protests have been arbitrarily restricted in Fiji, under the Public Order (Amendment) Act 2014, particularly protests organised by trade unions.

“Authorisation under national laws to hold protests have been denied without any valid reasons and often at the last minute.”

The governments of Australia, Nauru, New Zealand and Samoa have issued statements expressing varying degrees of concern about the leadership issues at the University.

Established in 1968, USP is jointly owned by governments of 12 member countries – Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nuie, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Other international partners, including Australia, New Zealand, the European Union and Japan are key donors to the university.

 

]]> Social media ‘third party’ defamation ruling warning for Pacific nations https://asiapacificreport.nz/2020/06/03/social-media-third-party-defamation-ruling-warning-for-pacific-nations/ Wed, 03 Jun 2020 05:00:42 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=46569 By Sri Krishnamurthi, contributing editor of Pacific Media Watch 

The New South Wales Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal which sought to challenge a finding that operators of Facebook pages may be publishers of defamatory comments made by third-party users on news items posted on those pages.

This ruling could have far-reaching media implications in the Pacific.

Three defendant media companies – The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian and the Centralian Advocate had appealed against the finding of the NSW Supreme Court that they are the publishers of third party comments on their Facebook posts for the purposes of defamation law.

READ MORE: Court confirms media companies liable as publishers of third party defamatory Facebook comments

Three other non-defendant media companies (Bauer Media, Dailymail.com Australia and Seven West Media) also applied to the court to have the decision overturned on separate legal grounds.

Some commentators say the implications for Pacific Island nations and “authoritarianism” could be worse because it would mean politicians could hold media companies responsible for postings on social media. 

Although the ruling is yet to be appealed to the High Court, it has sent shivers through  Pacific Islands media circles which are faced with authoritarianism.

“The precedent could be followed in rulings in Pacific island countries with commonwealth jurisdictions,” the head of journalism at the University of the South Pacific, Dr Shailendra Singh, told Pacific Media Watch.

Collective speech rights
“Collective free speech rights versus individual rights. Under defamation, traditional media are accountable/answerable for reporting defamatory statements, regardless of who makes them. If media propagate defamatory statements, they can be charged as a culpable party.  

“A similar principle now applies to media organisations’ social media accounts. In Fiji, in a landmark case an individual was recently convicted of defamation on Facebook. 

“This is a clash between free speech and defamation. We have the right to free speech but not the right to defame people,” Dr Singh said.

“It’s like another axe hanging over the media. Media companies are now more exposed, including the Pacific. 

“They have to be more vigilant in moderating social media comments. Not many media organisations in the Pacific can afford legal fees, let alone pay. Damages.”

Pacific development analyst Dr Tess Newton Cain believes that publishing companies need to be more careful how they use social media but is not so pessimistic about the impact in island countries.

“Media companies in New South Wales will need to review their practices about publishing  comments in order to make sure that they don’t leave themselves open to liability. 

Not precedent for Pacific
“This case does not create a precedent in Pacific island countries – they are their own jurisdictions and so no-one can rely on this decision other than as a persuasive  authority,” she said. 

“Defamation cases aren’t very common in the Pacific – Solomon Islands is one place where politicians have used defamation or the threat of defamation to get the media to retract stories or not run them in the first place.

“Their ability to do so appears to stem from one or two occasions in the past where they have been successful and secured big pay-outs rather than there necessarily being any actual defamation involved,” she explained. 

But she was open-minded about it being possibly “misused” as Pacific countries tend to do when it comes to Australian or New Zealand law.

“It could be used as persuasive authority I suppose. The only case that bears any resemblance to this in the region that I’m aware of was a Fiji case”

“If politicians wanted to go down this route in Pacific Island countries it would depend on what the legislation and rules are in each jurisdiction and then it would be up to the courts to decide whether they considered comments by a third party to have been ‘published’ by the media company – as I say this case may provide persuasive authority but no court in the Pacific is bound to follow it,” she said 

“Governments don’t sue in defamation – it is a personal action,” Dr Newton Cain said. 

]]> Solomon Islands police investigate social justice commentator https://asiapacificreport.nz/2020/05/30/solomon-islands-police-investigate-social-justice-commentator/ Fri, 29 May 2020 22:00:02 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=46474

By Assumpta Buchanan in Honiara

Solomon Islands police are investigating several people, including prominent female development and social justice commentator Wendy Amangongo, for recent articles published in print and social media.

Acting Police Commissioner Mostyn Mangau confirmed this during his weekly press conference this week.

“There are reports received and investigators are still investigating that matter,” Mangau told reporters.

READ MORE: When China came calling – inside the Solomon islands switch

When asked by a reporter if police were focusing on Amangongo’s articles because she had allegedly breached certain regulations under the country’s state of emergency, Mangau said the investigation was not only on Amangongo but also on several others.

“What we are investigating here is to find out if there is a breach on the regulation issued under the state of public emergency that can incite illegal activities, riots, or fear among our people,” Mangau added.

He said that if evidence was available under the regulation they could then proceed to lay the charges but if there was no evidence available to instigate charges then they would analyse that.

Asked again if police were trying to “silence” people doing their work, Mangau said that the state of public emergency regulation clearly defined it as an offence to pass on any information that would incite illegal activities, cause riot, disharmony, fear or mislead people.

“So police are mandated to look at such issues, investigate them and ensure that the regulation is enforced,” Mangau said.

Directive from Attorney-General
The Solomon Star understands the directive for police to investigate Amangongo and others came from the Attorney-General’s Chamber.

Responding to the police investigation, Amangongo said it appeared to her that the government was using the excuse of covid-19 state of public emergency to intimidate her and interfere with her constitutional rights.

“I sense the police are under undue influence by the Prime Minister’s Office,” she told the Star. 

“I will continue to exercise my constitutional right to freedom of expression,” she added.

Amangongo said section 12 of the national constitution offered her protection for expressing her views.

Amangongo has penned several articles in recent weeks, some of which were critical of government actions and decisions, which she has published on print and social media.

Robust development articles on China
Pacific Media Watch reports that Amoangongo writes robust development articles for publications such as island Sun News and on her Facebook page, some of them critical of Honiara’s relationship with China.

In a recent article headed “Blacklisted by the World Bank? Engaged in Fraud?” about two state-owned Chinese companies involved in development projects in the Solomon islands, she wrote:

“In August last year, both China Railway Group (‘China Rail’) and China Civil Engineering Construction Company (‘CCECC’), both state-owned by the Chinese government, were blacklisted by the World Bank for fraudulent practices in Africa.

“Then a month later, in September 2019, China Rail [was] found again to be engaging in fraudulent practices on a hydro power project in Pakistan. China Rail received a further two-year ban from bidding for any World Bank-financed projects.

“The following month an official SIG delegation in China, headed by Hon Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, spent the day with China Rail and this included speeches by Hon Sogavare where he praised China Rail for their work and said how he hoped Solomon Islands and China Rail can work together.

“At the same time a $7 billion deal for work at Gold Ridge [gold mine involving Chinese miner Wanguo International] was announced with China Rail as the contractor for development. As to CCECC they have been awarded contracts for the development of SINU [Solomon Islands National University] in Honiara.”

]]> Free speech? No it’s about bigots who seek the right to hate with impunity https://asiapacificreport.nz/2020/03/23/free-speech-no-its-about-bigots-who-seek-the-right-to-hate-with-impunity/ Sun, 22 Mar 2020 19:00:53 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=43193 Professor Paul Spoonley spoke about hate speech, political discourse and religious diversity in the wake of the 15 March 2019 Mosque Massacre in a keynote address to the Pearl of Islands Foundation seminar at Auckland University of Technology last week. He argues that thanks to the internet somehow bigotry has become a legitimate point of view, and when these bigots don’t get the right to speak it leads to outrage. Highlights from his speech are published here.

To echo the prime minister, you are one of us.

I’m not sure that pre-Christchurch and post-Christchurch are that different to be honest.

In mid-2017 Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux arrived here, suddenly interest in hate speech evaporated and we got a focus on free speech.

The question I was asked to address, was whether or not hate speech has become normalised. In a word yes, I think it has.

What is the social harm that’s been caused and how can we respond to it?

When you look around the world you see an escalation in online hate speech, year-on-year there has been an escalation of hate speech.

The fact that has changed really has been the possibility of the internet.

Changing world
The world is changing enormously because of the internet. Not just technological transformation but philosophical and political transformation.

The problem is not free speech; the problem is an excess of information and the growth of the information has privileged opinion over fact.

The world of hate has expanded as the internet has expanded.

The world of the internet, the digital world, not only has increased the possibility for extreme groups but it has also increased the degree of scepticism, there is often a low level of trust in our core institutions, including the media.

So, we have this very alternative information sources in which there in no moderation.

One of the things I am doing research on for my book is look at the dark web, it’s a deeply depressing place, you would have probably heard of four chan and eight chan but there is a whole lot of websites, these websites are now decentralised platforms like zero net which are hosted by the users.

But these are not platforms that are subject to material being moderated or reacted to, they are self-determining in every sense of the word. What’s happened in the world is disinformation, defamation and racial vilification has increased.

Toxic myths
I have been influenced by a book that came out last year by Nesrine Malik, We Need New Stories: Challenging the Toxic Myths Behind Our Age of Discontent.

And, another writer who I really value, Reni Eddo-Lodge wrote a book, Why I Am No Longer Talking to White People About Race – both of them argue that the idea of somehow free speech under threat at the moment and the enlightened values of open debate is being threatened is really incorrect.

Both of them argue that what is happening is that these extreme views, and the activists who advocate for them, are wanting to secure the right to speak without impunity.

Somehow bigotry has become a legitimate point of view and when they don’t get the right to speak it leads to outrage.

The Renaud Camus book, in which he argued that the white Western World was being colonised by non-whites and he talks about the “great replacement” idea has been now central to many of the politics that we’ve seen emerge.

The second question I was asked to address is whether or not this speech is having an impact on our community? And March 15 tells us immediately it has.

There is very good research in Europe and the United States in which the increase of hate speech has real world impacts.

Largely invisible
Talking to many New Zealanders is that they do not understand what the impact of that is on communities, it is largely invisible to them

But there is some very good research in Europe which shows hate speech online leads to hate crimes and when there are outages in the internet there is a decline in both hate speech and also in hate crimes.

Many New Zealanders do not experience hate speech because many of them are not members of ethnic and religious minorities.

We don’t know the extent of hate speech; my sense is it’s growing but we don’t have hard evidence of that.

If we want a sense what’s happening out there, the Human Rights Commission and others are all places you can begin to understand what hate speech does in contemporary New Zealand.

The first thing that needs to be contested in opposition to hate speech, as we found with Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux, was that free speech arguments were made.

There is no such thing as free speech in this country. There are all sorts of restrictions on speech.

Ironical parliamentarians’ talk
It is ironic that parliamentarians talk about the importance of free speech in the House, but their speech is limited in all sorts of ways.

The second myth is it is too hard define hate speech, no it’s not. Facebook has got a perfect definition and there is nothing wrong with our section 61 of the Human Rights Act, of course there are a whole lot of groups that should be included.

The minister (Andrew Little) has signalled he is going to look at that.

The third myth is, hate speech is not a threat to our society and particular communities, it absolutely is.

Despite that rather pessimistic view of hate speech, whether it has increased or decreased, my view is that it has continued much the same as prior to 15 March 2019.

As recorded and edited by by Pacific Media Watch contributing editor Sri Krishnamurthi.

]]> Media ‘impartiality’ on climate change ethically misguided and dangerous https://asiapacificreport.nz/2020/02/02/media-impartiality-on-climate-change-ethically-misguided-and-dangerous/ Sun, 02 Feb 2020 02:03:42 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=41761 By Denis Muller in Melbourne

In September 2019, the editor of The Conversation, Misha Ketchell, declared The Conversation’s editorial team in Australia was henceforth taking what he called a “zero-tolerance” approach to climate change deniers and sceptics. Their comments would be blocked and their accounts locked.

His reasons were succinct:

Climate change deniers and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet.

READ MORE: Bushfires, bots and arson claims: Australia flung in the global disinformation spotlight

From the standpoint of conventional media ethics, it was a dramatic, even shocking, decision. It seemed to violate journalism’s principle of impartiality – that all sides of a story should be told so audiences could make up their own minds.

But in the era of climate change, this conventional approach is out of date. A more analytical approach is called for.

The ABC’s editorial policy on impartiality offers the best analytical approach so far developed in Australia. It states that impartiality requires:

  • a balance that follows the weight of evidence
  • fair treatment
  • open-mindedness
  • opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

Weight of evidence
It stops short of saying material contradicting the weight of evidence should not be published, which is the position adopted explicitly by The Conversation and implicitly by Guardian Australia.

Guardian Australia’s position is to concentrate on presenting the evidence that human-induced climate change is real and is having a detrimental effect on global heating, wildlife extinction and pollution. It states that this is the defining issue of our times and fundamental societal change is needed in response.

The position of Australia’s other big media organisations is far less clear and rests on generalities applicable to all issues.

The former Fairfax (now Nine) newspapers, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, have separate codes. The Age code does not mention impartiality but requires its journalists to report in a way that is fair, accurate and balanced. The Herald’s does mention impartiality but confines it to an instruction to avoid promoting an individual staff member’s personal interests or preferences.

Both say, however, that comment should be kept separate from news.

News Corp Australia’s editorial professional conduct policy is quite different from all these. It states that comment, conjecture and opinion are acceptable in [news] reports to provide perspective on an issue, or explain the significance of an issue, or to allow readers to recognise what the publication’s standpoint is on the matter being reported.

Its journalists are told to try always to tell all sides of the story when reporting on disputes.

Misleading publication
However, the policy also states that none of this allows the publication of information known to be inaccurate or misleading.

Markedly different as these positions are, they have one element in common: freedom of the press does not mean freedom to publish false or misleading material.

From an ethical perspective, this is a bare minimum. The ABC requires that its journalists follow the weight of evidence, which is a substantially more exacting standard of truthfulness than anything required by the Fairfax or News Corp newspapers. The Guardian Australia and The Conversation have imposed what it is in effect a ban on climate-change denialism, on the ground that it is harmful.

Harm is a long-established criterion for abridging free speech. John Stuart Mill, in his seminal work, On Liberty, published in 1859, was a robust advocate for free speech but he drew the line at harm:

[…] the only purpose for which power can be exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

It follows that editors may exercise the power of refusing to publish climate-denialist material if doing so prevents harm to others, without violating fundamental free-speech principles.

Other harms too provide established grounds for limiting free speech. Some of these are enforceable at law – defamation, contempt of court, national security – but speech about climate change falls outside the law and so becomes a question of ethics.

Climate change harm
The harms done by climate change, both at a planetary level and at the level of human health, are well-documented and supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.

At a planetary level, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a report last year on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.

It stated that human activities are estimated to have already caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, and that 1.5°C was likely to be reached between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate.

At the level of human health, in June 2019 the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners published its Position Statement on Climate Change and Human Health.

It stated that climate change resulting from human activity “presents an urgent, significant and growing threat to health worldwide”.

Projected changes in Australia’s climate would result in more frequent and widespread heatwaves and extreme heat. This would increase the risks of heat stress, heat stroke, dehydration and mortality, contribute to acute cerebrovascular accidents, and aggravate chronic respiratory, cardiac and kidney conditions and psychiatric illness.

At both the planetary and human-health levels, then, the harms are serious and grounded in credible scientific evidence. It follows that they provide a strong ethical justification for the stands taken by The Conversation and Guardian Australia in prioritising Mill’s harm principle over free speech.

Limited internal guidance
Aside from these two platforms and the ABC, journalists are offered very limited internal guidance about how to approach the balancing of free-speech interests with the harm principle in the context of climate change.

External guidance is nonexistent. The ethical codes promulgated by the media accountability bodies – the Australian Press Council and the Australian Communications and Media Authority – make no mention of how impartiality should be achieved in the context of climate change. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance’s code of ethics is similarly silent.

These bodies would serve the profession and the public interest by developing specific standards to deal with the issue of climate change, and guidance about how to meet them. It is not an issue like any other. It is existential on a scale surpassing even nuclear war.

As I write in my study at Central Tilba on the far south coast of New South Wales, the entire landscape of farmland, bush and coastline is shrouded in smoke. It has been like that since before Christmas.

Twice we have been evacuated from our home. Twice we have been among the lucky ones to return unhurt and find our home intact.

The front of the Badja Forest Road fire (292,630 ha) is 3.6 km to the north, creeping towards us in the leaf litter. A northerly wind would turn it into an immediate threat.

From this perspective, media acquiescence in climate change denial, failure to follow the weight of evidence, or continued adherence to an out-of-date standard of impartiality looks like culpable irresponsibility.The Conversation

Dr Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

]]> NZ university denies bowing to Chinese pressure over Tiananmen https://asiapacificreport.nz/2019/07/31/nz-university-denies-cancelling-tiananmen-event-over-china-govt-pressure/ Wed, 31 Jul 2019 02:59:11 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=39975 By RNZ News

Auckland University of Technology has denied bowing to Chinese government pressure to stop one of its rooms being used for an event marking last month’s 30th anniversary of the bloody crackdown on protests in Tiananmen Square in Beijing.

The New Zealand university has confirmed it canned a reservation for the event on Monday, June 3 – a public holiday, after a meeting with China’s Vice-Consul General Xiao Yewen on the preceding Friday.

Vice-Chancellor Derek McCormack said AUT did not know the event was about the Tiananmen Square protests and it cancelled the booking only because the staff member who made it had not followed the right process, and the building would be closed for the holiday.

READ MORE: Fault lines of fact 25 years after the events in Tiananmen Square

“If it had been an AUT event or if it had been booked through the proper channels through our hospitality services group, it would have gone ahead as the film In the Name of Confucius went ahead a little earlier, which was also something that the Chinese consulate drew to our attention and asked us to cancel which we did not,” he said.

“It needs to be done in the proper manner for all sorts of reasons, including health and safety. There are also charges that are made for rooms because of cleaning and set-up and utilities.

“These things were bypassed by the person who made the booking. In fact they did not even make the booking in their own name so it was something that was completely out of order.”

Concerns coincided
Messages obtained by Newsroom under the Official Information Act showed McCormack later wrote to the Vice-Consul General to say AUT defended its academic freedom, but in this instance their concerns and AUT’s concerns had coincided.

McCormack told RNZ News that Xiao had not threatened repercussions if AUT failed to cancel the booking.

“The Vice-Consul General pointed out that we had a good relationship with China, that we had lots of Chinese students and because of that good relationship could we help them out and cancel something they objected to.”

McCormack said the university did not know at the time what the event was about. It had been booked as a student seminar and advertised in Chinese media, not in English.

Emails show Xiao described AUT’s decision as “right and wise” and would “definitely help promote further growth of exchanges and cooperation between AUT and the General Consulate and China in general”.

‘Dubious explanation’
Tertiary Education Union national secretary Sharn Riggs said universities sometimes ran into problems with room bookings, but she was dubious about AUT’s explanation.

“Hardly seems credible, does it? That is the public position that the university is putting out, but I guess from our point of view that seems like a fairly lame reason to have cancelled the event,” she said.

Riggs said the incident highlighted universities’ reliance on tuition fees from Chinese students.

“When so many of our universities now are reliant on the fees that international students pay, and in AUT’s case it’s quite a significant chunk of their annual income, it’s inevitable that foreign governments are going to have the ability to put pressure on institutions should they want to and I think in this case that’s exactly what the Chinese government has done.”

Defending freedom of expression
Education Minister Chris Hipkins would not comment on AUT’s decision, but defended freedom of expression at universities.

He said the relationship with China was important to the government and to many tertiary institutions, but it had to be based on mutual respect.

“In New Zealand, free speech, the right to democratic process, those are very important things to New Zealanders and we have always been very clear with the Chinese government that those are things that we will always defend here in New Zealand,” Hipkins said.

The Chinese consulate in Auckland did not respond to a request for comment.

  • This article is published under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.
]]> Tongan tourism officials to ‘wipe out’ Miss Heilala over her criticisms https://asiapacificreport.nz/2019/07/12/tongan-tourism-officials-to-wipe-out-miss-heilala-over-her-criticisms/ https://asiapacificreport.nz/2019/07/12/tongan-tourism-officials-to-wipe-out-miss-heilala-over-her-criticisms/#comments Thu, 11 Jul 2019 23:20:33 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=39506 By Philip Cass

Tonga’s tourist authorities will wipe the former Miss Heilala, Kalo Funganitao, from the records in retaliation for her speech at this year’s crowning ceremony.

The committee’s decision comes a day after the Heilala Festival Committee and the Tonga Tourist Association issued a statement acknowledging Funganitao’s work in promoting Tonga during the past year.

Funganitao spoke out during the crowning ceremony about how she had been bullied since being crowned and what she said was the lack of support over the issue.

READ MORE: Anger as Tongan beauty queen’s bullying claim speech disrupted

As Kaniva News reported earlier this week, the committee said they did not condone any form of bullying.

The Tonga Tourist Association Executive Committee said yesterday Funganitao had not fulfilled the requirements of her position and all records of her reign would be removed.

“It is regrettable that as an ambassador of Tonga Miss Funganitao has not fulfilled her duties and obligations,” the committee said in a statement.

“She failed to properly hand over her reign to the newly chosen Miss Heilala 2019-2020. “

The committee said Miss Funganitao voluntarily gave up her crown and sash when she placed them on the podium and walked off the stage during the final night of the competition.

She did not crown her successor on the night

“Due to the removal of Miss Funganitao as Miss Heilala 2018 – 2019 the committee has concluded that Miss Lupe Vete who was the first runner up of the Miss Heilala Pageant 2018 – 2019 competition be recognised as the Miss Heilala for 2018 – 2019 and all future records will reflect this.”

End pageants
Funganitao’s speech and the furore following it has become a global story, with The Guardian newspaper reporting yesterday:“Tonga is in uproar after its annual beauty pageant was marred by accusations of bullying, backstabbing and racism, prompting calls by women’s rights leaders for the pageant industry to be abandoned altogether.”

Co-ordinator of Tonga’ Ma’a Fafine Moe Famili, Betty Blake, told Radio New Zealand the event should be reviewed.

She said it highlighted a wider issue with people in power trying to cope with young women.

“There’s a power struggle and there’s a cry from this young woman to be heard. I think beauty pageants have had their day.”

Philip Cass is an editorial adviser for Kaniva Tonga and a research associate of the Pacific Media Centre.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2019/07/12/tongan-tourism-officials-to-wipe-out-miss-heilala-over-her-criticisms/feed/ 1 Christchurch mosque shootings must end NZ innocence over right-wing terrorism https://asiapacificreport.nz/2019/03/16/christchurch-mosque-shootings-must-end-nz-innocence-over-right-wing-terrorism/ https://asiapacificreport.nz/2019/03/16/christchurch-mosque-shootings-must-end-nz-innocence-over-right-wing-terrorism/#comments Sat, 16 Mar 2019 07:16:06 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=35798 ANALYSIS: By Professor Paul Spoonley in Auckland

New Zealand police continued today to respond to events following shootings at two mosques in central Christchurch yesterday.

The national security threat level has been lifted to high. Mosques across New Zealand have been closed and police are asking people to refrain from visiting.

So far, 49 people have been killed. According to media reports, 41 people were fatally shot at the Masjid Al Noor mosque on Deans Avenue; others died at a second mosque nearby.

READ MORE: 36 minutes to catch the accused killer

Four people, three men and a woman, were taken into custody yesterday in connection with the shootings. One person was released.

Accused Brenton Tarrant appears in court today. Image: RNZ/PMC screenshot

A 28-year-old Australia-born man, Brenton Harrison Tarrant, was today charged with murder.

In the hours after the attacks, New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern made it clear this was a terrorist attack of “extraordinary and unprecedented violence” that had no place in New Zealand.

She said extremist views were not welcome and contrary to New Zealand values, and did not reflect New Zealand as a nation.

It is one of New Zealand’s darkest days. Many of the people affected by this act of extreme violence will be from our refugee and migrant communities. New Zealand is their home. They are us.

She is right. Public opinion surveys such as the Asia New Zealand Foundation annual surveys of attitudes tend to show that a majority of New Zealanders are in favour of diversity and see immigration, in this case from Asia, as providing various benefits for the country.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern visited Christchurch today to pay her respects to mourners in the wake of the mosque massacre . Image: RNZ

But extremist politics, including the extreme nationalist and white supremacist politics that appear to be at the core of this attack on Muslims, have been part of the New Zealand community for a long time.

History of white supremacy
I completed research in the UK on the National Front and British National Party in the late 1970s. When I returned to New Zealand, I was told explicitly, including by authorities that were charged with monitoring extremism, that we did not have similar groups here.

But it did not take me long to discover quite the opposite.

Through the 1980s, I looked at more than 70 local groups that met the definition of being extreme right wing. The city that hosted many of these groups was Christchurch.

They were a mixture of skinhead, neo-Nazi and extreme nationalist groups. Some were traditional in their ideology, with a strong underpinning of anti-Semitism and a belief in the supremacy of the “British race”.

Others inverted the arguments of Māori nationalism to argue for separatism to keep the “white race pure”.

And yes, there was violence. The 1989 shooting of an innocent bystander, Wayne Motz, in Christchurch by a skinhead who then walked to a local police kiosk and shot himself.

The pictures of the internment showed his friends giving Nazi salutes. In separate incidents, a Korean backpacker and a gay man were killed for ideological reasons.

Things have changed. The 1990s provided the internet and then social media. And events such as the September 11 terror attacks shifted the focus – anti-Semitism was now supplemented by Islamophobia.

Hate speech online
The earthquakes and subsequent rebuild have significantly transformed the ethnic demography of Christchurch and made it much more multicultural – and more positive about that diversity.

It is ironic that this terrorism should take place in this city, despite its history of earlier far right extremism.

We tend not to think too much about the presence of racist and white supremacist groups, until there is some public incident like the desecration of Jewish graves or a march of black-shirted men (they are mostly men) asserting their “right to be white”.

Perhaps, we are comfortable in thinking, as the prime minister has said, they are not part of our nation.

Last year, as part of a project to look at hate speech, I looked at what some New Zealanders were saying online. It did not take long to discover the presence of hateful and anti-Muslim comments.

It would be wrong to characterise these views and comments as widespread, but New Zealand was certainly not exempt from Islamophobia.

Every so often, it surfaced, such as in the attack on a Muslim woman in a Huntly carpark.

An end to collective innocence
It became even more obvious during 2018. The Canadian YouTuber Stefan Molyneux sparked a public debate (along with Lauren Southern) about his right to free speech. Much of the public comment seemed to either overlook or condone his extreme views on what he regards as the threat posed by Islam.

And then there was the public protest in favour of free speech that occurred at the same time, and the signs warning us about the arrival of Sharia law or “Free Tommy” signs. The latter refers to Tommy Robinson, a long-time activist (cf English Defence League leader) who was sentenced to prison – and then released on appeal – for contempt of court, essentially by targeting Muslims before the courts.

There is plenty of evidence of local Islamophobic views, especially online. There are, and have been for a long time, individuals and groups who hold white supremacist views.

They tend to threaten violence; seldom have they acted on those views. There is also a naivety among New Zealanders, including the media, about the need to be tolerant towards the intolerant.

There is not necessarily a direct causation between the presence of Islamophobia and what has happened in Christchurch. But this attack must end our collective innocence.

No matter the size of these extremist communities, they always represent a threat to our collective well-being. Social cohesion and mutual respect need to be asserted and continually worked on.

Professor is pro vice-chancellor in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Massey University in Auckland. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence.

Aucklanders at the vigil today for the families of the victims of the Christchurch mosque shootings yesterday. Image: David Robie/PMC
]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2019/03/16/christchurch-mosque-shootings-must-end-nz-innocence-over-right-wing-terrorism/feed/ 3 Pacific Island leaders tightening the screws on press freedom, dissent https://asiapacificreport.nz/2018/09/05/pacific-island-leaders-tightening-the-screws-on-press-freedom-dissent/ Wed, 05 Sep 2018 08:22:58 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=31907 ANALYSIS: The three-hour “detention” of television New Zealand Pacific affairs reporter Barbara Dreaver for “breaking protocols” over interviewing refugees on Nauru. But Josef Benedict reports this is just part of the dismal media freedom scene in the Pacific.

At this week’s gathering of key Pacific Island leaders on the Micronesian island of Nauru, conspicuously missing were journalists from Australia’s public broadcaster.

This was because the South Pacific’s smallest nation has refused visas to journalists from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to enable them to attend and cover the four-day Pacific Islands Forum leaders summit.

And one of the Pacific’s most experienced journalists, Television New Zealand’s Barbara Dreaver was detained for more than three hours yesterday after interviewing refugees from the notorious Australian-established detention centres on the island. The Nauru government claims she was not “detained”, merely “questioned’.

READ MORE: Self-immolation, hunger strikes and suicide: Children on Nauru want to die

The Nauru government’s ban on the ABC, it says, is in retaliation for the news organisation’s “blatant interference in Nauru’s domestic politics prior to the 2016 elections, harassment of and lack of respect towards our President and… continued biased and false reporting about our country.”

But some say ABC’s criticism of Nauru’s policies on notorious Australian-run refugee detention centre on the island – plagued by widespread reports of physical, psychological and sexual abuse, with at least five suicide deaths to date – may have more to do with it.

Those controversial camps are not on the agenda and not likely to be a subject of much discussion within the forum which ended today.

And neither is the issue of free speech and media freedom, since efforts to repress critical reporting has become increasingly common among Pacific governments.

Climate change
It is not only climate change and rising sea levels that threaten the lives and wellbeing of Pacific Islanders. Rising levels of official intolerance of dissent and free speech across the region pose a threat to the wellbeing of their democracies.

Indeed, CIVICUS Monitor, an online platform that tracks threats to civil society across the globe, has found that these violations of freedom of expression appear to be systemic in the region.

In Fiji, attempts by the government to intimidate and silence free speech is creating a chilling effect ahead of upcoming national elections and before the date has even been set.

In February, Island Business magazine’s editor and two of its journalists were questioned under the Public Order Act over articles on the firing of a magistrate who had presided over a union dispute.

The 2016 sedition charges against The Fiji Times – widely regarded as the country’s last independent news outlet – saw its publisher, editor-in-chief and two others hauled through the courts over a reader’s letter to the editor that allegedly contained controversial views about Muslims.

Human rights groups believe the charges were politically motivated. The state has filed an appeal against their acquittal.

Journalists in Papua New Guinea often work in fear and many believe media freedom has been eroded. In February this year, PNG Post Courier reporter, Franky Kapin, was attacked and assaulted by staff from the Morobe Province Governor’s office for alleged biased reporting.

Journalists threatened
Journalists continue to be threatened and barred from covering the ongoing crisis at the Australian refugee detention center on Manus Island (after its closure) in the country’s north.

Senior Papua New Guinean journalist Titi Gabi says that increasing outside interference of the editorial process and the bribing and threatening of journalists has led to media freedom no longer being enjoyed in the country.

After a passenger ferry sank in Kiribati in February, leaving 93 people dead, authorities barred foreign journalists from entering the country to report on the disaster.

Meanwhile, the government of Samoa was criticised by a media freedom lobby group earlier this year for seeking to repress freedom of expression by reintroducing legislation on criminal libel without proper public consultation

Civil society groups in the regional power of Australia are extremely concerned about the impact that changes to security laws will have on fundamental freedoms. The National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017 and the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017 were met with a storm of protest from media outlets and civil society organisations.

Australian Lawyers for Human Rights has criticised the legislation, warning that the measures will have a “severely chilling effect upon academic research, free speech, and particularly constitutionally-protected free political speech”.

According to Amnesty International Australia, the draconian laws will make it a crime for charities to expose human rights violations, and to communicate with the United Nations about those violations.

Stifled free speech
So, why are governments in the region working to increasingly stifle free speech?

For one, they are coming under growing public scrutiny, led by journalists and civil society using social media, for abuse of power, lack of transparency and corruption at various government levels.

News stories exposing official human rights violations have received global attention, thanks to the efforts of international media and non-governmental organisations. Averse to the negative publicity, Pacific governments have responded with repressive action.

Also, civil society groups in the Pacific are increasingly raising not just national concerns but sensitive regional ones as well, such as rights abuses in West Papua, a region in Indonesia where there is an active pro-independence movement, and in refugee detention centres in Nauru and PNG’s Manus Island.

Asylum seekers stand behind a fence in Oscar compound at the Manus Island detention centre in Papua New Guinea. This has now been closed but problems remain for the asylum seekers, “stranded’ against their will within the Manus community. Image: Eoin Blackwell/AFP/Asian Correspodent

Seeking to appease regional powerhouses Indonesia and Australia as they appeal for economic investment, governments of small island states have no qualms trying to silence those speaking out on these issues at home.

In turn, the “growing influence of China” has also been cited as a justification for Australia’s new security policies. But many believe another objective is to keep government dealings from the public.

This regional trend flies in the face of Pacific countries’ clear commitments to respect and protect freedom of expression.

Good governance
In 2000, governments signed the Biketawa Declaration committing themselves to democracy, good governance, protection of human rights and maintenance of the rule of law. At the meeting in Nauru, leaders are expected to sign a Biketawa Plus Declaration, building on the original document.

In recent years, island nations have also made commitments to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which include the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice for all and effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels contained in Goal 16. Ensuring fundamental freedoms is pivotal to meeting this goal, as well as the other 16 SDGs.

Leaders at the gathering needed to reiterate their nations’ commitment to fundamental freedoms in its communique and demonstrate it – to create an enabling environment for both the media and civil society to work without fear of criminalisation, harassment and reprisals.

Failing to do so – and the detention of Barbara Dreaver yesterday – are clear signs that the forum is willing to undermine its international obligations and its commitment to democracy and the rule of law.

Josef Benedict is a civic space research officer with global civil society alliance Civicus and a contributor to Asian Correspondent. This article is republished from Asian Correspondent with the permission of the author.

]]> ‘Don’t play with fire’ warning in Samoa’s social media threat https://asiapacificreport.nz/2018/08/09/dont-play-with-fire-warning-in-samoas-social-media-threat/ Thu, 09 Aug 2018 06:12:56 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=31079 Many Samoans are angry over a threat by the prime minister earlier this year to ban the social media platform Facebook amid growing pressure by politicians and officials across the Pacific against “fundamental freedoms”. Mike Mohr reports for Asia Pacific Journalism in the second of a two-part series on online media.

Samoan Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Maleilegaoi has warned  that the social media site Facebook may be banned, and has told users “not to play with fire”.

But the threat earlier this year has drawn mounting criticism from Samoans online.

Public opinion online is suggesting that the Samoan government is threatening people’s right to freedom of expression and their right to free speech.

The Samoa Alliance of Media Practitioner for Development (SAMPOD) opposes any possible ban.

“The right to free expression is fundamental to a democracy like Samoa,” says SAMPOD.

SAMPOD and others who are opposed to the possible ban have cited the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the right of the people of Samoa to express their opinions without fear of repercussion from the government.

The Facebook threat – first made in March – is in retaliation to online criticism and scrutiny of the Samoan PM and cabinet ministers by members of the public.

Discontent with officials
Facebook and other social media platforms are being used by members of the public to voice their opinions and discontent with Samoan government officials.

“So, I advise them not to play with fire. I want them to know that no matter where you hide, you will be caught,” he told the Samoa Observer in an interview attacking “faceless writers” on blogs.

The Prime Minister has rejected the opinions and views of online commentators. He has added that these individuals are offending government leaders with their accusations.

“Because it’s all based on lies, those affected are government leaders” he told the Observer.

Although the issue about the threatened ban has been quiet in past weeks, after a recent visit to London for a Commonwealth cybersecurity conference, he renewed his attack on anonymous bloggers.

However, Samoa Observer editor Mata’afa Keni Lesa asked in an editorial why was Tuilaepa so worried and why was he making himself “look like the biggest bully” on a crusade.

The editor said Tuilaepa was “thrilled to finally have learnt that it’s not just Samoa struggling with the issue of faceless writers”.

The prime minister had found that all 53 countries of the Commonwealth had been affected by social media problems ranging from “character assassinations” to many unfounded allegations.

Family insults
The threatened ban on Facebook would be not only for criticism for political decisions, but also for comments regarding family, allegations of corruption and personal insults that are aimed at cabinet members.

“The government will do what it takes to settle this matter once and for all, even if it means banning Facebook,” he told the Observer.

Tuilaepa’s concern is with online social media sites that provide a platform for personal attacks and accusations that he believes are unfounded, misleading and untrue.

Prime Minister Tuilaepa has insisted that these posts and comments had absolutely no truth in them.

Accusation of corruption and unethical relationships are the main reasons for Tuilaepa’s belief that eventually Facebook, and other social media platforms, will be banned.

Government officials are not the only targets of online posts but also their family members.

Alleged sexual relationships between family members is one of the accusation that has provoked feelings of anger by those who are accused of such acts.

He continued by adding that if any of the accusations aimed at government officials were true, they would have been published in the Observer.

The threatened ban would include blogs and other popular social sites and apps.

The Facebook ban is being delayed, according to the Samoa Observer, but it is just a matter of time before Facebook and other online social media sites would be banned.

Blogger identities
The identities of some of the anonymous bloggers are known to the Prime Minister and police investigators, according to an article by Samoa Observer.

O Le Palemia is an anonymous blogger that has been singled out for inflammatory accusations levelled against Prime Minister Tuilaepa and other government officials.

The identity of the O Le Palemia has not yet been uncovered, or has not yet been released publicly.

Tuilaepa has warned that if its behaviour continued, he would be forced to release the names of those that he believes are responsible.

O Le Palemia last month published an attack on some Samoan media, accusing them of publishing “government propaganda”.  The blog named Newsline Samoa, Talamua Media and Samoa Planet.

Website Samoa Planet, founded by Lani Wendt Young and Tuiloma Sina Retzlaff, closed down last month.

There was hesitation in revealing the identities of the online bloggers because of fears of physical attacks by those who the accusations and comments are aimed at or by relatives and supporters.

Tuilaepa is sure that once the identities are revealed the bloggers lives would be in danger because of the severity of the online posts that had provoked anger in government officials.

The Prime Minister is adamant that when information about the identities of the anonymous bloggers is released to the public, violence would ensue in the form of reprisal attacks.

O Le Palemia was shut down in February for breaching Facebook’s community standards, reported RNZ Pacific, but apparently resumed publication.

Police investigation
Tuilaepa said in June police had filed charges against the people suspected of being behind the O Le Palemia blog but he did not name them.

In its statement against the threatened ban, SAMPOD said: “We urge the government to use existing mechanisms to address issues arising from the misuse of Facebook, but humbly caution against the banning of this essential medium of information for the people of Samoa.”

Online comments by fellow Samoans refer to government leaders as “Snowflakes” – a slang term referring to individuals that are “hypersensitive to criticism”, according Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster online.

Mike Maatulimanu Mohr is a student journalist on the Postgraduate Diploma in Communication Studies (Journalism) reporting on the Asia-Pacific Journalism course at AUT University.

]]> Keith Jackson: Did dumb just get dumber and Sam Basil dig a hole? https://asiapacificreport.nz/2018/06/03/keith-jackson-did-dumb-just-get-dumber-and-sam-basil-dig-a-hole/ Sat, 02 Jun 2018 23:28:43 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=29797 A near confrontation on the floor of Parliament on Friday, with the Papua New Guinea Opposition walking out in protest over the referral of Madang MP Bryan Kramer, to the Parliamentary Privileges Committee following a Facebook posting. Video: EMTV News

OPINION: By Keith Jackson in Noosa

Samuel H Basil, the man who might ban Papua New Guineans from Facebook, was not always such a stern opponent of the social media platform he now despises – a platform used by nearly a million of his fellow citizens.

Indeed it was only 18 months ago that Basil – who is now Communications Minister – posted on his own Facebook page: “FB users in PNG have used the medium to their advantage exposing corruption in government…. Everything is changing; people are taking their bloggers seriously and their politicians as comedians.”

Yes, bloggers serious; politicians comic.

READ MORE: Gary Juffa on the Kramer censoring – another attack on free speech

Then last week, having defected not only from his political base but seemingly from his former progressive and liberal ideas, Basil felt able to announce that Facebook could be banned for a month for some mysterious “research” – and maybe disposed of permanently, perhaps to be replaced by Basbook.

Communications Minister Sam Basil with Prime Minister Peter O’Neill – worried about the wellbeing of PNG or just politicians feelings being hurt? Image: PNG Attitude

An immediate worldwide flambé of curiosity then thrust the story into the news stratosphere, some journalists linking it with Papua New Guinea’s APEC forum later this year. Basil seemed to back away, then push the idea forward again so by week’s end what the government intends to do was very much up in the air.

But one thing did remain constant (see more stories on PNG Attitude) – the desire of most national politicians to get rid of the dreadful FB thing that is causing them so much grief with increasingly savvy and critical voters.

Among the small group of politicians fighting to keep Facebook alive is Madang MP Bryan Kramer who was cheeky enough (in a Facebook post, of course) to allude to Basil in a headline which asked, “Did dumb just get dumber?”.

Parliamentary walkout
Affecting to have been taken aback, in Parliament the majority of members voted to refer Kramer to the Privileges Committee whereupon Opposition Leader Patrick Pruaitch and 23 other members walked out of the chamber in protest.

The committee will decide if Kramer’s post brought Parliament into disrepute.

Opposition Madang MP Bryan Kramer … controversial statement made outside Parliament on Facebook. Image: EMTV News

However, there is something of a problem – the committee is meant to investigate breaches of parliamentary privilege and Kramer’s statement was not made in Parliament.

“I think what is frightening and what is alarming for the people of PNG is a deliberate move towards shutting down their opportunities to have access to information and to also speak freely,” Pruaitch said.

“They [politicians] are complaining about their feelings being hurt.”

Meanwhile, in far away Uganda, Parliament has just passed a new social media tax which will charge a daily fee of 200 Ugandan shillings (about K1.75) to anyone using apps Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter. That’s a hefty sum in a country where the average person earns K6 a day.

But, as with Sam Basil’s ill thought through proposition for Papua New Guinea, it is unclear in Uganda how social media use will be monitored and how the money will be collected.

Digging themselves deeper holes in their desire to rein in social media seems to be a developing political trait.

This article is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission and was originally published by Keith Jackson’s blog PNG Attitude.

]]> Why data power of social media giants like Facebook troubles human rights https://asiapacificreport.nz/2018/04/03/why-data-power-of-social-media-giants-like-facebook-troubles-human-rights/ https://asiapacificreport.nz/2018/04/03/why-data-power-of-social-media-giants-like-facebook-troubles-human-rights/#comments Tue, 03 Apr 2018 06:54:25 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=28123 By Sarah Joseph in Melbourne

Facebook has had a bad few weeks. The social media giant had to apologise for failing to protect the personal data of millions of users from being accessed by data mining company Cambridge Analytica.

Outrage is brewing over its admission to spying on people via their Android phones. Its stock price plummeted, while millions deleted their accounts in disgust.

Facebook has also faced scrutiny over its failure to prevent the spread of “fake news” on its platforms, including via an apparent orchestrated Russian propaganda effort to influence the 2016 US presidential election.

Facebook’s actions – or inactions – facilitated breaches of privacy and human rights associated with democratic governance. But it might be that its business model – and those of its social media peers generally – is simply incompatible with human rights.

The good
In some ways, social media has been a boon for human rights – most obviously for freedom of speech.

Previously, the so-called “marketplace of ideas” was technically available to all (in “free” countries), but was in reality dominated by the elites.

While all could equally exercise the right to free speech, we lacked equal voice. Gatekeepers, especially in the form of the mainstream media, largely controlled the conversation.

But today, anybody with internet access can broadcast information and opinions to the whole world. While not all will be listened to, social media is expanding the boundaries of what is said and received in public.

The marketplace of ideas must effectively be bigger and broader, and more diverse.

Social media enhances the effectiveness of non-mainstream political movements, public assemblies and demonstrations, especially in countries that exercise tight controls over civil and political rights, or have very poor news sources.

Social media played a major role in co-ordinating the massive protests that brought down dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt, as well as large revolts in Spain, Greece, Israel, South Korea, and the Occupy movement.

More recently, it has facilitated the rapid growth of the #MeToo and #neveragain movements, among others.

READ MORE: #MeToo is not enough: it has yet to shift the power imbalances that would bring about gender equality

The bad and the ugly
But the social media “free speech” machines can create human rights difficulties. Those newly empowered voices are not necessarily desirable voices.

The United Nations recently found that Facebook had been a major platform for spreading hatred against the Rohingya in Myanmar, which in turn led to ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

Video sharing site YouTube seems to automatically guide viewers to the fringiest versions of what they might be searching for. A search on vegetarianism might lead to veganism; jogging to ultra-marathons; Donald Trump’s popularity to white supremacist rants; and Hillary Clinton to 9/11 “trutherism”.

YouTube, via its algorithm’s natural and probably unintended impacts, “may be one of the most powerful radicalising instruments of the 21st century”, with all the attendant human rights abuses that might follow.

The business model and human rights
Human rights abuses might be embedded in the business model that has evolved for social media companies in their second decade.

Essentially, those models are based on the collection and use for marketing purposes of their users’ data. And the data they have is extraordinary in its profiling capacities, and in the consequent unprecedented knowledge base and potential power it grants to these private actors.

Indirect political influence is commonly exercised, even in the most credible democracies, by private bodies such as major corporations. This power can be partially constrained by “anti-trust laws” that promote competition and prevent undue market dominance.

Anti-trust measures could, for example, be used to hive off Instagram from Facebook, or YouTube from Google. But these companies’ power essentially arises from the sheer number of their users: in late 2017, Facebook was reported as having more than 2.2 billion active users. Anti-trust measures do not seek to cap the number of a company’s customers, as opposed to its acquisitions.

Power through knowledge
In 2010, Facebook conducted an experiment by randomly deploying a non-partisan “I voted” button into 61 million feeds during the US mid-term elections. That simple action led to 340,000 more votes, or about 0.14 percent of the US voting population. This number can swing an election. A bigger sample would lead to even more votes.

So Facebook knows how to deploy the button to sway an election, which would clearly be lamentable.

However, the mere possession of that knowledge makes Facebook a political player. It now knows that button’s the political impact, the types of people it is likely to motivate, and the party that’s favoured by its deployment and non-deployment, and at what times of day.

It might seem inherently incompatible with democracy for that knowledge to be vested in a private body. Yet the retention of such data is the essence of Facebook’s ability to make money and run a viable business.

Microtargeting
A study has shown that a computer knows more about a person’s personality than their friends or flatmates from an analysis of 70 “likes”, and more than their family from 150 likes. From 300 likes it can outperform one’s spouse.

This enables the micro-targeting of people for marketing messages – whether those messages market a product, a political party or a cause. This is Facebook’s product, from which it generates billions of dollars. It enables extremely effective advertising and the manipulation of its users.

This is so even without Cambridge Analytica’s underhanded methods.

Advertising is manipulative: that is its point. Yet it is a long bow to label all advertising as a breach of human rights.

Advertising is available to all with the means to pay. Social media micro-targeting has become another battleground where money is used to attract customers and, in the political arena, influence and mobilise voters.

While the influence of money in politics is pervasive – and probably inherently undemocratic – it seems unlikely that spending money to deploy social media to boost an electoral message is any more a breach of human rights than other overt political uses of money.

Yet the extraordinary scale and precision of its manipulative reach might justify differential treatment of social media compared to other advertising, as its manipulative political effects arguably undermine democratic choices.

As with mass data collection, perhaps it may eventually be concluded that that reach is simply incompatible with democratic and human rights.

‘Fake news’
Finally, there is the issue of the spread of misinformation.

While paid advertising may not breach human rights, “fake news” distorts and poisons democratic debate. It is one thing for millions of voters to be influenced by precisely targeted social media messages, but another for maliciously false messages to influence and manipulate millions – whether paid for or not.

In a Declaration on Fake News, several UN and regional human rights experts said fake news interfered with the right to know and receive information – part of the general right to freedom of expression.

Its mass dissemination may also distort rights to participate in public affairs. Russia and Cambridge Analytica (assuming allegations in both cases to be true) have demonstrated how social media can be “weaponised” in unanticipated ways.

Yet it is difficult to know how social media companies should deal with fake news. The suppression of fake news is the suppression of speech – a human right in itself.

The preferred solution outlined in the Declaration on Fake News is to develop technology and digital literacy to enable readers to more easily identify fake news.

The human rights community seems to be trusting that the proliferation of fake news in the marketplace of ideas can be corrected with better ideas rather than censorship.

However, one cannot be complacent in assuming that “better speech” triumphs over fake news. A recent study concluded fake news on social media:

… diffused significantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth in all categories of information.

Also, internet “bots” apparently spread true and false news at the same rate, which indicates that:

… false news spreads more than the truth because humans, not robots, are more likely to spread it.

The depressing truth may be that human nature is attracted to fake stories over the more mundane true ones, often because they satisfy predetermined biases, prejudices and desires. And social media now facilitates their wildfire spread to an unprecedented degree.

Perhaps social media’s purpose – the posting and sharing of speech – cannot help but generate a distorted and tainted marketplace of fake ideas that undermine political debate and choices, and perhaps human rights.

What next?
It is premature to assert the very collection of massive amounts of data is irreconcilable with the right to privacy (and even rights relating to democratic governance).

Similarly, it is premature to decide that micro-targeting manipulates the political sphere beyond the bounds of democratic human rights.

Finally, it may be that better speech and corrective technology will help to undo fake news’ negative impacts: it is premature to assume that such solutions won’t work.

However, by the time such conclusions may be reached, it may be too late to do much about it. It may be an example where government regulation and international human rights law – and even business acumen and expertise – lags too far behind technological developments to appreciate their human rights dangers.

At the very least, we must now seriously question the business models that have emerged from the dominant social media platforms.

Maybe the internet should be rewired from the grassroots, rather than be led by digital oligarchs’ business needs.

Dr Sarah Joseph is director of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia.This article was first published by The Conversation and has been republished by Asia Pacific Report under a Creative Commons licence.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2018/04/03/why-data-power-of-social-media-giants-like-facebook-troubles-human-rights/feed/ 1 Thousands support Indonesian petition to repeal blasphemy law https://asiapacificreport.nz/2017/05/20/thousands-support-free-speech-indonesian-petition-to-revoke-blasphemy-law/ Sat, 20 May 2017 03:42:29 +0000 http://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=21599 By Marguerite Afra Sapiie in Jakarta

Indonesians have called on President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo to immediately repeal Article 156a on religious blasphemy of the Criminal Code (KUHP), with thousands of people having signed an online petition urging the government to do so.

Through an online petition entitled “President Jokowi, Scrap Article 156a on Blasphemy from KUHP Revision” registered at change.org, two petitioners, Gita Putri Damayana and Gita Syahrani, raised the call.

In less than a week since the petition was submitted online, more than 10,000 people have endorsed it.

The petition was created following the decision of the North Jakarta District Court to sentence non-active Jakarta Governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama, a Christian and ethnic Chinese, to two years in prison for “defaming religion” last week.

“Ahok’s conviction is one among many cases […] that shows that Article 156a of the KUHP is used to judge someone’s beliefs and ideas, and that difference is something that is seen as wrong,” the petitioners wrote in the petition as quoted by change.org.

The petition, directed toward Jokowi and Law and Human Rights Minister Yasonna Laoly, urged the President through the minister to push legislators at the House of Representatives, which is currently amending the KUHP, to scrap the article.

“There is still time for the public to push for the agenda to scrap Article 156a from the KUHP,” the petition read.

]]> Investigation into Fiji Times sedition charge steps up with search warrant https://asiapacificreport.nz/2017/04/04/investigation-into-fiji-times-sedition-charge-steps-up-with-search-warrant/ Mon, 03 Apr 2017 12:42:23 +0000 http://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=20440 Pacific Media Watch

Sedition charges against several Fiji Times Limited staff have loomed larger with the Criminal Investigations Department of the Fijian police force executing a search warrant.

Two officers of the Major Crime Unit sought the employment contracts of the company’s publisher Hank Arts, editor-in-chief Fred Wesley and Nai Lalakai editor Anare Ravula.

Officers who carried out the search last Thursday said the warrant was part of the ongoing investigation into the sedition charges against Arts, Wesley and Ravula.

Fiji Times publisher Hank Arts (from left) and lawyer Feizal Haniff with CID officers Inspector Esili Nadolo (right) and Sergeant Laisiasa Tamani at The Fiji Times office in Suva last Thursday. Image: Jonacani Lalakobau/Fiji Times

The warrant was authorised by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and comes after the newspaper published a reader’s letter by Josaia Waqabaca on 27 April 2016 which contained controversial views about Muslims.

It was not written by any member of the Fiji Times Limited nor does the newspaper endorse its views, but Arts, Wesley and Ravula still face a maximum charge of seven years imprisonment.

Pacific Media Watch has previously reported Waqabaca was imprisoned after the 2000 coup for his role in a conspiracy to kidnap former military commander, now elected Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama.

Prosecutors were originally pursuing charges of inciting “communal antagonism”, but these were upgraded to sedition in early March.

Condemnation of authorities
Fijian authorities have faced condemnation from Amnesty International regarding their “politically motivated” sedition charges.

Josef Benedict, Amnesty International’s deputy director for Southeast Asia and the Pacific last week: “By charging The Fiji Times with sedition, the Fijian authorities are using a crude tactic to intimidate and silence one of the few independent media outlets left in the country.

“Journalists and media houses should be allowed to do their legitimate work freely and without fear of reprisals. The dark days when official censors roamed Fijian newsrooms, telling them what they can and cannot print, are best left in the past.”

This is not the first time The Fiji Times has been the target of authorities and faced charges.

Media freedom issues
Fiji Times Limited and its chief editor, Fred Wesley, were found guilty of contempt of court in 2012 after the newspaper reprinted a sports article which was first published in New Zealand in which Fiji’s judiciary was criticised.

The newspaper was subsequently fined US$170,000, while Wesley received a two-year suspended sentence.

Such charges sit in a wider swathe of media freedom issues linked with Prime Minister Bainimarama’s rise to power following a military coup in 2006.

A heavy regime of censorship was in place in many of Fiji’s newsrooms following “emergency regulations” in April 2009, when official censors decided what could and could not be published.

The Fiji Times was among a handful of news outlets to refuse to print such copy, leaving blank spaces on the pages instead.

Now in the place of censorship stands the 2010 Media Industry Development Decree, a punitive media law which ends the tradition of self-regulation in Fiji.

While those in support of the decree say it is needed to curb media excesses, others see it as an attempt to control Fijian media and have labelled it draconian.

It also requires local media to be 90 percent locally owned, which greatly impacted on The Fiji Times which was then almost wholly-owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited.

The Fiji Times’ lawyer, Feizal Haniff, has confirmed the employment contracts were released to the police officers, but Fijian police have so far declined to comment on the matter.

The sedition charge is not due to be heard until May 9.

The Fiji Times group titles … Nai Lalakai on the left and The Fiji Times in the centre and on the right. Image: Motibhai
]]> Prosecutors consider sedition charges against Fiji Times publisher and editor https://asiapacificreport.nz/2017/03/08/prosecutors-consider-sedition-charges-against-fiji-times-publisher-and-editor/ Tue, 07 Mar 2017 20:22:54 +0000 http://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=19704 By Vijay Narayan and Semi Turaga in Suva

Fiji’s Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Lee Burney has informed the High Court in Suva that the charges against The Fiji Times Limited, publisher Hank Arts, editor Fred Wesley, Nai Lalakai editor Anare Ravula and contributor Josaia Waqabaca will be amended.

Burney told the court yesterday that the DPP office was now looking at sedition charges.

Fiji Times Limited publisher Hank Arts (front) and editor Fred Wesley at court. Image: FijiVillage.com

High Court judge Justice Thusara Rajasinghe has given the prosecution 21 days to consider whether sedition maybe a more appropriate charge.

The lawyer for Arts, Wesley and the Fiji Times Limited, Faizal Haniff, said that the prosecution should give the court a clear direction on which charge they wanted.

Haniff also said that they should have the courtesy to inform the defence.

The maximum penalty for sedition is 7 years imprisonment.

Meanwhile, the judge has also told Waqabaca and Ravula not to expect unnecessary adjournments because their lawyers were not present in court.

Lawyer not present
Justice Rajasinghe raised concern about Waqabaca’s lawyer, Aman Ravindra Singh, as he had not appeared in the case for 3 consecutive times.

It is alleged that Arts, Wesley, Waqabaca, Ravula and The Fiji Times Limited made, or caused to be published, a statement in the iTaukei language in Nai Lalakai newspaper that is likely to incite dislike, hatred, or antagonism of the Muslim community.

Pacific Media Watch reports: The statement was published in a letter to the editor written by Waqabaca, who was imprisoned after the 2000 coup for his role in a conspiracy to kidnap former military commander Voreqe Baimimarama, who is now elected prime minister of Fiji.

The case has been adjourned to March 28.

In a statement, the Auckland-based Pacific Media Centre condemned the latest intimidation of the media in this case.

PMC director Professor David Robie said: “This is yet another naked attempt to supress free expression in Fiji and will damage the country’s attempts to regain a ‘free press’ status. Instead of criminalising free speech and free expression, issues of this kind should be taken through the media complaints process. The prosecutions should be dropped.”

News director Vijay Narayan and Semi Turaga are reporting for FijiVillage.com.

]]>