The importance of media freedom is recognised each year globally on May 3. This year the Pacific Island country of Tonga commemorated World Press Freedom Day just a week after one of the most frightening threats to that freedom which took place at a media outlet.

A hooded man brandishing a pistol threatened a female journalist at the newsroom of Kele’a Voice, an FM radio station in Nuku’alofa. The radio station had broadcast a news story about a Tongan deportee serving a life sentence in Tonga for the importation of two kilograms of methamphetamine.

The convicted man was a member of an Australian motorcycle gang known as the Comancheros. He was planning to set up a chapter in Tonga, according to an ABC Foreign Correspondent documentary that included an interview with the man in prison.

• READ MORE: Tongan police investigate journalist threatened at gunpoint after gang-related report
• Other Pacific media freedom reports

The threatened journalist was warned never to broadcast any more stories on the Comancheros and drug trafficking.

The police are still investigating and looking for the man. The incident is to my knowledge the first armed threat ever carried out against any media in Tonga.

The manager of Kele’a Voice, Teisa Cokanasiga, said the incident was a huge threat to their freedom to report the news, and that it was the media’s role to report on stories of public interest.

Veteran journalist Katalina Tohi, president of the Media Association of Tonga (MAT), spoke out strongly: “A climate of fear and intimidation targeting media personnel undermines democratic principles and silences the very voices that hold power to account.”

‘Attack on right to know’
She said that an “attack on the press is an attack on our nation’s right to know”.

“The Media Association of Tonga is appalled by this brazen act of intimidation. Journalists must be able to carry out their work without the threat of violence or death.”

Tohi is also a board member of the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA); her condemnation of the Tonga incident is representative not only of MAT’s views, but also those of PINA as the premier news association of the Pacific.

Threats against press freedom are unfortunately ongoing in the Pacific. The incident in Tonga demonstrates that the enemies of press freedom can come from anywhere — not always the government or those in power, but anyone averse to truth and transparency.

Whether it is in Fiji, Samoa, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, French Polynesia or anywhere else in the Pacific, media freedom must be protected, advocated for and exercised to the fullest. Only then can we in the Pacific be assured of the proper exercise of democratic governance, the rule of law, transparency and commitment to truth as foundational pillars of society.

In Tonga, freedom of speech is a fundamental value inscribed in its 150-year-old Constitution. Clause 7 of the Tonga Constitution states:

“It shall be lawful for all people to speak write and print their opinions and no law shall ever be enacted to restrict this liberty.

“There shall be freedom of speech and of the press for ever but nothing in this clause shall be held to outweigh the law of slander or the laws for the protection of the King and the Royal Family.”

Social media issue
In an age when the communication industry has exploded, bringing with it misinformation and disinformation, the dominance of social media platforms has raised an important issue for our profession.

We need to redefine our freedom on the basis of truth, and not just because we have a voice. With the availability of technology such as AI, media freedom may be threatened not so much by forces from outside as from within the industry itself.

Never before has there been a greater emphasis on fact-checking, reflecting a decline in trust and reliability of content. Traditional editing has always included fact-checking, but it has become far more important amid today’s flood of misinformation, AI-generated inaccuracies and manipulated images.

Truth must be the foundation upon which media freedom is built. We are free to speak the truth — we are not free to misinform, deceive or propagate falsehood. There is a huge difference between the freedom to speak truth and the freedom to speak lies.

Freedom of speech is the tool for holding power to account on the basis of truth. And truth matters not only to those who speak but to those who listen; audiences influenced by misinformation train their ears to follow narratives that may be false.

In a world of too many confusing voices, what matters is not simply having a voice but having one that speaks truth — and we cannot be silent about the truth. We must speak, write, print and show, for truth matters.

‘Built on truth’
American civil rights essayist Maya Angelou rightly said: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter”. Nothing important is built on silence. If it matters, it must be built on truth. And truth is dependent on a free and fearless media to be its voice.

Finally, I wish to point out a Biblical truth, spoken by Jesus himself: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” (John 8.32)

Here we see a connection between knowledge, truth and freedom — the freedom that is such a vital part of our Pacific cultures and existence.

Kalafi Moala established Tonga’s first independent newspaper and currently manages the online platform Talanoa ‘o Tonga. He was elected president of the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) in September 2024. This article was first published by DevPolicy Blog and is republished under a Creative Commons licence.

• Pacific Media Watch reports: Tonga dropped five places to 51st out of 180 countries surveyed in the 2026 World Press Freedom Index.

The violence surrounding protests against the visit of Israel’s president was not an accident of crowd control. It reflects a deeper political failure – where authority suppresses dissent rather than confronting uncomfortable truths about Gaza, protest rights and democratic responsibility.

In official explanations of violence outside Sydney Town Hall on Monday evening, February  9, it sounds as though police were only trying to maintain public safety through various professional measures taken against the thousands outraged that President Isaac Herzog of Israel, charged with incitement to commit genocide, should be in the country.

Those explanations are false. Behind the extensive police powers to control and suppress protest lies a cancerous-like cowardice, facilitated by a cornered Prime Minister and by an Israeli sympathising, authoritarian NSW Premier.

• READ MORE: Amnesty calls for independent probe of ‘shocking’ Australian police violence against peaceful protesters
• Saige England: Bearing witness – we are seeing a rise of totalitarian predator injustice from Gaza to NZ
• Other Gaza genocide reports

Cowardice can be nurtured by pleasure in dominating, by fear of losing control, by being frightened to face truths, by deceits in pretending that all is well when it manifestly is not.

Restricting protests in order to stifle concern about slaughter in Gaza and the West Bank, or the PM asking the Australian public to “turn the temperature down” so that justifiable outrage about the Bondi massacres will deflect attention from an ongoing genocide in Palestine, is a cowardly technique.

And the PM is not the worst offender, even though government cowardice began when wedged by the Zionist Federation into supporting their invitation to the Israeli President.

Who runs the show you might ask?

Suppression-oriented Premier Chris Minns delegates responsibility for his anti-protest laws to the chief of NSW police who is happy to oblige. In and out of uniform, cowards appear as strong men, usually men, who like to manhandle or beat up people.

There is no manliness in the police thuggery witnessed in Sydney streets on Monday.

Facile Premier Minns – or is he just naive – with no recognition of his own hypocrisy, says on Tuesday’s news “NSW police are not punching bags”. His holier than thou stance is shown alongside a man held down by police who are punching him repeatedly in the kidneys.

We then switch to the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, in Federal Parliament describing police action in general, “what the police were trying to do was sensible”.

As if thuggery on one man is insufficient, other police punch Greens MP Abigail Boyd in the head and shoulder, knock her over and are completely indifferent to her explanations of who she was and the civil and legal reasons for her presence at a legitimate, peaceful protest.

Cameras switch to police apparently unaware that their presence increases conflict, comprehending little, annoyed, then angry at the sight Moslem citizens in prayer on public pavements.

Then we witness no rationality, no civility, only the raw emotions of cowards not getting their way. The men kneeling in prayer are seen being picked up, removed and thrown aside. We’ll never know if deep-seated prejudice affected police conduct, but the question should be raised.

On Tuesday, the mood of thuggery on the streets moved to the House of Representatives when a Greens MP Elizabeth Watson-Brown inquired of the Prime Minister whether the invitation to the President of Israel had undermined the unity of the country, whether the PM would condemn police violence and send Herzog home.

In response, before the Prime Minister could answer, the opposition benches found a unity which had eluded them for months.

United in their apparent support for Israeli slaughter in Gaza, wanting to be seen to be brave in their dislike of protest about Herzog, and apparently unable or unwilling to know much about genocide continuing during a ceasefire, one of the esteemed members of the newly reformed Coalition, was heard to advise colleagues as to how to deal with the Greens MP.

“Rip her apart,” he was reported as saying. It sounds as though this was exactly what he said. Asked by the Speaker to withdraw his comment, the offending MP did so.

But further support for cowardice camouflaged by thuggery was not far away. Keen to revive his image as macho man at large, former Prime Minister Tony Abbot recommended that police accused of punching protesters should receive a commendation and in future be armed with tear gas and be able fire rubber bullets.

Abbot would never regard himself as a coward but when denial of the existence of a genocide, a failure to face truths, is being multiplied by cowardice evident in acceptance of authoritarianism as the way to conduct politics, policing and even techniques for debate, there should be cross party and widespread public concern.

To meet the Prime Minister’s requests to lower the temperature, the country needs to replace the cowardice with sufficient courage to admit the truths about a genocide, the truths about the values of freedom of speech and the right to protest.

Cowardice may be disguised by violence but is demeaning.

Courage is a way to speak truths. Courageous action can be mentally and physically life enhancing, encourages justice, depicts what Bertolt Brecht called “the bread of the people” and in current Australian culture could infect almost everyone and lower the temperature. Try it.

Dr Stuart Rees AM is professor emeritus at the University of Sydney and recipient of the Jerusalem (Al Quds) Peace Prize. This article was first published in Pearls and Irritations: John Menadue’s Public Policy Journal and is republished with permission.

As Meta, TikTok, Instagram and X continue to dominate online social spaces, a new platform called UpScrolled has entered the scene.

It is not built around dances or memes, but instead positions itself as a space promising fewer shadowbans and greater freedom of political expression, particularly for pro-Palestinian voices.

So, what is it exactly, and why are users switching?

• READ MORE: Gaza-based journalist Bisan Owda regains TikTok account after outcry
• Other Palestine reports

UpScrolled was launched in July 2025 by Palestinian-Australian app developer Issam Hijazi.

At first glance, the platform feels familiar. It features an up and down scrolling video feed reminiscent of TikTok, alongside profile pages, comments and direct messaging features similar to Instagram.

The similarities, however, appear to end there. Unlike major platforms where opaque algorithms determine which content is amplified and which is buried, UpScrolled claims to operate differently.

The platform describes itself as a space where “every voice gets equal power”, promising to operate without “shadowbans, algorithmic games, or pay-to-play favouritism”, according to its website.

In an interview with Rest of World, Hijazi said the motivation behind the launch was the overwhelmingly pro-Israel content he saw being promoted on more established platforms following 7 October 2023.

Working for what he described as big tech companies at the time, Hijazi expressed deep frustration.

“I could not take it anymore. I lost family members in Gaza, and I did not want to be complicit. So I was like, I am done with this, I want to feel useful,” he said.

The Tech for Palestine incubator, an advocacy project that funds technology initiatives supporting the Palestinian cause, has publicly backed the platform.

Moderation without the black box
Hijazi said UpScrolled’s content moderation process differs from other social media platforms in that it does not selectively censor particular groups or viewpoints.

Content deemed illegal, such as the sale of narcotics or prostitution, is removed, but when it comes to free speech, the approach is rooted in transparency, ethics and equal treatment.

According to 7amleh, the Arab Centre for the Advancement of Social Media, major tech platforms such as Meta have consistently engaged in a “systemic and disproportionate censorship of Palestinian and pro-Palestinian content”. This includes the removal of posts, restrictions on account visibility and, in some cases, permanent bans.

Throughout the war on Gaza, numerous Palestinian organisations, activists, journalists, media outlets and content creators were targeted over their pro-Palestine views.

Bisan Owda, an award-winning Gaza-based journalist with more than 1.4 million followers on TikTok, is among the most prominent recent examples, whose account was reportedly permanently banned earlier this week — but has now been reinstated after a global outcry.

Critics argue that censorship concerns extend beyond the Palestinian issue, affecting other sensitive topics, including criticism of US government policies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

High profile commentators critical of the Trump administration have reported what they describe as a systematic effort to remove or suppress their videos and content.

Users flock to UpScrolled
Users frustrated with big tech’s control over online narratives have increasingly turned to the new platform.

UpScrolled has reached number one in the social networking category of Apple’s App Store in both the US and the UK.

As of Tuesday, the app had been downloaded around 400,000 times in the US and 700,000 times globally since its launch. An estimated 85 percent of those downloads occurred after January 21 alone, according to data from marketing intelligence firm Sensor Tower.

The Palestinian-founded app has also seen a surge in downloads following the recent acquisition of TikTok by American billionaire Larry Ellison, a co-founder of Oracle.

Ellison is a prominent supporter of Israel and maintains close ties with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He has also financially backed the Israeli military, including a $16.6 million donation made during a 2017 gala organised by the Friends of the Israeli Forces.

The timing of UpScrolled’s rise has therefore not gone unnoticed. The platform appears to have capitalised on widespread frustration and anger over biased content moderation, offering an alternative built around transparency and user control.

The app remains a work in progress, with users having reported crashes and server overloads amid its rapid growth over the past week.

Still, UpScrolled poses a challenge to dominant platforms and highlights a growing appetite for social media spaces that give users greater control over what they see and share.

Republished from the Middle East News Agency (MENA) and The New Arab.

Australia’s two federal combating antisemitism bills, the New South Wales laws providing the means to shutdown street protests and move on stationary public assemblies, along with the envoy’s plan to combat antisemitism and the Royal Commission into the same prejudice, have all been set in place following two ISIS-fuelled killers murdering 15 people at Bondi Beach six weeks ago.

While some of these measures were drafted in a hurry immediately post-Bondi in a theatrical attempt to prevent what had already occurred, much of the “combating antisemitism” smorgasbord of laws that serve to clamp down on free speech and the right to political communication in general, appear to have been waiting in the wings for the right political moment to enact.

These dramatic changes that have been foisted upon the country’s public square have been central to a broad campaign that the Zionist lobby has been progressing both locally and throughout the Western world, which is difficult to pin down as most of this advocating takes place behind closed doors, while when featured in the media, these positions are increasingly reflected as the norm.

• READ MORE: Caitlin Johnstone: Oppose Israel’s abuses while you still can
• Australia’s frightening new ‘hate speech’ laws are clearly aimed at pro-Palestine groups
• Other Australian hate speech laws reports

The Zionist lobby is also known as the Israel lobby. Political Zionism advocates for the establishment of a Jewish state on Palestinian land, which is today Israel.

A key outcome of the doctrine of Zionism is the displacement and genociding of Palestinians. And it is these truths, and the fact that the Gaza genocide is in progress, that make it necessary to progress the lobby’s agenda right now.

But while the Albanese government is implementing the envoy’s plan and a Royal Commission into antisemitism, which both include a definition of antisemitism that serves to block criticism of Israel at the behest of the lobby, the scope of the federal hate laws further reveal desperate Labor and Liberal parties attempting to shore up power in the face of a drastically shifting political climate.

McCarthyite Zionism
While the Israel lobby has long been understood to have an excessive influence upon the US political establishment, the sway of the Zionist lobby in Australia had not been common knowledge among the broader public until Gaza, as over the past 26 months of the mass slaughter and starvation programme, the lobby’s propaganda machine has been actioned in an attempt to hide this.

As the internet filled with footage of Israeli state actors perpetrating horrific acts in the Gaza Strip in late 2023, the Australian public sphere became a place to attack constituents for speaking out about this worst atrocity since the genociding of Jewish people during the Second World War, and the key way to silence these critics was to charge them with antisemitism — the hate that stoked the Holocaust.

The central target of the local Zionist lobby has been the Palestine solidarity movement, which has been a loud secular voice sprung from a diverse constituency.

Yet, federal and state Labor leaders have been labelling these people, who have been calling for an end to the practice of exterminating humans to obtain land, as outright antisemites and further implied they’re somewhat terroristic.

Assisting in the progression of the Zionist lobby’s hasbara mission, a documentary about rising antisemitism was aired last year, then a series of staged antisemitic crimes swept Sydney streets, rallies against Israel’s barbarity in Gaza have been framed as antisemitic, Jewish voices decrying Israel have been labelled self-hating, while attempts to remove Palestinian voices are underway.

According to US professors Noam Chomsky and Judith Butler, the Israeli state and the Zionist lobby commenced framing criticism of Israel as antisemitic in the late 1960s.

This idea is predicated upon Israel being a Jewish state. It denies the fact that many Jewish people globally don’t adhere to the doctrine of Zionism. And it rests on a flimsy link that only holds because of the force of the lobbyists.

Getting our hasbara on
The Zionist lobby got a foot in the door when PM Anthony Albanase appointed arch-Zionist Jillian Segal to the newly created position of Australian Special Envoy on Antisemitism in July 2024.

This had appeared to be spurred by the moral panic around antisemitism, however it has since come to light that the envoy programme exists across the Western world, with the first US envoy appointed in 2004.

Segal released her Plan to Combat Antisemitism in July 2025. Albanese implemented it straight after Bondi.

At its heart, the plan inserts the IHRA definition of antisemitism that blocks criticism of Israel into every level of Australian government and all its institutions. Further aspects involve the monitoring of tertiary institutions and the media for antisemitism or rather, anti-Israel sentiment.

The IHRA working definition of antisemitism comprises of two lines and 11 examples of hatred towards Jewish people, seven of which involve criticising Israel.

The body that produced it has never officially adopted it. However, as one of its drafters has been warning over the past decade, the Zionist lobby has been weaponising the definition to silence anti-Israel criticism globally.

The determination to hold a Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion is the result of an all-pervasive campaign to see it established post-Bondi massacre, with the suggested reason being to understand how such a terrorist action was able to come to fruition.

Further moral panic
However, the criminal case against one shooter rules this out, so the inquiry will likely serve to stoke further moral panic.

The NSW government commenced seriously stamping out protest in April 2022.

So, the blanket ban on protests, or the public assembly restriction declaration regime rolled out post-Bondi, can be understood as not only placating the Zionist lobby, via the silencing of Palestine solidarity rallies on Gadigal land in the Sydney CBD, but it’s also as a continuation of the closing of the public sphere.

The 50 pages of hate crime laws the Albanese government whipped out of its back pocket last week, appeared so broad that the suggestion is the measures were in the works long before the antisemitic attack in Bondi on 14 December 2025.

ASIO boss Mike Burgess hinted at a need for these last year, so as to stamp out groups, like the neo-Nazi National Socialist Network and Islamic group Hitz ut Tahrir, as they had both been understood to be hovering just beneath the threshold of criminal activity.

So, broad is the reach is the new listing prohibited hate group regime that the major concern right now is that they might be applied to stamp out pro-Palestinian sentiment and protest in the public square to again placate the Zionist lobby.

But further, these laws sitting on the books could likely be used by a future “true blue” führer, so that their opposition can be eradicated on taking office.

The fallacy of necessitated free speech denial
NSW premier Chris Minns’ favoured mantra over the period of the Gaza genocide — or the rise in antisemitism in Australia if one is being “politically correct” — has been along the lines of “the reason NSW does not have free speech protections like they do in the United States, is that this state has a multicultural society and therefore, divergent voices must be tempered”. Yet, this is a lie.

During the 1890s drafting of the Australian Constitution, those involved determined not to enshrine rights in the founding document, as it might result in discriminatory laws already on the books that specifically applied to First Nations people and Chinese people becoming invalid, former High Court Justice Micheal Kirby has noted on occasion.

This was just prior to the 1901 federation of Australia, which was when various pieces of legislation were passed in order to progress the White Australia policy. So, rights were initially denied in this country to maintain a form of white supremacy.

The premier is not only progressing this line when the moral panic around antisemitism is in full flight, but he is also suggesting that the right to free speech should not be protected in NSW, over and over again, after NSW MP Jenny Leong introduced the Human Rights Bill 2025 last October, which seeks to protect free speech, or “freedom of opinion and expression”, among other rights.

The failure to protect free speech in this country was initially about maintaining power when attempting to establish an ethnostate. But the ongoing denial of rights protections since Australia embraced multiculturalism commencing in the 1970s, has really been about politicians maintaining power, and not an attempt to save various ethnic groups living here from annihilating each other.

The idea progressed by Minns is that the broad free speech protections in the United States, which are contained in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, would be a problem in our community because it is multicultural.

However, while the US has traditionally been understood to have been a melting pot of different ethnicities, what is operating as societies in both countries today are based upon multiethnicities, and they’re pretty much the same.

The progression of the “combating antisemitism” laws and policies right now is all about placating the Zionist lobby, while Israel takes as many pounds of flesh as it desires upon occupied Palestinian territory, in order to prevent the ongoing mass civil society outcry over this ethnic cleansing, the mass starvation and mass murder, along with the genocidal tactics that are ongoing in the Gaza Strip.

Yet, the federal listing of prohibited hate group regime also provides the ability to the major parties to criminalise their political opponents as hate groups — think, the Greens — at a point in time when the long-term capture of holding government office by the majors is now under threat.

Paul Gregoire is a Sydney-based journalist and writer. He is the winner of the 2021 NSW Council for Civil Liberties Award For Excellence In Civil Liberties Journalism. Prior to Sydney Criminal Lawyers®, Paul wrote for VICE and was the news editor at Sydney’s City Hub.

The calls by the Israel Institute of New Zealand for Peter Davis to resign from the Helen Clark Foundation because of comments he made with regard to an ugly, hateful piece of graffiti are absurd.

The graffiti in question said “I hated Jews before it was cool!” On social media, Davis made this comment :

“Netanyahu govt actions have isolated Israel from global south and the west, and have stoked anti-Semitism. Yitzak Rabin was the last leader to effectively foster a political-diplomatic solution to the Israel-Palestine impasse. He was assassinated by a settler. You reap what you sow.”

• READ MORE: World could be witnessing ‘another Nakba’ in Palestine, UN committee warns
• Other Israeli war on Gaza reports

IMO, this sounds like an expression of sorrow and regret about the conflict, and about the evils it is feeding and fostering. Regardless, the institute has described that comment by Davis as antisemitic.

“‘You cannot claim to champion social cohesion while minimising or rationalising antisemitic hate,’ the institute said. ‘Social trust depends on moral consistency, especially from those in leadership. Peter Davis’s actions erode that trust.'”

For the record, Davis wasn’t rationalising or minimising antisemitic hate. His comments look far more like a legitimate observation that the longer the need for a political-diplomatic solution is violently resisted, the worse things will be for everyone — including Jewish citizens, via the stoking of antisemitism.

The basic point at issue here is that criticisms of the actions of the Israeli government do not equate to a racist hostility to the Jewish people. (Similarly, the criticisms of Donald Trump’s actions cannot be minimised or rationalised as due to anti-Americanism.)

Appalled by Netanyahu actions
Many Jewish people in fact, also feel appalled by the actions of the Netanyahu government, which repeatedly violate international law.

In the light of the extreme acts of violence being inflicted daily by the IDF on the people of Gaza, the upsurge in hateful graffiti by neo-Nazi opportunists while still being vile, is hardly surprising.

Around the world, the security of innocent Israeli citizens is being recklessly endangered by the ultra-violent actions of their own government.

If you want to protect your citizens from an existing fire, it’s best not to toss gasoline on the flames.

To repeat: the vast majority of the current criticisms of the Israeli state have nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism. At a time when Israel is killing scores of innocent Palestinians on a nightly basis with systematic air strikes and the shelling of civilian neighbourhoods, when it is weaponising access to humanitarian aid as an apparent tool of ethnic cleansing, when it is executing medical staff and assassinating journalists, when it is killing thousands of children and starving the survivors . . . antisemitism is not the reason why most people oppose these evils. Common humanity demands it.

Ironically, the press release by the NZ Israel Institute concludes with these words: “There must be zero tolerance for hate in any form.” Too bad the institute seems to have such a limited capacity for self-reflection.

Footnote One: For the best part of 80 years, the world has felt sympathy to Jews in recognition of the Holocaust. The genocide now being committed in Gaza by the Netanyahu government cannot help but reduce public support for Israel.

It also cannot help but erode the status of the Holocaust as a unique expression of human evil.

One would have hoped the NZ Israel Institute might acknowledge the self-defeating nature of the Netanyahu government policies — if only because, on a daily basis, the state of Israel is abetting its enemies, and alienating its friends.

Footnote Two: As yet, the so-called Free Speech Union has not come out to support the free speech rights of Peter Davis, and to rebuke the NZ Israel Institute for trying to muzzle them.

Colour me not surprised.

• Israel is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a lawsuit brought by South Africa and 35 other countries and organisations while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant are wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on arrest warrants for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

This is a section of Gordon Campbell’s Scoop column published yesterday under the subheading “Pot Calls Out Kettle”; the main portion of the column about the new Pope is here. Republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Gordon Campbell: On The New Pope, And The Israeli Attack On Peter Davis https://t.co/UWiLiI6J7d pic.twitter.com/xkWXusJEio

— Scoop Independent News (@ScoopNZ) May 9, 2025

By Phil Goff

Like many others, I was appalled and astounded by the dishonest comments made about the situation in Ukraine by the Trump Administration.

As one untruthful statement followed another like something out of a George Orwell novel, I increasingly felt that the lies needed to be called out.

I found it bizarre to hear President Trump publicly label Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator. Everyone knew that Zelenskyy had been democratically elected and while Trump claimed his support in the polls had fallen to 4 percent it was pointed out that his actual support was around 57 percent.

• READ MORE: Explainer: What was actually wrong with what Phil Goff said?
• ‘We need to stand up for what is right’ — Phil Goff doesn’t regret Trump comments

Trump made no similar remarks or criticism of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and never does. Yet Putin’s regime imprisons and murders his opponents and suppresses democratic rights in Russia.

Then Trump made the patently false accusation that Ukraine started the war with Russia. How could he make such a claim when the world had witnessed Russia as the aggressor which invaded its smaller neighbour, killing thousands of civilians, committing war crimes and destroying cities and infrastructure?

That President Trump could lie so blatantly is perhaps explained by his taking offence at Zelenskyy’s refusal to comply with unreasonable and self-serving demands such as ceding control of Ukraine’s mineral wealth to the US. What was also clear was that Trump was intent on pressuring Ukraine to capitulate to Russian demands for a one sided “peace settlement” which would result in neither a fair nor sustainable peace.

It is astonishing that the US voted with Russia and North Korea in the United Nations against Ukraine and in opposition to the views of democratic countries the US is normally aligned with, including New Zealand.

Withdrew satellite imaging
It then withdrew satellite imaging services Ukraine needed for its self defence in an attempt to further pressure Zelenskyy to agree to a ceasefire. No equivalent pressure has yet been placed on Russia even while it has continued its illegal attacks on Ukraine.

Trump and Vance’s disgraceful bullying of Zelenskyy in the White House as he struggled in his third language to explain the plight of his nation was as remarkable as it was appalling.
What Trump was doing and saying was wrong and a betrayal of Ukraine’s struggle to defend its freedom and nationhood.

Democratic leaders around the world knew his comments to be unfair and untrue, yet few countries have dared to criticise Trump for making them.

Like the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, everyone knew that the emperor had no clothes but were fearful of the consequences of speaking out to tell the truth.

As New Zealand’s High Commissioner to the UK, I had on a number of occasions met and talked with Ukrainian soldiers being trained by New Zealanders in Britain. It was an emotionally intense experience knowing that many of the men I met with would soon face death on the front line defending their country’s freedom and nationhood.

They were extremely grateful of New Zealand’s unwavering support. Yet the Trump Administration seemed to care little for that country’s cause and sacrifice in defending the values that a few months earlier had seemed so important to the United States.

The diplomatic community in London privately shared their dismay at Trump’s treatment of Ukraine. The spouse of one of my High Commissioner colleagues who had been a teacher drew a parallel with what she had witnessed in the playground. The bully would abuse a victim while all the other kids looked on and were too intimidated to intervene. The majority thus became the enablers of the bully’s actions.

Silence condoning Trump
By saying nothing, New Zealand — and many other countries — was effectively condoning and being complicit in what Trump was doing.

It was in this context, at the Chatham House meeting, that I asked a serious and important question about whether President Trump understood the lessons of history. It was a question on the minds of many. I framed it using language that was reasonable.

The lesson of history, going back to the Munich Conference in 1938, when British Prime Minister Chamberlain and his French counterpart Daladier ceded the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, was clear.

Far from satisfying or placating an aggressor, appeasement only increases their demands. That’s always the case with bullies. They respect strength, not weakness.

Czechoslovakia could have been part of the Allied defence against Hitler’s expansionism but instead it and the Czech armaments industry was passed over to Hitler. He went on to take over the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland.

As Churchill told Chamberlain, “You had the choice between dishonour and war. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”

The question needed to be asked because Trump was using talking points which followed closely those used by the Kremlin itself and was clearly setting out to appease and favour Russia.

A career diplomat, trained as a public servant to be cautious, might have not have asked it. I was appointed, with bipartisan support, not as a career diplomat but on the basis of political experience including nine years as Foreign, Trade and Defence Minister.

Question central to validity, ethics
“The question is central to the validity as well as the ethics of the United States’ approach to Ukraine. It is also a question that trusted allies, who have made sacrifices for and with each other over the past century, have a right and duty to ask.

The New Zealand Foreign Minister’s response was that the question did not reflect the view of New Zealand’s Government and that asking it made my position as High Commissioner untenable.

The minister had the prerogative to take the action he did and I am not complaining about that for one moment. For my part, I do not regret asking the question which thanks to the minister’s response subsequently received international attention.

Over the decades New Zealand has earned the respect of the world, from allies and opponents alike, for honestly standing up for the values our country holds dear. The things we are proudest of as a nation in the positions we have taken internationally include our role as one of the founding states of the United Nations in promoting a rules-based international system including our opposition to powerful states exercising a veto.

They include opposing apartheid in South Africa and French nuclear testing in the Pacific. We did not abandon our nuclear free policy to US pressure.

In wars and in peacekeeping we have been there when it counted and have made sacrifices disproportionate to our size.

We have never been afraid to challenge aggressors or to ask questions of our allies. In asking a question about President Trump’s position on Ukraine I am content that my actions will be on the right side of history.

Phil Goff, CNZM, is a New Zealand retired politician and former diplomat. He served as leader of the Labour Party and leader of the Opposition between 11 November 2008 and 13 December 2011. Goff was elected mayor of Auckland in 2016, and served two terms, before retiring in 2022. In 2023, he took up a diplomatic post as High Commissioner of New Zealand to the United Kingdom, which he held until last month when he was sacked by Foreign Minister Winston Peters over his “untenable” comments.

The new Universities Australia (UA) definition of antisemitism, endorsed last month for adoption by 39 Australian universities, is an ugly attempt to quash the pro-Palestine solidarity movement on campuses and to silence academics, university workers and students who critique Israel and Zionism.

While the Scott Morrison Coalition government first proposed tightening the definition, and a recent joint Labor-Coalition parliamentary committee recommended the same, it is yet another example of the Labor government’s overreach.

It seeks to mould discussion in universities to one that suits its pro-US and pro-Zionist imperialist agenda, while shielding Israel from accountability.

• READ MORE: Jewish Council slams Australian universities’ ‘dangerous, politicised’ antisemitism definition
• With words they try to jail us — US universities are not citadels of freedom
• Australian universities agree to antisemitism definition that bans calling for Israel’s elimination
• Other university freedom of speech reports

So far, the UA definition has been widely condemned.

Nasser Mashni, of Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, has slammed it as “McCarthyism reborn”.

The Jewish Council of Australia (JCA) has criticised it as “dangerous, politicised and unworkable”. The NSW Council of Civil Liberties said it poses “serious risks to freedom of expression and academic freedom”.

The UA definition comes in the context of a war against Palestinian activism on campuses.

The false claim that antisemitism is “rampant” across universities has been weaponised to subdue the Palestinian solidarity movement within higher education and, particularly, to snuff out any repeat of the student-led Gaza solidarity encampments, which sprung up on campuses across the country last year.

Some students and staff who have been protesting against the genocide since October 2023 have come under attack by university managements.

Some students have been threatened with suspension and many universities are giving themselves, through new policies, more powers to liaise with police and surveil students and staff.

Palestinian, Arab and Muslim academics, as well as other anti-racist scholars, have been silenced and disciplined, or face legal action on false counts of antisemitism, merely for criticising Israel’s genocidal war on Palestine.

Randa Abdel-Fattah, for example, has become the target of a Zionist smear campaign that has successfully managed to strip her of Australian Research Council funding.

Intensify repression
The UA definition will further intensify the ongoing repression of people’s rights on campuses to discuss racism, apartheid and occupation in historic Palestine.

By its own admission, UA acknowledges that its definition is informed by the antisemitism taskforces at Columbia University, Stanford University, Harvard University and New York University, which have meted out draconian and violent repression of pro-Palestine activism.

The catalyst for the new definition was the February 12 report tabled by Labor MP Josh Burns on antisemitism on Australian campuses. That urged universities to adopt a definition of antisemitism that “closely aligns” with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition.

It should be noted that the controversial IHRA definition has been opposed by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) for its serious challenge to academic freedom.

As many leading academics and university workers, including Jewish academics, have repeatedly stressed, criticism of Israel and criticism of Zionism is not antisemitic.

UA’s definition is arguably more detrimental to freedom of speech and pro-Palestine activism and scholarship than the IHRA definition.

In the vague IHRA definition, a number of examples of antisemitism are given that conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, but not the main text itself.

By contrast, the new UA definition overtly equates criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism and claims Zionist ideology is a component part of Jewish identity.

The definition states that “criticism of Israel can be anti-Semitic . . . when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel”.

Dangerously, anyone advocating for a single bi-national democratic state in historic Palestine will be labelled antisemitic under this new definition.

Anyone who justifiably questions the right of the ethnonationalist, apartheid and genocidal state of Israel to exist will be accused of antisemitism.

Sweeping claims
The UA definition also makes the sweeping claim that “for most, but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity”.

But, as the JCA points out, Zionism is a national political ideology and is not a core part of Jewish identity historically or today, since many Jews do not support Zionism. The JCA warns that the UA definition “risks fomenting harmful stereotypes that all Jewish people think in a certain way”.

Moreover, JCA said, Jewish identities are already “a rightly protected category under all racial discrimination laws, whereas political ideologies such as Zionism and support for Israel are not”.

Like other aspects of politics, political ideologies, such as Zionism, and political stances, such as support for Israel, should be able to be discussed critically.

According to the UA definition, criticism of Israel can be antisemitic “when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions”.

While it would be wrong for any individual or community, because they are Jewish, to be held responsible for Israel’s actions, it is a fact that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former  minister Yoav Gallant for Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity.

But under the UA definition, since Netanyahu and Gallant are Jewish, would holding them responsible be considered antisemitic?

Is the ICC antisemitic? According to Israel it is.

The implication of the definition for universities, which teach law and jurisprudence, is that international law should not be applied to the Israeli state, because it is antisemitic to do so.

The UA’s definition is vague enough to have a chilling effect on any academic who wants to teach about genocide, apartheid and settler-colonialism. It states that “criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions”.

What these are is not defined.

Anti-racism challenge
Within the academy, there is a strong tradition of anti-racism and decolonial scholarship, particularly the concept of settler colonialism, which, by definition, calls into question the very notion of “statehood”.

With this new definition of antisemitism, will academics be prevented from teaching students the works of Chelsea Watego, Patrick Wolfe or Edward Said?

The definition will have serious and damaging repercussions for decolonial scholars and severely impinges the rights of scholars, in particular First Nations scholars and students, to critique empire and colonisation.

UA is the “peak body” for higher education in Australia, and represents and lobbies for capitalist class interests in higher education.

It is therefore not surprising that it has developed this particular definition, given its strong bilateral relations with Israeli higher education, including signing a 2013 memorandum of understanding with Association of University Heads, Israel.

It should be noted that the NTEU National Council last October called on UA to withdraw from this as part of its Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions resolution.

All university students and staff committed to anti-racism, academic freedom and freedom of speech should join the campaign against the UA definition.

Local NTEU branches and student groups are discussing and passing motions rejecting the new definition and NTEU for Palestine has called a National Day of Action for March 26 with that as one of its key demands.

We will not be silenced on Palestine.

Jonathan Strauss and Markela Panegyres are members of the National Tertiary Education Union and the Socialist Alliance. Republished from Green Left with permission.

An independent Jewish body has condemned the move by Australia’s 39 universities to endorse a “dangerous and politicised” definition of antisemitism which threatens academic freedom.

The Jewish Council of Australia, a diverse coalition of Jewish academics, lawyers, writers and teachers, said in a statement that the move would have a “chilling effect” on legitimate criticism of Israel, and risked institutionalising anti-Palestinian racism.

The council also criticised the fact that the universities had done so “without meaningful consultation” with Palestinian groups or diverse Jewish groups which were critical of Israel.

• READ MORE: With words they try to jail us — US universities are not citadels of freedom
• Australian universities agree to antisemitism definition that bans calling for Israel’s elimination
• Other university freedom of speech reports

The definition was developed by the Group of Eight (Go8) universities and adopted by Universities Australia.

“By categorising Palestinian political expression as inherently antisemitic, it will be unworkable and unenforceable, and stifle critical political debate, which is at the heart of any democratic society,” the Jewish Council of Australia said.

“The definition dangerously conflates Jewish identities with support for the state of Israel and the political ideology of Zionism.”

The council statement said that it highlighted two key concerns:

Mischaracterisation of criticism of Israel
The definition states: “Criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel or all Jews or when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions.”

The definition’s inclusion of “calls for the elimination of the State of Israel” would mean, for instance, that calls for a single binational democratic state, where Palestinians and Israelis had equal rights, could be labelled antisemitic.

Moreover, the wording around “harmful tropes” was dangerously vague, failing to distinguish between tropes about Jewish people, which were antisemitic, and criticism of the state of Israel, which was not, the statement said.

Misrepresentation of Zionism as core to Jewish identity
The definition states that for most Jewish people “Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity”.

The council said it was deeply concerned that by adopting this definition, universities would be taking and promoting a view that a national political ideology was a core part of Judaism.

“This is not only inaccurate, but is also dangerous,” said the statement.

“Zionism is a political ideology of Jewish nationalism, not an intrinsic part of Jewish identity.

“There is a long history of Jewish opposition to Zionism, from the beginning of its emergence in the late-19th century, to the present day. Many, if not the majority, of people who hold Zionist views today are not Jewish.”

In contrast to Zionism and the state of Israel, said the council, Jewish identities traced back more than 3000 years and spanned different cultures and traditions.

Jewish identities were a rightly protected category under all racial discrimination laws, whereas political ideologies such as Zionism and support for Israel were not, the council said.

Growing numbers of dissenting Jews
“While many Jewish people identify as Zionist, many do not. There are a growing number of Jewish people worldwide, including in Australia, who disagree with the actions of the state of Israel and do not support Zionism.

“Australian polling in this area is not definitive, but some polls suggest that 30 percent of Australian Jews do not identify as Zionists.

“A recent Canadian poll found half of Canadian Jews do not identify as Zionist. In the United States, more and more Jewish people are turning away from Zionist beliefs and support for the state of Israel.”

Sarah Schwartz, a human rights lawyer and the Jewish Council of Australia’s executive officer, said: “It degrades the very real fight against antisemitism for it to be weaponised to silence legitimate criticism of the Israeli state and Palestinian political expressions.

“It also risks fomenting division between communities and institutionalising anti-Palestinian racism.”

• The full Jewish Council of Australia statement

Papua New Guinea’s civic space has been rated as “obstructed” by the Civicus Monitor and the country has been criticised for pushing forward with a controversial media law in spite of strong opposition.

Among concerns previously documented by the civil rights watchdog are harassment and threats against human rights defenders, particularly those working on land and environmental rights, use of the cybercrime law to criminalise online expression, intimidation and restrictions against journalists, and excessive force during protests.

In recent months, the authorities have used the cybercrime law to target a human rights defender for raising questions online on forest enforcement, while a journalist and gender-based violence survivor is also facing charges under the law, said the Civicus Monitor in its latest report.

• READ MORE: Other PNG media freedom reports

The court halted a logging company’s lawsuit against a civil society group while the government is pushing forward with the controversial National Media Development law.

Human rights defender charged under cybercrime law
On 9 December 2024, human rights defender and ACT NOW! campaign manager Eddie Tanago was arrested and charged by police under section 21(2) of the Cybercrime Act 2016 for allegedly publishing defamatory remarks on social media about the managing director of the PNG Forest Authority.

Tanago was taken to the Boroko Police Station Holding cell and released on bail the same afternoon. If convicted he could face a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment.

ACT NOW is a prominent human rights organisation seeking to halt illegal logging and related human rights violations in Papua New Guinea (PNG).

According to reports, ACT NOW had reshared a Facebook post from a radio station advertising an interview with PNG Forest Authority (PNGFA) staff members, which included a photo of the managing director.

The repost included a comment raising questions about PNGFA forest enforcement.

Following Tanago’s arrest, ACT NOW said: “it believes that the arrest and charging of Tanago is a massive overreach and is a blatant and unwarranted attempt to intimidate and silence public debate on a critical issue of national and international importance.”

It added that “there was nothing defamatory in the social media post it shared and there is nothing remotely criminal in republishing a poster which includes the image of a public figure which can be found all over the internet.”

On 24 January 2025, when Tanago appeared at the Waigani Committal Court, he was instead charged under section 15, subparagraph (b) of the Cybercrime Act for “identity theft”. The next hearing has been scheduled for February 25.

The 2016 Cybercrime Act has been used to silence criticism and creates a chilling effect, said Civicus Monitor.

The law has been criticised by the opposition, journalists and activists for its impact on freedom of expression and political discourse.

JOURNO ARRAIGNED ON CYBER HARASSMENT
Journalist Hennah Joku appeared before Magistrate Paul Nii at the Waigani Committal Court on charges of cyber defamation following a Facebook post made on 4th September 2024.
Read more:https://t.co/LEIDEcTZv6#EMTVNews #EMTVOnline pic.twitter.com/zHqm353Cst

— EMTV (@EMTVOnline) December 5, 2024

Journalist and gender activist charged with defamation
Journalist and gender activist Hennah Joku was detained and charged under the Cybercrime Act on 23 November 2024, following defamation complaints filed by her former partner Robert Agen.

Joku was charged with two counts of breaching the Cybercrimes Act 2016 and detained in Boroko Prison. She was freed on the same day after bail was posted.

Joku, a survivor of a 2018 assault by Agen, had documented and shared her six-year journey through the PNG justice system, which had resulted in his conviction and jailing in 2023.

On 2 September 2024, the PNG Supreme Court overturned two of three criminal convictions, and Agen was released from prison.

On 4 and 15 September 2024, Joku shared her reactions with more than 9000 followers on her Meta social media account. Those two posts, one of which featured the injuries suffered from her 2018 assault, now form the basis for the current defamation charges against her.

Section 21(2) of the Cybercrimes Act 2016, which has an electronic defamation clause, carries a maximum penalty of up to 25 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to one million kina (NZ$442,000).

The Pacific Freedom Forum (PFF) expressed “grave concerns” over the charges, saying: “We encourage the government and judiciary to review the use of defamation legislation to silence and gag the universal right to freedom of speech.

“Citizens must be informed. They must be protected.”

Court stays logging company lawsuit against civil society group
In January 2025, an injunction issued against community advocacy group ACT NOW! to prevent publication of reports on illegal logging has been stayed by the National Court.

In July 2024, two Malaysian owned logging companies obtained an order from the District Court in Vanimo preventing ACT NOW! from issuing publications about their activities and from contacting their clients and service providers.

That order has now been effectively lifted after the National Court agreed to stay the whole District court proceedings while it considers an application from ACT NOW! to have the case permanently stayed and transferred to the National Court.

ACT NOW! said the action by Global Elite Limited and Wewak Agriculture Development Limited, which are part of the Giant Kingdom group, is an example of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

“SLAPPs are illegitimate and abusive lawsuits designed to intimidate, harass and silence legitimate criticism and close down public scrutiny of the logging industry,” said Civicus Monitor.

SLAPP lawsuits have been outlawed in many countries and lawyers involved in supporting them can be sanctioned, but those protections do not yet exist in PNG.

The District Court action is not the first time the Malaysian-owned Giant Kingdom group has tried to use the legal system in an attempt to silence ACT NOW!

In March 2024, the court rejected a similar SLAPP style application by the Global Elite for an injunction against ACT NOW! As a result, the company discontinued its legal action and the court ordered it to pay ACT NOW!’s legal costs.

Government pushes forward with controversial media legislation
The government is reportedly ready to pass legislation to regulate its media, which journalism advocates have said could have serious implications for democracy and freedom of speech in the country.

National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC) of PNG reported in January 2025 that the policy has received the “green light” from cabinet to be presented in Parliament.

The state broadcaster reported that Communications Minister Timothy Masiu said: “This policy will address the ongoing concerns about sensationalism, ethical standards, and the portrayal of violence in the media.”

In July 2024, it was reported that the proposed media policy was now in its fifth draft but it is unclear if this version has been updated.

As previously documented, journalists have raised concerns that the media development policy could lead to more government control over the country’s relatively free media.

The bill includes sections that give the government the “power to investigate complaints against media outlets, issue guidelines for ethical reporting, and enforce sanctions or penalties for violations of professional standards”.

There are also concerns that the law will punish journalists who create content that is against the country’s development objectives.

Organisations such as Transparency International PNG, Media Council of PNG, Pacific Freedom Forum, and Pacific Media Watch/Asia Pacific Media Network among others, have asked for the policy to be dropped.

The press freedom ranking for PNG dropped from 59th place to 91st in the most recent index published by Reporters without Borders (RSF) in May 2024.

Civicus Monitor.

The Samoan government’s attempt to control the media for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is a slap across the face of press freedom, democracy and freedom of speech.

It is a farce and an attempt by a dysfunctional government unit to gag local and overseas media.

No international forum of such importance does this. The United Nations, the Pacific Islands Forum or other CHOGMs never had to deal with such dictatorial policies for journalism. What is the sub-committee thinking?

• READ MORE:  Samoan journalists blast ‘ridiculous’ media restrictions at Commonwealth summit
• Media restriction is in CHOGM Bluebook: Samoa govt
• Update on Samoa CHOGM 2024 Media and Communications planning

We are not living under a dictatorship, neither are the media organisations coming to cover the event. The message to media organisations like the BBC, ABC, AFP and others is you will only publish and broadcast what we tell you to.

To the people who came up with these policies, what were you thinking? This goes to show the inexperience of the press secretariat and the media sub-committee. It would have been good if you had involved experienced journalists who have covered international events.

There is never a restriction on media to cover side events, there is never a restriction for photographers and cameramen to take pictures, and there are never restrictions for media to approach delegates for interviews or what content they can get their hands on.

In any international forum, the state or the organisation’s media uploads their content, interviews, pictures and videos and makes it accessible for all to use. It is at the discretion of the media to choose to use it. In most cases, the media come with their issues and angles. To say that this will be dictated, makes it sound like this is not Samoa but China.

Next thing, the sub-committee will announce prison terms for not following the policies set by them. The CHOGM is the biggest international event Samoa has ever hosted and this decision is going to cause an international nightmare. The media in Samoa is furious because this is choking media freedom.

The hiring of a New Zealand company will not solve the matter. They can help the government as they have done sporting bodies for the Pacific Games but who are you to dictate to the media what to publish and what to report?

Each of the heads of delegations will be followed by the media from their country including their state media. All these people will not be allowed at the closing and opening ceremony. ABC, Nine News and other Australian media will follow Anthony Albanese, RNZ, New Zealand Herald, and Stuff will be behind Christopher Luxon and the British media with the King.

This is surely not a move proposed by the Commonwealth Secretariat. If anyone at the press secretariat or any of the state-owned media has covered international events like the COP, CHOGM, UN meetings or even the Pacific Island Forum Leaders Meeting, you will know that this is not how things work. To even recommend that overseas and local media work together to cover the event is absurd.

Imagine the press secretariat journalist following Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mataafa is told at an international event, no stay away from the events she goes to because we will tell where you are allowed to go. That also begs the question, will state media from other countries be treated differently from media who are independent?

Each media outlet has its priorities. They will cover what is relevant to their audience.

Media are given access and the option to choose whichever side event they would want to be part of. Does this also mean that the itinerary or schedule of events will also be not made public?

The prime minister needs to intervene as quickly as possible before this situation escalates into an international incident. Stifling the media is never a good thing and trying to control them is even worse. Let us hope that this is not the legacy of this government. The one that managed to control media from 54 countries. It would be an achievement marked on the international stage.

This year, Samoa jumped into the top 20 in the latest press freedom index released by the global group Reporters Without Borders out of 180 countries and territories assessed.

It is one of only two Pacific nations in the top 20 of the index with New Zealand the other state and ahead of Samoa in 13th position. The other Pacific states below Aotearoa and Samoa include Australia (27), Tonga (44), Papua New Guinea (59), and Fiji (89).

This is not a reflection of that.

To justify this action by saying it is being done for security reasons either shows that you expect journalists to kill delegates with their questions or the lack of security arrangements surrounding the event. Is this an attempt to hide the inadequacies of the preparation from the eyes of the world?

The sub-committee even said this was done to safeguard information that cannot be released. If you have covered an event like this before, you would know how it works. The least you could have done was consult with the Commonwealth media team or Rwanda, the previous hosts. The media know which meetings are public.

The CHOGM is not a private event. It concerns governments from 54 nations and a government is its people. Do not be responsible for breaking the communication between governments and their people. Do not be the people to go down in history as the ones who killed media freedom at CHOGM, because that is what has happened here.

If this is allowed to happen for CHOGM, a dangerous precedent will be set for future local events.

The Samoa Observer editorial on 12 September 2024. Republished with permission.

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.

• READ MORE: Democracy Now!, Diana Buttu analyse ICJ ruling over illegal and ‘rapid end’ to Israel occupation of Palestine
• Other Israel’s war on Gaza reports

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.

The University of the South Pacific staff associations are up in arms about the sacking of a union leader and academic by the university’s chief executive.

In a joint press release, the Association of the University of the South Pacific (AUSPS) and the USP Staff Union (USPSU), this week claimed that USP vice-chancellor and president Pal Ahluwalia had “launched a vicious attack on the staff unions and freedom of speech” after he terminated the employment contract AUSPS president Dr Tamara Osborne-Naikatini on July 9.

They said Ahluwalia sacked Dr Osborne-Naikatini because she spoke to the media about the “flawed process” through which he was offered a renewal to his contract to lead the institution.

• READ MORE: Other USP saga reports

“The university’s claim of ‘gross misconduct’ stems from information Dr Osborne-Naikatini allegedly shared, as AUSP President, in an Islands Business interview reported in the March 2024 edition that revealed a flawed process in the review of the performance of Ahluwalia that subsequently led to a two-year renewal of contract,” they said in the release.

Dr Osborne-Naikatini was the staff representative on the the chief academic authority — the USP Senate — to the review committee, they added.

“Dr Osborne-Naikatini stood for the staff of USP and fought for good governance which ultimately led to her termination,” they said.

The staff unions say that by sacking the biology lecturer, Ahluwalia has “launched a vicious attack on the staff unions and freedom of speech” and are demanding her reinstatement.

RNZ Pacific had put these claims to the university.

Staff contracts ‘confidential’
“Please note that all staff contracts, including terminations, are confidential. The university is not at liberty to discuss staff information with third parties,” the USP said in an email statement.

The USP, the premier institution of higher learning for the region, has had to deal with a series of crisis in relation to the good governance practices and staff-management issues since the vice-chancellor first took the job in 2018.

In 2019, Ahluwalia was deported from Fiji in a midnight raid carried out Fijian police and immigration officials, after he fell out of favour with the previous Bainimarama administration, for exposing allegations of corruption and financial mismanagement at the university under the leadership of his predecessor.

He led USP from exile, for some time from Nauru, before relocating to Samoa in 2021. In May this year, the USP Council voted for him to relocate back to Suva.

The staff unions reminded Ahluwalia of the 2019 saga in their joint statement, saying they “stood steadfast with him when he was victimised as the whistleblower. He seemed to have a short-lived memory”.

Earlier this year, the unions were at loggerheads with the management over salary disputes.

They had threatened to take strike action if the executive team failed to meet their demands, which they claimed has been neglected by Ahluwalia.

However, both sides reached an agreement last month, and the unions withdrew their strike action.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Many platitudes about media freedom and democracy laced last week’s Pacific International Media Conference in the Fijian capital of Suva. There was a mood of euphoria at the impressive event, especially from politicians who talked about journalism being the “oxygen of democracy”.

The dumping of the draconian and widely hated Fiji Media Industry Development Act that had started life as a military decree in 2010, four years after former military commander Voreqe Bainimarama seized power, and was then enacted in the first post-coup elections in 2014, was seen as having restored media freedom for the first time in almost two decades.

As a result, Fiji had bounced back 45 places to 44th on this year’s Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index – by far the biggest climb of any nation in Oceania, where most countries, including Australia and New Zealand, have been sliding downhill.

• READ MORE:  Fiji protesters call for freedom and justice in the Pacific – and Palestine
• Other Pacific Media Conference reports

One of Fiji’s three deputy Prime Ministers, Professor Biman Prasad, a former University of the South Pacific economist and long a champion of academic and media freedom, told the conference the new Coalition government headed by the original 1987 coup leader Sitiveni Rabuka had reintroduced media self-regulation and “we can actually feel the freedom everywhere, including in Parliament”.

The same theme had been offered at the conference opening ceremony by another deputy PM, Manoa Kamikamica, who declared:

“We pride ourselves on a government that tries to listen, and hopefully we can try and chart a way forward in terms of media freedom and journalism in the Pacific, and most importantly, Fiji.

“They say that journalism is the oxygen of democracy, and that could be no truer than in the case of Fiji.”

Happy over media law repeal
Papua New Guinea’s Minister for Information and Communication Technology Timothy Masiu echoed the theme. Speaking at the conference launch of a new book, Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific (co-edited by Professor Prasad, conference chair Associate Professor Shailendra Singh and Dr Amit Sarwal), he said: “We support and are happy with this government of Fiji for repealing the media laws that went against media freedom in Fiji in the recent past.”

But therein lies an irony. While Masiu supports the repeal of a dictatorial media law in Fiji, he is a at the centre of controversy back home over a draft media law (now in its fifth version) that he is spearheading that many believe will severely curtail the traditional PNG media freedom guaranteed under the constitution.

He defends his policies, saying that in PNG, “given our very diverse society with over 1000 tribes and over 800 languages and huge geography, correct and factful information is also very, very critical.”

Masiu says that what drives him is a “pertinent question”:

“How is the media being developed and used as a tool to protect and preserve our Pacific identity?”

Another issue over the conference was the hypocrisy over debating media freedom in downtown Suva while a few streets away Fijian freedom of speech advocates and political activists were being gagged about speaking out on critical decolonisation and human rights issues such as Kanaky, Palestine and West Papua freedom.

In the front garden of the Gordon Street compound of the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre (FWCC), the independence flags of Kanaky, Palestine and West Papua flutter in the breeze. Placards and signs daub the walls of the centre declaring messages such as “Stop the genocide”, “Resistance is justified! When people are occupied!”, “Free Kanaky – Justice for Kanaky”, “Ceasefire, stop genocide”, “Palestine is a moral litmus test for the world” and “We need rainbows not Rambos”.

‘Thursdays in Black’
While most of the 100 conference participants from 11 countries were gathered at the venue to launch the peace journalism book Waves of Change and the 30th anniversary edition of Pacific Journalism Review, about 30 activists were gathered at the same time on July 4 in the centre’s carpark for their weekly “Thursdays in Black” protest.

But they were barred from stepping onto the footpath in public or risk arrest. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly Fiji-style.

Surprisingly, the protest organisers were informed on the same day that they could stage a “pre-Bastllle Day” protest about Kanaky and West Papua on July 12, but were banned from raising Israeli’s genocidal war on Palestine.

Fiji Solidarity March for Kanaky and West Papua in Suva this morning pic.twitter.com/aEI223iZ8g

— Fiji One News (@FijiOneNews) July 12, 2024

Fiji is the only Pacific country to seek an intervention in support of Tel Aviv in South Africa’s case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague accusing Israel of genocide in a war believed to have killed more than 38,000 Palestinians — including 17,000 children — so far, although an article in The Lancet medical journal argues that the real death toll is more like 138,000 people – equivalent to almost a fifth of Fiji’s population.

The protest march was staged on Friday but in spite of the Palestine ban some placards surfaced and also Palestinian symbols of resistance such as keffiyehs and watermelons.

The Fiji NGO Coalition on Human Rights in Fiji and their allies have been hosting vigils at FWCC compound for Palestine, West Papua and Kanaky every Thursday over the last eight months, calling on the Fiji government and Pacific leaders to support the ceasefire in Gaza, and protect the rights of Palestinians, West Papuans and Kanaks.

“The struggles of Palestinians are no different to West Papua, Kanaky New Caledonia — these are struggles of self-determination, and their human rights must be upheld,” said FWCC coordinator and the NGO coalition chair Shamima Ali.

Media silence noticed
Outside the conference, Pacific commentators also noticed the media hypocrisy and the extraordinary silence.

Canberra-based West Papuan diplomacy-trained activist and musician Ronny Kareni complained in a post on X, formerly Twitter: “While media personnel, journos and academia in journalism gathered [in Suva] to talk about media freedom, media network and media as the oxygen of democracy etc., why Papuan journos can’t attend, yet Indon[esian] ambassador to Fiji @SimamoraDupito can??? Just curious.”

At the conference itself, some speakers did raise the Palestine and decolonisation issue, including Indonesian rule in Melanesian West Papua.

Khairiah A. Rahman, of the Asia Pacific Media Network, one of the partner organisers along with the host University of the South Pacific and Pacific Islands News Association, spoke on the “Media, Community, Social Cohesion and Conflict Prevention” panel following Hong Kong Professor Cherian George’s compelling keynote address about “Cracks in the Mirror: When Media Representations Sharpen Social Divisions”.

She raised the Palestine crisis as a critical global issue and also a media challenge.

In his keynote address, “Frontline Media Faultlines: How Critical Journalism Can Survive Against the Odds”, Professor David Robie, also of APMN, spoke of the common decolonisation threads between Kanaky, Palestine and West Papua.

He also critiquing declining trust in mainstream media – that left some “feeling anxious and powerless” — and how they were being fragmented by independent start-ups that were perceived by many people as addressing universal truths such as the genocide in Palestine.

PJR editorial challenge
Dr Robie cited the editorial in the just-published Pacific Journalism Review which had laid down a media challenge over Gaza. He wrote:

“Gaza has become not just a metaphor for a terrible state of dystopia in parts of the world, it has also become an existential test for journalists – do we stand up for peace and justice and the right of people to survive under the threat of ethnic cleansing and against genocide, or do we do nothing and remain silent in the face of genocide being carried out with impunity in front of our very eyes?

“The answer is simple surely . . .

“And it is about saving journalism, our credibility, and our humanity as journalists.”

Professor David Robie’s keynote speech at Pacific Media 2023.  Video: The Australia Today

At the end of his address, Dr Robie called for a minute’s silence in a tribute to the 158 Palestinian journalists who had been killed so far in the ninth-month war on Gaza. The Gazan journalists were awarded this year’s UNESCO Guillermo Cano Media Freedom Prize for their “courage and commitment to freedom of expression”.

Undoubtedly the two most popular panels in the conference were the “Pacific Editors’ Forum” when eight editors from around the region “spoke their minds”, and a panel on sexual harassment on the media workplace and on the job.

Little or no action
According to speakers in “Gender and Media in the Pacific: Examining violence that women Face” panel introduced and moderated by Fiji Women’s Rights Movement (FWRM) executive director Nalini Singh, female journalists continue to experience inequalities and harassment in their workplaces and on assignment — with little or no action taken against their perpetrators.

The speakers included FWRM programme director Laisa Bulatale, experienced Pacific journalists Lice Movono and Georgina Kekea, strategic communications specialist Jacqui Berell and USP’s Dr Shailendra Singh, associate professor and the conference chair.

“As 18 and 19 year old (journalists), what we experienced 25 years ago in the industry is still the same situation — and maybe even worse now for young female journalists,” Movono said.

She shared “unfortunate and horrifying” accounts of experiences of sexual harassment by local journalists and the lack of space to discuss these issues.

These accounts included online bullying coupled with threats against journalists and their loved ones and families. stalking of female journalists, always being told to “suck it up” by bosses and other colleagues, the fear and stigma of reporting sexual harassment experiences, feeling as if no one would listen or care, the lack of capacity/urgency to provide psychological social support and many more examples.

“They do the work and they go home, but they take home with them, trauma,” Movono said.

And Kekea added: “Women journalists hardly engage in spaces to have their issues heard, they are often always called upon to take pictures and ‘cover’.”

Technology harassment
Berell talked about Technology Facilitated Gender Based Violence (TFGBV) — a grab bag term to cover the many forms of harassment of women through online violence and bullying.

The FWRM also shared statistics on the combined research with USP’s School of Journalism on the “Prevalence and Impact of Sexual Harassment on Female Journalists” and data on sexual harassment in the workplace undertaken by the team.

Speaking from the floor, New Zealand Pacific investigative television journalist Indira Stewart also rounded off the panel with some shocking examples from Aotearoa New Zealand.

In spite of the criticisms over hypocrisy and silence over global media freedom and decolonisation challenges, participants generally concluded this was the best Pacific media conference in many years.

The Papua New Guinea government plans to introduce laws to curb free speech and freedom of the press, former prime minister Peter O’Neill says.

In a statement, O’Neill said the same law would jail any journalist or person who published anything the government deemed to be “misreporting”.

O’Neill described the government’s proposal as “deeply concerning and needs to be vehemently opposed every way possible”.

• READ MORE: Other reports on PNG media freedom

He said: “Today we learn government is preparing to crack down on journalists with new media laws being urgently prepared and to be presented to Parliament very soon.

“They plan to curb free speech and freedom of the press to report by being able to jail any journalist or person who publishes anything they deem is misreporting.”

Information and Communication Technology Minister (ICT) Timothy Masiu said yesterday that the Department of Information and Communication Technology (DICT) was currently working on the media policy to include holding persons accountable for misreporting.

Masiu said the policy to be presented to Cabinet would still hold its original content but would emphasise that media quality, accessibility and responsibility in information dissemination would be based on facts.

‘We don’t want to tighten up’
“We don’t want to tighten up on media so much but we want to make sure that reporters are responsible for what they report and it’s about time this should be implemented,” Masiu said.

Prime Minister James Marape said he supported the move.

“This is our country where you all have the power in your pen but take some responsibility and write correctly and based on facts,” he said.

“You have a responsibility to our county.

“Do not write your own opinion, or if you have an opinion, then find facts to support that opinion.

“Those who are not writing based on fact, I will be holding you accountable,” he said.

O’Neill questioned whether journalists and their editors will be subject to arrest and punishment.

“I am both saddened and alarmed at the proposed way the Marape government is dismantling democracy.

“I am utterly convinced that if we uphold all the principles of a healthy democracy, we as a people will overcome any challenge whether it be economic, social or environmental,” he said.

“We are a strong people with the courage of our convictions and centuries old traditions and customs.”

Republished with permission.

Vanuatu’s newly elected Prime Minister, Sato Kilman, has spoken out on the importance of preserving freedom of speech while cautioning against its “misuse”.

Kilman shared his concerns after his election as the country’s new leader on Monday evening.

He cited instances where criticism had crossed a “red line”, raising alarm over the tone of recent political discourse.

• READ MORE: Other Vanuatu political crisis reports

In his address, the Prime Minister addressed the need to uphold respect for Vanuatu’s traditions and Christian faith, including the importance of immediately stopping behavior that tarnished individuals’ reputations.

Prime Minister Kilman acknowledged the commitment to safeguarding democracy in Vanuatu and the importance of adhering to constitutional and legal processes when considering changes to the nation’s governance structure.

He noted the recent parliamentary session, which included a motion of no confidence as mandated by the Constitution.

The Prime Minister voiced his disappointment at lawmakers themselves for violating the laws they had enacted.

Investigating allegations
He conveyed his commitment to addressing these breaches and investigating allegations of threatening gestures and bribery.

Kilman said that the motion of no confidence was fundamentally about safeguarding democracy in Vanuatu.

He assured the public that the new government would prioritise delivering essential services to the people.

The Prime Minister expressed gratitude to all the political parties that supported the government’s change and acknowledged the customary practice during a government transition.

He thanked Vanua’aku Pati president Bob Loughman and Iauko Group leader Marc Ati for their support in electing him as the Prime Minister.

Kilman also commended members from other sides of the political spectrum who proposed candidates for the prime ministership and participated in the democratic process, even though the outcome did not favour them, saying that such participation upheld democratic values.

Doddy Morris is a Vanuatu Daily Post reporter. Republished with permission.

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.

Esther Haluk, a women’s rights activist from GARDA Papua, is among West Papuan activists who have condemned a declining state of freedom of speech in the Melanesian region.

Speaking in a recent online discussion on “Status and Trends of Freedom of Expression, Assembly, and Digital Rights in West Papua”, she said there was a growing sense of fear among Papuans who wished to openly voice their opinions due to the Indonesian government’s response.

Haluk said that the deterioration of freedom of expression in Papua could be traced back to 2019 when large-scale protests erupted in response to instances of racism.

• READ MORE: Other West Papua reports

She said individuals from the Papuan community who had participated in those protests were subsequently arrested and imprisoned.

“Some Indonesian people call us monkeys but when we fight against it, we are arrested. We are victims,” Haluk told the discussion organised by SAFEnet and TAPOL this week.

According to Haluk, whenever Papuans exercised their freedom of expression to voice the truth, they were consistently met with opposition from the military and police forces.

Haluk shared that she personally experienced being arrested for participating in a peaceful protest in May 2022. However, at the police station she was questioned about her social media posts instead.

Facebook account hacked
“So at that time we were taken to the police station not because of the protest but rather due to our social media posts. My Facebook account was hacked three times after I posted some comments on the news,” Haluk explained.

Haluk said the policies implemented by the Indonesian government did not align with the wishes of the Papuan people, particularly over the splitting up of Papua province to  establish new provinces.

However, when Papuans protested against the policy, they were arrested.

“We refuse to accept the policies enforced in Papua because they do not positively impact our lives,” she said.

“We are witnessing ecological destruction that poses a threat to our existence, as well as issues of land appropriation.

“It is our fundamental right to express ourselves and engage in peaceful protests, yet the government responds by deploying a significant number of military and police personnel to suppress Papuan voices,” Haluk said.

She said Indonesia as a democratic nation should uphold and honour the freedom of expression of Papuans.

Peaceful protests
In Haluk’s view, the way the Indonesian government treated Papuans indicated that Papuans were not viewed as a part of Indonesia.

“We intended to conduct a peaceful protest, so why did the government resort to sending in the police and military to forcibly disperse us?

“We were simply exercising our rights, so why the use of such excessive force by the military and police?

“Based on our experiences as Papuans, it feels as though our rights hold no significance and are not acknowledged within Indonesia,” Haluk said.

Ian Moore of the human rights campaign TAPOL revealed in the forum that there were 21 instances of arbitrary dispersals that took place in 2022, according to the Tapol West Papua 2022 report “Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly”.

Moore highlighted that most of the incidents occurred in Papua province, particularly in the capital Jayapura. However, similar incidents were also reported in other parts of West Papua, especially in Sorong, and Central Papua.

Moore said that various police units were involved in the dispersal of peaceful demonstrations in Papua, ranging from standard units to special task forces such as the Nemangkawi Task Force, the Mobile Brigade Corps, and police intelligence agencies

Papuans ‘oppressed’
Made Supriatma, a researcher at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, said the state continued to oppress Papuans by deploying military forces to deal with their protests.

This response, Supriatma added, was “excessively brutal” and amounted to repression against Papuans.

Supriatma said that various protests by Papuans indicated a growing sense of nationalism, particularly among the youth in Papua.

The Indonesian government should engage in dialogue with Papuans to address their concerns and listen to their demands.

“Papua has a strong movement, and young Papuans are eager to voice their opinions and participate in protests, even in the face of military repression,” Supriatma said.

Republished with permission.

More than 100 media leaders from around the world have joined Reporters Without Borders (RSF) in signing an unprecedented joint statement expressing support for detained Apple Daily founder and publisher Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong.

They have called for his immediate release.

Among the signatories are publishers, editors-in-chief, and senior editors from 41 countries, including New Zealand — and two Nobel Peace Prize laureates.

• READ MORE: Other Jimmy Lai reports

This powerful joint statement is signed by 116 media leaders spanning 41 countries, from Egypt to Turkey, from India to Gambia, from Myanmar to Mongolia, and everywhere in between.

RSF coordinated this call in support of Jimmy Lai, who has become an emblematic figure in the fight for press freedom in Hong Kong and globally.

The action also seeks to highlight the broader dire state of press freedom in the Chinese-ruled territory, which has deteriorated sharply in recent years.

A former laureate of RSF’s Press Freedom Prize, 75-year-old Jimmy Lai has worked over the past 25 years to uphold the values of freedom of speech and press through his independent media outlet Apple Daily.

Concurrent sentences
Detained since December 2020 in a maximum security jail and repeatedly refused bail, Lai is already serving concurrent sentences on charges of attending “unauthorised” pro-democracy protests and allegations of fraud.

He now faces a possible life sentence under the draconian national security law, with his trial scheduled to start on September 25.

“We stand with Jimmy Lai. We believe he has been targeted for publishing independent reporting, and we condemn all charges against him,” said the RSF and co-signatories.

“We call for his immediate release.”

They also called for the release of all 13 currently detained journalists in Hong Kong, and for any remaining charges to be dropped against all 28 journalists targeted under national security and other laws over the past three years.

Among the signatories are 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureates Dmitry Muratov (Novaya Gazeta, Russia) and Maria Ressa (Rappler, the Philippines); publisher of The New York Times A.G. Sulzberger; publisher of The Washington Post Fred Ryan; CEO Goli Sheikholeslami as well as editor-in-chief Matthew Kaminski of Politico (USA); editors from a wide range of major UK newspapers including Chris Evans (The Telegraph), Tony Gallagher (The Times), Victoria Newton (The Sun), Alison Philipps (The Daily Mirror); Ted Verity (Mail newspapers), and Katharine Viner (The Guardian); editor-in-chief of Libération Dov Alfon, editorial director of L’Express Éric Chol and director of Le Monde Jérôme Fenoglio (France); editors-in-chief of Süddeutsche Zeitung Wolfgang Krach and Judith Wittwer, and editor-in-chief of Die Welt Jennifer Wilton (Germany); editor-in-chief of Expressen Klas Granström (Sweden); and many more from around the world.

Among the signatories is Dr David Robie, editor and publisher of the New Zealand-based Asia Pacific Report.

The RSF appeal over Apple Daily founder and publisher Jimmy Lai.

‘Powerful voices’
“We have brought these powerful voices together to show that the international media community will not tolerate the targeting of their fellow publisher. When press freedom is threatened anywhere, it is threatened everywhere,” said RSF’s secretary-general Christophe Deloire in a statement.

“Jimmy Lai must be released without further delay, along with all 13 detained journalists, and urgent steps taken to repair the severe damage that has been done to Hong Kong’s press freedom climate over the past three years, before it is too late.”

Jimmy Lai’s son Sebastien said: “Hong Kong is now a city shrouded in a blanket of fear. Those who criticise the authorities are threatened, prosecuted, imprisoned. My father has been in prison since 2020 because he spoke out against CCP [Chinese Community Party] power.

“Because he stood up for what he believes in. It is deeply moving to now see so many powerful voices — Nobel prize winners, and many of the leading newspapers and media organisations across the world — speak out for him.”

Over the past three years, China has used the national security law and other laws as a pretext to prosecute at least 28 journalists, press freedom defenders and collaborators in Hong Kong — 13 of whom remain in detention, including Lai and six staff of Apple Daily.

The newspaper itself was shut down — a move seen as the final nail in the coffin of press freedom in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is ranked 140th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2023 World Press Freedom Index, having plummeted down the rankings from 18th place in just 20 years.

China itself ranked 175th of the 180 countries and territories surveyed.

• The full text of the statement and list of signatories are here.

There will be celebrations as well as self-contemplation in newsrooms around the world today to mark World Press Freedom Day 2023, with the Fourth Estate facing some of its biggest challenges yet.

It was only close to two years ago when Samoa’s constitutional crisis tested the resolve of the media industry, with the nation, as well as families and households, split along political party lines, to also put further pressure on journalists and media practitioners who were working hard on the frontlines to keep the nation abreast of the historical political developments.

Battered and exhausted from the weeks of political turmoil at that time, sandwiched between two political camps, the task of informing the nation and its citizens of a new government was left to the Samoan media industry.

• READ MORE: Pacific eyes on media as Blinken joins RSF’s 2023 World Press Freedom launch
• Historic day for Fiji journalism as ‘draconian’ media law scrapped
• Other Pacific media freedom reports

It was our job to pick up the pieces and report back to the nation as best as we can on what just occurred and to continue to give the message of hope and assurance to the general population that the seat of government didn’t change, it was just that the custodianship of the seat of government had changed hands.

And the journey of this great nation continues nonetheless.

So just over two years after the last general election, the trigger of the constitutional crisis, this newspaper demonstrates its ongoing commitment to improvement and growth by launching a new design to give our readers a more content-rich experience.

New features include “funday” pages and “news in numbers” while keeping a foot in the digital world with QR codes for “today’s top 10 stories” at a touch of a button on your smartphones.

Core business
This newspaper’s core business of informing, educating, and empowering its readership with the latest news and information has not changed.

In fact, the goal post hasn’t changed too with this newspaper committed to the values upheld by its founder, Gatoaitele Savea Sano Malifa to seek the truth, hold governments to account, and report without fear or favour.

The celebration of World Press Freedom Day 2023 today revolves around the theme “Shaping a Future of Rights: Freedom of expression as a driver for all other human rights”.

We believe the theme of today’s celebrations, set by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), succinctly highlights the importance of freedom of expression and its intrinsic link to the media and how it is through freedom of expression that we get to promote all other human rights.

According to UNESCO, four fundamental freedoms are outlined in the Preamble of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights: freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom from fear, and freedom from want.

But it is the freedom of speech that comes first as it is the fundamental freedom that enables all the other rights.

“The right to freedom of expression and its corollary, the right to access information, allow us to seek, receive and impart information, ideas, concepts, and beliefs across borders and cultures.

Essential role
“And in this exercise, the media and journalists play an essential role: they help verify and disseminate facts, they create spaces for ideas to be debated and for the voiceless to be heard, and they render complex matters intelligible for the public at large.”

And we hope too for more press conferences convened by leaders in the government to enable us in the media to do our jobs and a better understanding and appreciation of the role of the media and its contribution to Samoa’s development.

On that note, we take this opportunity to wish our colleagues in Samoa’s media industry Happy World Press Freedom Day 2023 celebrations.

Seeing colleagues appear on television, listening to them on the radio, or seeing their bylines in their online content confirms that we’ve just got on with the business of informing the nation despite the challenges we’ve faced.

And there is no better gift to this nation of 200,000 than to maintain our focus on our primary responsibility to bring them news on issues that directly impact their lives.

Even though we fall and stumble sometimes, as we go about our work to keep the country informed, let’s strive to better ourselves for the good of our readers, listeners, and viewers.

The Samoa Observer has traditionally been one of the leading Pacific newspapers fighting for press freedom.This editorial was published on 3 May 2023 – World Press Freedom Day — and is republished with permission. 

It has been a difficult time for senior public servants recently — at least it has been for those willing to express their political views publicly.

One has been sacked, another offered his resignation, and yet another has been questioned by a parliamentary select committee.

In an election year perhaps we can expect heightened sensitivities around the principle of public sector neutrality. Especially so, given those in the spotlight are all ministerial appointees to crown entity boards, not career officials.

• READ MORE: The balancing act: how much free speech should our public servants have?
• To restore trust in government, we need to reinvent how the public service works
• Will the Australian High Court ruling on public servant’s tweets have a ‘powerful chill’ on free speech?
• Rob Campbell: Public service bosses of ‘Pyongponeke’ forget who they’re supposed to serve

These appointments blur the supposedly clear boundary between elected office-holders and professional public servants.

The case of Rob Campbell, former chair of Te Whatu Ora/Health NZ and the Environmental Protection Authority, seems the most clear-cut. His LinkedIn post likening the National Party’s Three Waters policy to a “thin disguise for the dog whistle on co-governance” was one thing.

But his refusal to accept he had done anything wrong was a bridge too far for the powers that be.

Things have gone better for former Labour MP Steve Maharey, who offered his resignation as chair of Pharmac, ACC and Education New Zealand for publishing what could be read as politically partial views. The government has said he will not lose his jobs.

And another former Labour MP, Ruth Dyson, now deputy chair of the Earthquake Commission and Fire and Emergency New Zealand, is also under scrutiny for apparently partisan Twitter comments. It is safe to say the the nation’s newsrooms are now trawling the social media accounts of all senior civil servants and appointees.

Public Service Commissioner provides advice on Pharmac chair after political comments https://t.co/5nG96MadTe

— Newshub Politics (@NewshubPolitics) March 7, 2023

Faceless bureaucrats?
On the face of it, the standards of conduct for people employed in the state sector — especially at senior levels — are clear. They are expected to act with neutrality and impartiality, and not to take sides with political parties — even (or especially) if they have a past association with one.

They should be able to continue to serve after a change of government. New Zealand doesn’t follow the American model where an incoming president appoints about 4000 civil servants. Instead, we rely on non-partisan professionals whose tenure isn’t tied to elections.

But these tensions and sensitivities about what people can and can’t say also exist in private enterprise. Any director or chief executive would be unwise to publish private opinions about political or economic affairs that might harm the reputation of the company.

Even a bottom-rung employee can face the sack for commenting online about their employer. Free speech comes with conditions attached, especially so for the public service.

One counter argument is that public servants’ impartiality is only a pretence anyway. And, as one commentator put it recently, “we should expect them to speak the truth to us, as they see it”. Indeed, we should criticise those who fail to do so, and not care if it upsets politicians.

That would be a major culture change for our Westminster-style system. But New Zealand has had prominent public servants who were admired as outspoken public intellectuals. The question is, where is the line and how do we define the terms?

Simon Wilson: Why they sacked Rob Campbell and why that has to stop #HeraldPremium https://t.co/p0SBB2U1l8 pic.twitter.com/wrX7aAMFXR

— nzherald (@nzherald) March 6, 2023

Public intellectuals
One historical figure who rose high within the public service but expressed political views was Edward Tregear (1846–1931). He was already a prominent intellectual when appointed the first Secretary of the Labour Department by the Liberal government in 1891.

He drove pioneering labour and social reforms, but was often outspoken and found himself at odds with the government following the death of the prime minister, Richard Seddon, in 1906. He retired in 1910.

Clarence Beeby (1902–98) was a prominent psychologist and researcher with a strong commitment to public education and human rights when he was appointed Director of Education by Peter Fraser in 1940.

Labour’s educational reforms came to be identified with Beeby as much as with Fraser, which would have annoyed the prime minister. Beeby continued under the subsequent National government, however. Overall, his scholarship had wide influence and was recognised internationally.

The economist Bill Sutch (1907–75) worked under ministers of finance in the 1930s while also actively engaging in public life. He published two important books on New Zealand in the early 1940s (Poverty and Progress, and The Search for Security).

This independence caused some friction with Fraser, but Sutch worked for New Zealand at the United Nations. In 1958, he became permanent Secretary for the Department of Industries and Commerce.

The new rules
Campbell’s online comments and Maharey’s op-ed columns probably are not at the same level of sustained achievement as those three exemplary civil servants’ publications. But they do raise important questions.

Are today’s ministers and the Public Services Commissioner too precious about political opinions? And are opposition MPs going to be hoist with their own petard once they’re in office?

Since the State Sector Act 1988, our system has tried to draw a clear line between ministers, who set high-level policy and have to justify it publicly, and public servants, who advise ministers and implement their decisions.

Public servants should provide ministers with free and frank advice, but publishing personal opinions is not on.

There is always a grey area, however. Campbell breached the code of conduct, but was sacking him in proportion with the offence? Those in a position to decide thought that it was.

Given the public controversy, Maharey did the right thing to pre-emptively offer his resignation. What distinguishes him from Campbell is that he recognised the awkward political problem.

But is it so big a problem that heads should roll? Is the country better or worse off for its intolerance of intellectual and political independence of thought in the state sector?

Whatever the answer, under present arrangements we we will not see public servants like Tregear, Beeby or Sutch again. But Campbell and Maharey can write what they like in retirement.

Dr Grant Duncan, associate professor, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Papua New Guinea’s Communications Minister, Timothy Masiu, has proposed a new policy that, if implemented, will affect the constitutional rights of freedom of speech through the media.

The draft policy named The National Media Development Policy 2023 (we perceive it as the “Media Control Policy”) proposes changes which include the licensing of journalists and the re-establishment of the PNG Media Council as a government regulation agency.

In the media utopia proposed through the Masiu Policy the media will be transformed into a propaganda machine that serves a government development agenda.

• READ MORE: Asia Pacific Media Network calls for ‘urgent rethink’ over PNG draft media regulation plan
• New PNG media policy will lead to government control of news groups
• Other PNG media freedom reports

The implementation of the proposed policy, will allow for the government to create laws that go against Section 46(1) subsections (a), (b) and (c) and Section 46(2) under Part III of the constitution which relate to the freedom of the press.

We at InsidePNG are not opposed to supporting a positive development agenda provided the government does its job! That means, making sure students are educated; making sure funding goes to where it is meant to go; making sure theft of public money is stopped; and that there is honesty in the manner in which the country is governed.

The absence of which requires the media to be the watchdog. It requires us to speak out and report on that which is wrong in society and wrong in the decisions that are being made.

In this government proposed utopia, journalists are licensed by the media council and any person not fulfilling the development agenda is penalized by having their licenses removed.

What if there is a ‘rogue government’?
Yes. Maybe, this government won’t do it. But what if, in Sir Mekere’s words, “We have a rogue government? Or a rogue Prime Minister in future?” And he/she chooses to use this policy to impose total suppression?

One question to Minister Masiu pops up: Is the government going to license all the PNG content producers on Facebook, YouTube, Tiktok and other social media platforms?

Journalists are content producers. Or should we all just call ourselves content producers to avoid paying for a journalist licence?

The Media Control Policy, as it should be called, states that it is designed to strengthen media freedom.

We at Inside PNG think otherwise.

We, 24 journalists and content producers, previously worked at a government-owned television station called EMTV. We were sacked because we protested against political influence in the newsroom.

We do not believe an additional layer of control will guarantee our freedom of speech. We believe licensing will be expensive for a start up like ours; and that government control of the media council will not serve our interests in upholding an essential and crucial pillar of democracy.

There is a reason why our founding fathers insisted on having a free media. It is to hold those in power accountable on behalf of the people of Papua New Guinea.

Look at real reasons
We ask that Timothy Masiu step back and take a look at the real reasons behind pushing for a policy that promotes media control.

Be the government that promotes media freedom. Be the government that promotes debate in public forums instead of a government that creates an environment that suppresses freedom of expression.

Invest in the education of journalists and media practitioners if you are serious about improving the media. Invest policies that lower internet costs. Provide scholarships for media practitioners.

In short, be the minister who promotes constitutional freedoms.

Inside PNG is an independent Papua New Guinean media and news company specialising news updates and other local content in the country. This editorial is republished with permission.

Fiji’s Constitution does not require everything related to the government to be called Fijian, says Attorney-General Siromi Turaga.

Speaking during a media conference, he said there was no right or wrong way to describe a title or name a government.

He said FijiFirst party general secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum was trying to mislead the people when he said that the Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka had not called everybody a Fijian.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji politics reports

“On the term of Fijian as common name, again Mr Sayed-Khaiyum is playing with half-truths to mislead the people when it comes to his petty complaints that the Ministry of Information Facebook page is now called Fiji Government,” Turaga said.

“We are the Republic of Fiji not the republic of Fijians constitutionally, Fiji is home to all Fijians.

“In China, the official government website is the State Council of the People’s Republic of China.

“In Australia and Britain it is the Australian government and the British government. He said the Constitution never said that when someone spoke they must call every citizen Fijian.

“Frankly, there is nothing grammatically incorrect about that and the fact is, no law was broken by the renaming.

“A Constitution does not say everything related to the government must be called Fijian, neither does it require all officials to call citizens Fijian when they speak.

“It is the prerogative of government and the transition from FFP (government) to the coalition government, a decision has been made to call the government page Fiji Government.”

Turaga said the 2013 Constitution also enshrined freedom of speech.

Meri Radinibaravi is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Late last year, the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) initiated a process to eliminate 170 academic jobs to cut costs. The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) found AUT’s approach breached its collective employment agreement with staff and their union and ordered it to withdraw the termination notices.

Tertiary education runs on an insecure labour force in New Zealand and elsewhere. The AUT decision illustrates that even traditionally secure positions are becoming less so.

Tenure is the traditional protection for academics in the tertiary sector, but New Zealand does not have tenure at its universities.

• READ MORE: For many NZ scholars, the old career paths are broken. Our survey shows the reality for this new ‘academic precariat’
• Universities: The often overlooked player in determining healthy democracies
• Employment court orders Auckland University of Technology to scrap redundancies
• Media and academia: the intriguing case of AUT’s Pacific Media Centre

Tenure is more than a perk

A common argument against tenure is that it leads to a complacent, under-motivated university professor. These concerns are hypothetical — evidence that tenure causes productivity differences is lacking.

In fact, one of few large studies on the subject found the opposite. Good administrators should be able to manage any actual productivity issues as they do in all other workplaces.

On the other hand, lack of tenure creates risks for free societies. Tenure is common practice in other liberal democracies. UNESCO says:

Security of employment in the profession, including tenure […] should be safeguarded as it is essential to the interests of higher education.

Tenure is important, if not indispensable, for academic freedom. Academic freedom is essential to a university’s mission, and this mission is a characteristic of a democracy. As University of Regina professor Marc Spooner put it:

A country’s institutional commitment to academic freedom is a key indicator of whether its democracy is in good health.

The Employment Relations Authority has issued a compliance order to the university, requiring it to withdraw its notices of termination. https://t.co/NUvBfqS6ad

— Stuff (@NZStuff) January 5, 2023

Scholarship is not piecework
The ERA said AUT misunderstood terminology in the collective employment agreement.
The clash term was “specific position”. AUT’s position was that specific positions are identified by professional ranks (from lecturer to professor) and the numbers of each role across four particular faculties.

The ERA did not agree and concluded an essential component for identifying specific positions is the employee, being the person who is the current position holder or appointee to a position.

AUT’s assertion would be like the air force using the rank of “captain” to adjust its number of pilots. The number of captains does not tell you what each captain does, be it to fly planes or fix them.

Without tenure, a standard less than this minimum established by the ERA can be used to eliminate academics who have legitimate priorities that do not align with the administrative staff of the day, or are the victims of any other concealed discrimination. The ERA clarification makes it more difficult to inhibit intramural criticism, the right to criticise the actions taken by managers and leaders of the university.

The authoritative review of freedom of speech and academic freedom in Australian universities singles out the importance of academic freedom for this purpose, saying:

It […] reflects the distinctive relationship of academic staff and universities, a relationship not able to be defined by reference to the ordinary law of employer and employee relationships.

The ERA clarification helps to prevent the firing of academics who are teaching, researching or questioning things administrators, funders or governments don’t want them to. But it is a finger in a leaking dyke. Tenure is a tried and tested general solution.

Health of the democracy
We only need to observe the events in the United States to recognise the importance of tenure. This benchmark country has a proud tradition of tenure. Nevertheless state governments are dismantling tenure to impose political control on curriculums. Our liberal democracy is not immune to this.

We need more than tenure-secured academic freedom to enable universities to do the sometimes dreary and at other times risky work of providing societies alternatives to populist, nationalist or autocratic movements. But as the Douglas Dillon chair in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, Darrell M. West, wrote, academic freedom is a problem for these movements.

Recognizing the moral authority of independent experts, when despots come to power, one of the first things they do is discredit authoritative institutions who hold leaders accountable and encourage an informed citizenry.

In a system with tenure, a university would have a defined stand-down period preventing reappointment to vacated positions. For example, if an academic program and associated tenured staff that teach it were eliminated at the University of Arkansas for financial reasons, the program could not be reactivated for at least five years. The stand-down inhibits whimsical or agenda-fuelled restructuring as a lazy option to manage staff.

If a similar trade-off were to be applied to how AUT defined specific positions, then no academics could be hired there for five years. It is very different to be prevented from hiring academics than it is to, say, not re-establishing a financially struggling department or program.

Herein lies the true value of tenure. It is greater than a protection of the individual. It protects society from wasteful or ideologically motivated restructuring as an alternative to poor management. Tenure is security of the public trust in our universities.

Dr Jack Heinemann is professor of molecular biology and genetics, University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

The Philippines Court of Appeals has denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and former Rappler researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. over their cyber libel case.

In a 16-page decision dated October 10, the court’s fourth division denied the appeal.

Associate Justices Roberto Quiroz, Ramon Bato Jr., and Germano Francisco Legaspi signed the ruling. They were the same justices who signed the court decision, which earlier affirmed the conviction of Ressa and Santos.

• READ MORE: Cybercrime, criminal libel and the media: From ‘e-martial law’ to the Magna Carta in the Philippines — David Robie and Del Abcede
• Philippine Nobel laureate Maria Ressa appeals to Supreme Court
• Other Maria Ressa and Rappler reports

According to the court, the arguments raised by Ressa and Santos were already resolved.

“A careful and meticulous review of the motion for reconsideration reveals that the matters raised by the accused-appellants had already been exhaustively resolved and discussed in the assailed Decision,” the court said.

The court also claimed Ressa’s and Santos’ conviction is not meant to curtail freedom of speech.

“In conclusion, it [is] worthy and relevant to point out that the conviction of the accused-appellants for the crime of cyberlibel punishable under the Cybercrime Law is not geared towards the curtailment of the freedom of speech, or to produce an unseemingly chilling effect on the users of cyberspace that would possibly hinder free speech.”

‘Safeguard’ for free speech
On the contrary, the court said, the purpose of the law is to “safeguard the right of free speech, and to curb, if not totally prevent, the reckless and unlawful use of the computer systems as a means of committing the traditional criminal offences…”

In a statement, Nobel Peace laureate Ressa said she was “disappointed” but not surprised by the ruling.

Rappler’s video report on YouTube.

“The ongoing campaign of harassment and intimidation against me and Rappler continues, and the Philippines legal system is not doing enough to stop it. I am disappointed by today’s ruling but sadly not surprised,” Ressa said.

“This is a reminder of the importance of independent journalism holding power to account. Despite these sustained attacks from all sides, we continue to focus on what we do best — journalism.”

Santos, in a separate statement, said he still believed that the rule of law would prevail.

“The [Appeal Court’s] decision to deny our motion is not surprising, but it’s disheartening nevertheless. As we elevate our case to the SC, our fight against intimidation and suppression of freedom continues. We still believe that the rule of law will prevail.”

Theodore “Ted” Te, Rappler’s lawyer and former Supreme Court spokesperson, said they would now ask the Supreme Court to review and reverse Ressa’s conviction.

“The CA decision denying the MFR [motion for reconsideration] is disappointing. It ignored basic principles of constitutional and criminal law as well as the evidence presented. Maria and Rey will elevate these issues to the SC and we will ask the SC to review the decision and to reverse the decision,” Te said in a statement.

The decision
The Appeal Court also explained its findings on the arguments based on:

• Applications of the provisions of cyber libel under the cybercrime law
• Subject article should have been classified as qualifiedly privileged” in relation to Wilfredo Keng as a public figure

On the validity of the cybercrime law, the court cited a ruling which, according to them, decided the constitutionality of the law.

“We find it unnecessary to dwell on the issue raised by accused-appellants since the Supreme Court, in Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., et al., v. The Secretary of Justice, et al. (Disini Case), 5 had already ruled on its validity and constitutionality, with finality.”

The court also reiterated that the story in question was republished. The court said the argument that ex-post facto was applied on the theory that the correction of one letter is too unsubstantial and cannot be considered a republication is “unavailing.”

“As settled, the determination of republication is not hinged on whether the corrections made therein were substantial or not, as what matters is that the very exact libelous article was again published on a later date,” the appeals court said.

On the increase of penalty, the CA said the argument that Wilberto Tolentino v. People has no doctrinal value and cannot be used as a binding precedent as it was “an unsigned resolution, is misplaced.”

That case said the “prescriptive period for the crime of cyber libel is 15 years.”

Traditional, online publications
The appeals court also highlighted the difference between traditional and online publications: “As it is, in the instance of libel through traditional publication, the libelous article is only released and circulated once – which is on the day when it was published.”

Such was not the case for an online publication, the court said, where “the commission of such offence is continuous since such article remains therein in perpetuity unless taken down from all online platforms where it was published…”

On the argument about Keng, the CA said it was insufficient to consider him a public figure: “As previously settled, the claim that Wilfredo Keng is a renowned businessman, who was connected to several companies, is insufficient to classify him as a public figure.”

The term “public figure” in relation to libel refers more to a celebrity, it said, citing the Ciriaco “Boy” Guingguing v. Honorable Court of Appeals decision. The decision said a public figure is “anyone who has arrived at a position where public attention is focused upon him as a person.”

It also cited the Supreme Court decision on Alfonso Yuchengco v. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation, et al., which resolved the argument whether a businessman can be considered a public figure. The court said that being a known businessman did not make Keng a public figure who had attained a position that gave the public “legitimate interest in his affairs and character.”

There was no proof, too, that “he voluntarily thrusted himself to the forefront of the particular public controversies that were raised in the defamatory article,” the CA added.

In 2020, Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 46 convicted Ressa and Santos over cyber libel charges filed by Keng. The case tested the 8-year-old Philippine cybercrime law.

The Manila court interpreted the cyber libel law as having a 12-year proscription period, as opposed to only a year. The lower court also decided that republication was a separate offence.

Aside from affirming the Manila court’s ruling, the CA also imposed a longer prison sentence on Ressa and Santos, originally set for six months and one day as minimum to six years as maximum.

The appeals court added eight months and 20 days to the maximum imprisonment penalty.

Jairo Bolledo is a Rappler journalist. Republished with permission.

During the present period of mourning for Queen Elizabeth II, public sensitivities in the United Kingdom and Australia are high. There is strong sentiment in both countries in favour of showing respect for the Queen’s death.

Some people may wish to do this privately. Others will want to demonstrate their respect publicly by attending commemorations and processions.

There are also cohorts within both countries that may wish to express discontent and disagreement with the monarchy at this time.

• READ MORE: The Queen has left her mark around the world. But not all see it as something to be celebrated
• Other reports on UK royalty

For instance, groups such as Indigenous peoples and others who were subject to dispossession and oppression by the British monarchy may wish to express important political views about these significant and continuing injustices.

This has caused tension across the globe. For instance, a professor from the United States who tweeted a critical comment of the Queen has been subject to significant public backlash.

Also, an Aboriginal rugby league player is facing a ban and a fine by the NRL for similar negative comments she posted online following the Queen’s death.

This tension has been particularly so in the UK, where police have questioned protestors expressing anti-monarchy sentiments, and in some cases, arrested them.

Police arrest anti-monarchy protesters at royal events in England, Scotland https://t.co/GJSzOa1SKU

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) September 13, 2022

But should such concerns about the actions of the Queen and monarchy be silenced or limited because a public declaration of mourning has been made by the government?

This raises some difficult questions as to how the freedom of speech of both those who wish to grieve publicly and those who wish to protest should be balanced.

What laws in the UK are being used to do this?
There are various laws that regulate protest in the UK. At a basic level, police can arrest a person for a “breach of the peace”.

Also, two statutes provide specific offences that allow police to arrest protesters.

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 UK provides that a person is guilty of a public order offence if:

• they use threatening or abusive words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour
• or display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive.

The offence provision then provides this must be “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress” by those acts.

There is some protection for speech in the legislation because people arrested under this provision can argue a defence of “reasonable excuse”. However, there’s still a great deal of discretion placed in the hands of the police.

Seriously worrying that holding a sign saying #notmyking can get you removed by police. What ever your views on the monarchy, this should concern you. https://t.co/uj1TGkdL5t

— Clay Sinclair (@claysinclair) September 12, 2022

The other statute that was recently amended is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of 2022, which allows police to arrest protesters for “public nuisance”.

In the context of the period of mourning for Queen Elizabeth II, the wide terms used in this legislation (such as “nuisance” and “distress”) gives a lot of discretion to police to arrest protesters who they perceive to be upsetting others.

For instance, a protester who holds a placard saying “Not my king, abolish the monarchy” may be seen as likely to cause distress to others given the high sensitivities in the community during the period of mourning.

Is there a right to protest under UK and Australian law?
Protest rights are recognised in both the UK and in Australia, but in different ways.

In the UK, the right to freedom of expression is recognised in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

In Australia, there’s no equivalent of the right to freedom of expression at the federal level as Australia doesn’t have a national human rights charter. Rather, there’s a constitutional principle called the “implied freedom of political communication”.

This isn’t a “right” as such but does provide some acknowledgement of the importance of protest.

Also, freedom of expression is recognised in the three jurisdictions in Australia that have human rights instruments (Victoria, Queensland and the ACT).

pic.twitter.com/8s01SZc1gx

— Paul Powlesland (@paulpowlesland) September 12, 2022

Can the right to protest be limited in a period of mourning?
In this period of public mourning, people wishing to assemble in a public place to pay respect to the queen are exercising two primary human rights: the right to assembly and the right to freedom of expression.

But these are not absolute rights. They cannot override the rights of others to also express their own views.

Further, there is no recognised right to assemble without annoyance or disturbance from others. That is, others in the community are also permitted to gather in a public place during the period of mourning and voice their views (which may be critical of the queen or monarchy).

It is important to also note that neither the UK nor Australia protects the monarchy against criticism. This is significant because in some countries (such as Thailand), it is a criminal offence to insult the monarch. These are called “lèse-majesté” laws — a French term meaning “to do wrong to majesty”.

The police in the UK and Australia cannot therefore use public order offences (such breach of the peace) to unlawfully limit public criticism of the monarchy.

It may be uncomfortable or even distressing for those wishing to publicly grieve the Queen’s passing to see anti-monarchy placards displayed. But that doesn’t make it a criminal offence that allows protesters to be arrested.

The ability to voice dissent is vital for a functioning democracy. It is therefore arguable that people should be able to voice their concerns with the monarchy even in this period of heightened sensitivity. The only way in which anti-monarchy sentiment can lawfully be suppressed is in a state of emergency.

A public period of mourning does not meet that standard.

Dr Maria O’Sullivan, associate professor in the Faculty of Law, and deputy director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Former Philippines vice-presidential candidate and Laban ng Masa chairperson Walden Bello has been arrested for two counts of alleged cyber libel by the police.

Bello, 76, is a globally renowned environmental and social justice activist and academic.

Bello’s arrest yesterday was confirmed by his executive secretary and Laban ng Masa spokesperson Leomar Doctolero.

• READ MORE: ‘Pure political harassment and persecution’. Walden Bello arrested
• Other reports on cyber libel

The former VP candidate was brought to the Quezon City Police District (QCPD) Station 8 in Project 4, Quezon City.

“Walden has just been arrested for cyber libel by officers of the QCPD. He is currently being taken to QC Police Station 8, P. Tuazon,” Doctolero said.

It was Davao City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 10 Judge Retrina Espe Fuentes who issued the arrest warrant yesterday. Bello’s counsels said they will move for the suspension of proceedings at RTC 10 after Bello posts bail.

Two counts of cyber libel
Bello faces two counts of cyber libel for which bail has been set at P48,000 (NZ$4000) each.

Police Lieutenant-Colonel Gilmore Wasin confirmed Bello’s arrest to Rappler. He added Bello would be transferred to Camp Karingal in Quezon City, QCPD’s headquarters.

Doctolero said they had been anticipating the arrest because Bello had already been indicted for the cases last month.

“We have been anticipating the arrest warrant because of the indictment of the Davao Prosecutor. It’s a bailable offence and counsel is on the way to assist him.”

Bello’s camp filed a motion for reconsideration before the Davao prosecutor’s office but it was denied, Doctolero explained.

“The resolution for his indictment was released last June 9. We filed for a motion for reconsideration with the Prosecutors’ Office which was subsequently denied.”

‘Dangerous precedent’

Under the Philippine laws, cyber libel is a bailable offence. Based on the guidelines for bail for cybercrime offences, the bail for cyber libel is typically set at P10,000 (NZ$790).

In a message to reporters, Leody de Guzman’s team said the ex-presidential candidate and Bello’s running mate was headed to QCPD Station 8 to show support for Bello.

At the height of the campaign period early this year, Jefry Tupas, Vice-President Sara Duterte’s former information officer, filed a cyber libel complaint against Bello.

She is seeking P10 million (NZ$790,000) in damages after Bello allegedly accused her on social media of being a drug addict and dealer.

Bello earlier labeled Tupas’ act as “clearly a politically-motivated move”.

In a petition for review filed on July 29, Bello’s camp argued that the position of Tupas in government “is very relevant” as the Facebook post would not have highlighted the drug raid if it weren’t for her being a public official.

Infringement on free speech
The prosecutor’s dismissal of their argument that the post merely poses a question sets “a dangerous precedent,” the petition also pointed out.

“Just imagine the severe infringement on free speech that would ensue if our jurisdiction would limit what questions people can ask!” the petition said.

Bello’s camp also argued that the post was written by his communications team, not by the former vice-presidential candidate himself, and that there is still no proof that he personally published it on Facebook.

“[Bello] does not even have administrator or moderator status in the said Facebook page,” it said.

Pacific Media Watch reports: Walden Bello posted this on his Facebook page from detention at Camp Karingal:

Seventy seven years ago today, Aug 9, 1945, the second atom bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, three days after the first blasted Hiroshima. Up to 80,000 people were killed in an act of genocide that had absolutely no military value and merely served to warn the Soviet Union of the US’ capacity to blast it to bits. The world must never forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki, especially now that the war in the Ukraine drags on, with the constant possibility of uncontrolled escalation, and Washington provokes China on Taiwan.

By Jairo Bolledo is a Rappler journalist. Republished with permission.

A Fiji political leader is calling out the Australian and New Zealand governments on their “deafening silence” over human rights issues in the region.

The leader of the opposition National Federation Party, Professor Biman Prasad, has called out the two countries for not acknowledging what he described as “the declining standards” of democracy, governance, human rights, media freedom and freedom of speech issues in some Pacific countries.

Prasad said the recent 2022 Pacific Islands Leaders’ Forum ended with prime minister Anthony Albanese and Jacinda Ardern refusing to speak up on the decline in the standards of democracy.

• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES:  Dr Biman Prasad talks Pacific democracy
• Australia and New Zealand’s ‘deafening silence’ on Pacific democracy and human rights – Asia Pacific Report
• Australia and New Zealand’s silence on democracy and human rights in the Pacific – DevPolicy Blog
• ‘Doorstops’ at the Pacific Forum – why no tough questions on West Papua?

“What concerns me is that the Pacific Forum is an important leaders’ meeting and both Australia and New Zealand are members,” Professor Prasad told RNZ’s Pacific Waves.

“One would have expected, even to the dislike of some within the forum, at least some mention of how the Pacific Forum is going to deal with declining standards of democracy, good governance, human rights, media freedom and freedom of speech,” he said.

“[But] no word from leaders, particularly Australia and New Zealand, was a bit concerning.”

Failed over glaring issues
The forum leaders’ meeting, he said, failed to address glaring issues, such as:

• the Fiji government’s spat with the head of the regionally-owned University of the South Pacific;
• questionable governance practices and attacks on free speech in Solomon Islands;
• a judiciary under siege in Kiribati;
• ongoing human rights abuses in West Papua; and
• the deterioration of decolonisation arrangements in New Caledonia.

According to Prasad, Albanese and Ardern refused to discuss these in Suva because they feared it would push Pacific nations “further into the arms of China”.

Such a stance gives credibility to the claim that “Australia and New Zealand are preoccupied with their own strategic interests first, before the interests of Pacific Island countries,” he wrote in a Development Policy Centre blog last week.

“I can speak about Fiji more specifically. As leader of an opposition political party in Parliament, I experienced first-hand the bullying, the intimidation by this government and the declining standards of democracy, of transparency and accountability,” he said.

“Fiji continues to behave in the guise of championing climate change around the world that everything is hunky dory in Fiji. It is not and that is why the forum is important.”

He said “appeasing autocratic leaders” to keep Beijing at bay was unacceptable and the sooner Canberra and Wellington realised appeasement was not the best strategy, the better it would be for the region.

NZ’s ‘no comment’
RNZ Pacific contacted both the Australian and New Zealand governments for comment.

New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said it had no comment to make on Professor Prasad’s blog.

However, a spokesperson for Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said Australia had a long-standing history of supporting work to strengthen regional action in support of human rights.

“Our focus was on the contributions we can make as a member of the Pacific family, rather than what others may be doing,” it said.

“Australia will talk to partner governments directly where we have concerns about democracy, transparency and the rule of law.”

Australia will be contributing up to A$7.7 million (NZ$8.6 million] over the next four-and-a-half years to support the Pacific Community in implementing the Human Rights and Social Development Division Business Plan to strengthen human rights in the region.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

The Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting has ended and what is intriguing is the deafening silence on declining standards of democracy, governance, human rights, media freedom and freedom of speech issues, despite the serious and arguably worsening situation in some regional countries.

The emphasis on climate change is necessary and welcome. However, to deal effectively with climate adaptation and build climate-resilient infrastructure, countries have to mobilise large amounts of resources.

Whether these resources are effectively used will depend on standards of governance, transparency and accountability. Without these, efforts to deal with the climate change emergency will be fraught with difficulties and wastage of resources.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific human rights reports
• Pacific Islands Forum

In any case, not everything can be reduced to climate change, which too often becomes a convenient way of avoiding other hard issues and diverting attention from domestic issues. And we do have other important pressing issues, such as media rights and freedom of expression, that deserve a hearing at the highest levels of this august body, but these were conveniently swept under the “sensitive topic” carpet, or so it seems.

Human rights — including freedom of speech — underpin all other rights, and it is unfortunate that this Forum failed in its moral obligation to send out a strong message of its commitment to upholding these rights.

Australia and New Zealand are regarded as the doyens of human rights and media freedom in the region, and their leaders’ presence at the Forum presented an opportunity to send a strong signal to member countries about the sanctity of these values — but the moment passed without any statement.

Anthony Albanese and Jacinda Ardern could have taken the initiative and spoken out about these issues of their own accord, but they didn’t, thus giving some credence to voices that claim that when it comes to the Forum, Australia and New Zealand are preoccupied with their own strategic interests first, and the interests of Pacific Island countries second.

Avoiding ‘unpalatable topics’
Towards this end, the two leaders from the Western world seemed at pains to avoid topics deemed unpalatable to their Pacific Island counterparts, seemingly over fears of pushing them further into the arms of China.

This includes an apparent fear of upsetting Fiji, which has had a draconian and punitive Media Act in place since 2010. There are also concerns in Fiji about the independence of important offices, such as the Electoral Commission, which are especially pressing in an election year.

The Fiji government is also denying the rights of thousands of tertiary students to access good quality education by withholding more than FJ$80 million (NZ$50 million) in grants to the University of the South Pacific.

Reportedly, during the meetings last week only the Prime Minister of Samoa, Fiamē Naomi Mata’afa, called on the Fiji government to release the grant.

Australia and New Zealand’s silence has given rise to criticism that they are practising the politics of convenience rather than principle and have lost moral ground in the Pacific region.

Appeasing autocratic leaders in our region as a strategy against China is not only unconscionable, it is also short-sighted and counterproductive.

A restrictive and undemocratic environment, where the media are suppressed and the people are denied a voice, is advantageous for China. It is thus in Australia and New Zealand’s best interests to fight against such trends by being vocal about them, instead of silent.

Appeasement not best strategy
The sooner Australia and New Zealand realise that appeasement is not the best strategy, the better it will be for them and for the region. If we are vuvale (one family) as Australia says, then we should look at our collective interest, rather than individual interests only.

Unfortunately, the Forum Secretariat chose not to invite the parliamentary opposition leaders in Fiji to any of the meeting’s events, even though they represent a sizable proportion of the country’s population.

This was another missed opportunity to get a fuller picture of the situation in Fiji instead of the official version only. It leads to a partial and poor understanding of what is happening, which is hardly the basis for sound decision-making.

As leaders of democracies, Australia and New Zealand need to move away from a self-centred approach, and adopt a more conscientious, long-term outlook in the region.

As it stands, in their preoccupation with and fear of China they seem to be losing sight of the goal. Australia and New Zealand should never compromise on governance and human rights and freedom of speech, the building blocks of democracy in the region.

Dr Biman Prasad is an adjunct professor at James Cook University and Punjabi University, and is currently a Member of Parliament and leader of the National Federation Party in Fiji. He is a former professor of economics and dean of the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of the South Pacific. This article was first published by DevPolicy Blog and is republished under a Creative Commons licence.

Threats, intimidation and misogyny have long been a reality for women in public life around the world, and the pandemic appears to have amplified this toxic reality.

Aotearoa New Zealand is led by one of the world’s best-known female prime ministers, Jacinda Ardern, and was the first country in the world to grant all women the right to vote.

Yet even here today, attempts to silence, diminish and demean the prime minister, female MPs and other prominent women have plumbed new depths, leading to calls for more robust policing of violent online and offline behaviour.

• READ MORE: There are differences between free speech, hate speech and academic freedom — and they matter
• Academic freedom can’t be separated from responsibility
• From ‘pretty communist’ to ‘Jabcinda’ – what’s behind the vitriol directed at Jacinda Ardern?

Unfortunately, the phenomenon extends well beyond elected representatives and public health professionals into most workplaces, including academia.

Women working in universities, including those in positions of academic leadership, are also routinely subjected to online vitriol intended to shut them down — and thus to prevent them exercising their academic freedom to probe, question and test orthodox ways of making sense of the world.

One of the commonest defences of abusive or threatening language (online or not) is an appeal to everyone’s right to free speech.

And this has echoes within universities, too, when academic freedom becomes a testing ground of what is acceptable and what isn’t.

A duty to call it out
The international evidence indicates that almost all of this behaviour comes from men, some of them colleagues or students of the women concerned.

The abuse comes in various forms (such as trolling and rape or death threats) and takes place in a variety of settings, including conferences. It is enabled by, among other things, the hierarchical nature of universities, in which power is stratified and unequally distributed, including on the basis of gender.

Threatened scholars warn that online harassment risks academic freedom. Rebekah Tromble and Patricia Rossini feared for their safety when the conservative online world turned against them last summerhttps://t.co/FZYo1e8Qzf pic.twitter.com/WLPGRRzIe0

— Times Higher Education (@timeshighered) February 15, 2019

As male academics we have an obligation not just to call out these sorts of behaviour but also to identify some of the corrosive consequences of the misogyny directed against women academics, wherever they may work.

We need to use our own academic freedom to assess what can happen to that of academic women when digital misogyny passes unchecked.

Whose freedom to speak?
Misogyny in university settings takes place in a particular context: universities have a statutory obligation to serve as producers and repositories of knowledge and expertise, and to act as society’s “conscience and critic”.

Academic freedom is what enables staff and students to carry out the work through which these obligations are met. This specific type of freedom is a means to various ends, including testing and contesting perceived truths, advancing the boundaries of knowledge and talking truth to power.

It is intended to serve the public good, and must be exercised in the context of the “highest ethical standards” and be open to public scrutiny.

A great deal has been written about threats to academic freedom: intrusive or risk averse university managers, the pressures to commercialise universities’ operations, and governments bent on surveilling and stifling internal dissent are the usual suspects.

But when women academics are subjected to online misogyny, which is a common response when they exercise academic freedom, we are talking about a different kind of threat.

Opinion: Misgendering students is not “academic freedom.” It’s an abuse of power. https://t.co/AatNwzrnB1

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) April 1, 2021

Betrayal of academic freedom
The misogynists seek to silence, shut down, diminish and demean; to ridicule on the basis of gender, and to deride scholarship that doesn’t align with their own preconceptions of gender and body type.

Their behaviour is neither casual nor accidental. As journalist Michelle Duff put it, it is intended to intimidate “as part of a concentrated effort to suppress women’s participation in public and political life”.

Its aim is to achieve the obverse of the purpose of academic freedom: to maintain an unequal status quo rather than change it.

It is to the credit of women academics that the misogynists frequently fail. But sometimes the hostility does have a chilling effect. For a woman to exercise her academic freedom when she is the target of online threats to rape or kill requires considerable bravery.

Women who continue to test perceived truths, advance the boundaries of knowledge and speak truth to power under such conditions are academic exemplars. They are contributing to the public good at considerable personal cost.

‘Whaddarya?’
The online misogyny directed at women academics is taking place in a broader context in which violent language targeting individuals and minority groups is becoming increasingly graphic, normalised and visible.

We do not believe the misogynistic “righteous outrage” directed at academic women is justified under the statutory underpinnings of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech — within or beyond a university — is not absolute, and to the extent that it is invoked to cloak violent rhetoric against women, existing constraints on that freedom (which are better thought of as protections for the targets of misogyny) need strengthening.

Men who engage in online misogyny almost always speak from an (unacknowledged) position of privilege. Moreover, by hiding their sense of entitlement behind core democratic notions, their self-indulgence does all of us a disfavour.

With academic freedom comes the moral responsibility to challenge misogyny and not stay silent. What so many women across New Zealand’s tertiary sector are subject to poses a challenge to men everywhere.

The kind of conduct our women colleagues are routinely subjected to is the sort of behaviour at the heart of Greg McGee’s seminal critique of masculinity and masculine insecurity in New Zealand, the play Foreskin’s Lament. In the final scene of the play, the main character stares out at the audience and asks: “Whaddarya, whaddarya, whaddarya?”

He might have been asking the question of every man, including those of us who work in universities.

Dr Richard Shaw is professor of politics, Massey University; Dr Andrew Dickson is senior lecturer, Massey University; Dr Bevan Erueti, senior lecturer — Health Promotion/Associate Dean — Māori, Massey University; Dr Glenn Banks is professor of geography and head of school, School of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University; Dr John O’Neill, head of the Institute of Education te Kura o Te Mātauranga, Massey University, and Dr Roger McEwan is senior lecturer, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

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.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji authoritarianism reports

“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.

The EMTV News editorial decision to run the two stories [about the court cases involving Australian hotel businessman Jamie Pang] was based on two important points in our line of work:

Impartiality and Objectivity.

Impartiality cannot be achieved by the measure of words in a story, it is achieved by:

• Avoiding bias towards one point of view
• Avoiding omission of relevant facts
• Avoiding misleading emphasis

All of which are stated in the EMTV News and Current Affairs Manual 2019 in section 17.5 under standard operations of the television code.

• READ MORE:  Nineteen journalists suspended from Papua New Guinea news station in coverage row
• Pacific media groups rally behind suspended Papua New Guinea journalist
• PNG journalists walk off the job over sacking of news boss
• Background and other Pacific Media Watch reports on the EMTV dispute

By running the stories, the team was accused of bias.

We fail to see the areas of bias in our stories, especially because we presented more than one point of view in both stories.

The information presented was based on facts and in avoiding any misleading emphasis; we delivered objective television news packages that were fully impartial in the code and conduct of journalism.

Objective stories
Overall, both stories were objective stories where two or more opinions were looked at closely in each story.

To be clear, in television news objectivity is achieved by taking a rational but sceptical approach to ALL points of view.

In this case, Jamie Pang’s arrest, conviction and charges were looked at, as well as his community and social activities:

• Pang was arrested – Fact
• Pang was convicted, charged and fined for having firearms and munitions in his possession – Fact
• Pang was acquitted by a sound and proper court of justice in the PNG judicial system, from charges relating to methamphetamine – Fact
• Being acquitted by a sound and proper court of justice in the PNG judicial system, makes Pang a free man from drug charges – Fact
• Pang is heavily involved in social and community works – Fact
• Pang was rearrested and detained – Fact

All these factual points were documented in one story.

It is important to understand, that in objective writing, the opinion of the interviewees are their own. However, [how] it is perceived by the our viewers is up to them to weigh [up] and decide.

Objective [news] stories are often mistaken as opinion pieces.

They are not the same.

An opinion piece is a commentary on one point of view.

Journalism independence
As journalists we cannot be servants of sectional interests. It is our duty to speak to both “saints” and “sinners”. It is our democratic right to report on the good, bad and the ugly aspects of any story.

There are no instances of perceived impartiality in our reporting which display a lack of objectivity.

And a lack of objectivity leaves room for personal bias which is not acceptable in the journalism code of ethics.

The failure of the interim EMTV CEO, Lesieli Vete, to understand how a newsroom operates and a newsroom’s code of conduct led to the suspension of head of news Sincha Dimara.

Vete’s failure to try to understand the newsroom’s points of objectivity and impartiality in the stories led to her issuing of the statement portraying the newsroom as biased and in support of meth by sympathising with Pang’s employees and friends.

Vete’s statement served the purpose of explaining the leaked memo and portraying a bad picture of her newsroom.

Her statement lacked objectivity and impartiality because a written standpoint of the newsroom’s reasons for airing stories in the coverage of the Pang story were not included in her statement.

Suppression of media freedom
Vete’s questioning of our stance on running the story, and not showing any interest in learning nor understanding the way it was put together, led to further suppression of freedom of speech; direct and daily intimidation of senior and junior staff; micromanagement of staff whereabouts and activities; and direct and indirect threats of termination on staff.

The immense pressure to put a [news] bulletin together while being highly and closely monitored took a direct and serious toll on newsroom staff morale.

This created conditions that were suffocating to work under. A walk off was imminent.

We are making a stand now in solidarity against bullying and ill treatment of newsroom staff in the absence of news managers.

This is the third time we are experiencing a suppression of our right to freedom of speech, and we want it to stop once and for all.

After the suspension of Sincha Dimara, EMTV’s deputy news editor Jack Lapauve Jr is now the most senior news manager and he was with the walk out. He posted this commentary on his Facebook page and it is republished here with his permission.

When I arrived at my office at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji on the morning of 12 September 2001 (9/11, NY Time), I was oblivious to reality.

I had dragged myself home to bed a few hours earlier at 2am as usual, after another long day working on our students’ Wansolwara Online website providing coverage of the Fiji general election.

One day after being sworn in as the country’s fifth real (elected) prime minister, it seemed that Laisenia Qarase was playing another dirty trick on Mahendra Chaudhry’s Labour Party, which had earned the constitutional right to be included in the multi-party government supposed to lead the country back to democracy.

• READ MORE: 9/11 killed it, but 20 years on global justice movement is poised for revival
• ‘Fortress USA’: How 9/11 produced a military industrial juggernaut
• Jason Brown: 9/11 and a mango dawn – and here’s to the end of being Pacific pawns
• Other 9/11 reports

Stepping into my office, I encountered a colleague. He looked wild-eyed and said: “It’s the end of the world.”

Naively, I replied, thinking of the 1987 military coups,  “Yes, how can legality and constitutionality be cast aside so blatantly yet again?”

“No, not Fiji politics,” he said. “That’s nothing. I mean New York. Terrorists have destroyed the financial heart of the Western world.”

It was a chilling moment, comparable to how I had felt as a 17-year-old forestry science trainee in a logging camp at Kaingaroa Forest the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated — 22 November 1963.

Wansolwara newsroom
Over the next few hours, it seemed that half the Laucala campus descended on our Wansolwara newsroom to watch the latest BBC, TVNZ one and Fiji TV One coverage of the shocking and devastating tragedy.

While a handful of student journalists struggled to provide coverage of local angles — such as the tightening of security around the US Embassy in Suva and shock among the Laucala intelligentsia — most students remained glued to the TV, stunned into immobility by the suicide jetliner terrorists.

Inevitably, global jingoism and xenophobia followed, the assaults on Sikhs merely because they an “Arab look”, the attacks on mosques — in Fiji copies of the Koran were burned — and the abuse directed towards Afghan refugees were par for the course.

Freedom of speech in the United States also quickly became a casualty of this new “war on terrorism”. Columnists were fired for their critical views, television host Bill Maher was denounced by the White House, Doonesbury cartoonist Gary Trudeau dropped his “featherweight Bush” cartoons and so-called “unpatriotic” songs were dropped from radio playlists. Wrote Maureen Dowd of The New York Times:

Even as the White House preaches tolerance toward Muslims and Sikhs, it is practising intolerance, signalling that anyone who challenges the leaders of embattled America is cynical, political and – isn’t this the subtext? – unpatriotic.

But while much of the West lined up as political parrots alongside the United States, ready to exact a terrible vengeance, contrasting perspectives were apparent in many developing nations.

In the Pacific, for example, while people empathised with the survivors of the terrible toll — 2977 people were killed (including the 125 at the Pentagon), 19 hijackers committed murder-suicide, and more than 6000 people injured — there was often a more critical view of the consequences of American foreign policy and a sense of dread about the future.

Twin Towers reflections
Less than a week after the Twin Towers tragedy, I asked my final-year students to compile some notes recalling the circumstances of when they heard the news of the four aircraft slamming into the World Trade Centre Twin Towers and the Pentagon (one plane was taken over by the passengers and it dived into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania) and their responses.

One, a mature age student from Fiji who had worked for several years as a radio journalist, said:

I was in bed and woke up about 2.30am. I have a habit of having the BBC running on radio and, half-asleep, I caught the news being broadcast. I pulled myself out of bed and tuned into BBC on Sky TV. The second plane had just hit the second tower, and I ended staying up the rest of the night to watch the unfolding events.

On his impressions, he warned about scapegoats and the media:

The relevance to us here in the Pacific is that terrorists can strike anywhere to get revenge. This conflict could evolve into war, and wars affect everyone. Americans already think Osama bin Laden is the terrorist. Where is the evidence? Americans are looking to get someone quickly, and the media is leading the way.

Another student wrote:

Good, they [US] paid dearly for trying to intervene in Muslim countries … Bin Laden is portrayed as the culprit even though it is not clear who did it. The media is portraying the whole Muslim world as responsible, but actually this is not the case.

A practical joke?
Recalled one:

I was sleeping and my mother woke me up at 6.30am to tell me the news. I was shocked and, still sleepy, I thought my mother was doing one of her practical jokes to get me out of bed … If there is World War Three, it will have a big impact on the Pacific.

America still has some form of control over various Pacific Island countries, and once again it will recruit Pacific Islanders. Pacific Islands are relatively weak and still trying to be developed. Another hiccup could send our economies to the dogs.

Yet another:

I was at home having breakfast, listening to the news on Bula 100FM. My first reaction was disbelief, horror … Ethically, there is a need to remember the people involved and the amount of bloodshed and death. It would be necessary to censor material that would be emotionally upsetting.

One student was

really surprised to see TVNZ instead of the usual Chinese CCTV. The sound was mute so I couldn’t really get what was being said. I was about to turn it off when they showed the South Tower of the World Trade Centre collapse. I thought it was a short piece from the movie Independence Day.

Sad, it may seem, but the first thing I thought about as a journalist was that reporters will have a field day … Phrases such as “historical day the world over” and “America under siege” popped up in my head as possible headlines.

I got out my notebook and began writing down the number of people estimated to have died, the extent of the damage, an excerpts from President Bush’s speech. Practically anything that involves the US also affects many people throughout the world.

Inevitably, some commentators began drawing parallels between the terrorism in New York in mid-September 2001 at one end of the continuum of hate and rogue businessman and George Speight’s brief terrorist rule in Fiji during mid-2000 at the other end.

Terrorism as a political tool
Politics associate professor Scott MacWilliam, for example, highlighted how terrorism becomes a political tool deployed by a nation state to support its foreign and domestic policy objectives. He pointed out that many of the fundamentalist groups which now carried out terrorism were “nurtured, trained, financed and incorporated” into the Western security apparatus.

One might ask what had this terrible urban graveyard created by fanaticism got to do with the South Pacific. In a sense, there is a disturbing relationship.

Politics in the region, especially at that time, was increasingly being determined by terrorism, particularly in Melanesia, and much of it by the state. And with this situation comes a greater demand on the region’s media and journalists, for more training and professionalism.

At the time of  the 9/11 tragedy, Dr David Robie was head of journalism at the University of the South Pacific. This article has been extracted from a keynote speech that he made at the inaugural conference of the Pacific Islands Media Association (PIMA), “Navigating the Future”, at Auckland University of Technology on 5-6 October 2001. The full address was published by Pacific Journalism Review, No. 8.

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.

• READ MORE: NFP leader accuses Fiji government of creating ‘police state’ after arrest

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.

A Fiji opposition political leader has accused the government of a “transition to a police state” with middle of the night arrests of critics.

“Fiji’s transition to a police state is well under way,” said National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad after a former Fiji surgeon was arrested during the curfew on Tuesday night and following the detention of nine political dissenters last month.

“This is evidenced by the late-night arrest of Dr Jone Hawea in Lautoka and his immediate transfer to Suva for questioning,” Dr Prasad said.

• READ MORE: Fiji police arrest outspoken former surgeon over covid ‘misinformation’
• Other Fiji covid crisis reports

Dr Hawea was being arrested and intimidated because his views on vaccination did not conform with government policy.

“This is just the same as the detention of NFP MPs and activists last month because we disagreed with [the iTaukei Land] Bill 17,” Dr Prasad said in a statement today.

“These middle-of-the-night arrests happen regularly now. Charges are never laid.

“Arrested people are accused of ‘breaching public order’ but everyone knows this is not true. In fact, despite repeated provocations by the FijiFirst government, our people have remained peaceful and calm.

‘Nothing’ on human rights
“And we hear nothing from our alleged human rights champion, Mr Ashwin Raj.

“We hear nothing from the government’s chief legal officer, Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

“He is the one who coined the now-mocked phrase ‘true democracy’.

“Why is he, as a leading lawyer, not standing up for the democratic right of free speech?

“We are now a democracy in name only. We can only hope that the FijiFirst Party does not interfere with our rights to vote at the next election. Because most of us cannot wait to exercise those rights and throw them out.”

Fijivillage News reports that Dr Hawea is still in police custody and would be questioned again today.

It has received confirmation that Dr Hawea was being questioned for allegedly sharing “misinformation” about the covid-19 virus.

Fiji’s opposition MPs who were arrested after their criticism of a government land bill say they will not be intimidated or silenced.

Police have since released several leaders of the opposition who were arrested late Sunday.

One of those arrested, the National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad, said he was wanted in relation to his party’s criticism of government moves to amend the iTaukei Land Trust Act in Parliament in recent days.

• READ MORE: Former Fiji prime minister detained by police over Land Bill comments
• WATCH VIDEO: ‘Gutless Fiji government lacking courage and compassion’

After two hours of questioning, he was later released, telling RNZ Pacific that it felt like an attack on Fiji’s democracy.

“We don’t blame the police. This is coming from the government. They are using police to oppress the opposition’s political leaders, and that’s not the way democracy works.”

Prasad said the government failed to consult the public properly over the bill, and there are now calls to withdraw it because it is seen as abusing the rights of indigenous landowners.

“We are elected members of Parliament. Our job is to continue to speak and we are not going to be intimidated by such tactics by the government to silence the opposition who have an important contribution to make in the process of any lawmaking in the country.”

Accused of ‘malicious act’
Another leading opposition MP, Lynda Tabuya, was also taken into custody and accused of a “malicious act” by police for her social media posts about the Land Bill.

She said she was accused of a malicious act by police for criticising the government’s moves to push through an indigenous Land Bill.

Critics claim that an amendment removes a protection provided via the iTaukei Land Trust Board which was set up to protect indigenous landowners’ rights.

Tabuya had given a blunt message to Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama via social media:

“We are sick and tired of all the bullying and fear mongering. We are sick and tired of all the death and destruction allowed on your watch because of your recklessness,” she said.

“We are sick and tired because you don’t give a damn. You don’t give a damn about iTaukei, you don’t give a damn about human rights.”

The Fiji government and police have been approached for comment, but there has been no response for an interview.

However, over the weekend – before the arrests were made – Bainimarama did speak out for the first time condemning his opposition leaders on Facebook.

“These are a bunch of urban elite who are nothing but stirrers. Only a few control the show, and they become the gatekeepers of what is right and what is wrong.”

Bainimarama defended the government’s planned amendment to land legislation.

“Even this amendment makes ultimately iTaukei land a lot more attractive. It removes bureaucracy without undermining any of the protections. We should not be concerned about a piddly thing such as this when we should all be happy about it.”

Meanwhile, Acting Police Commissioner, Rusiate Tudravu said his officers were not questioning the politicians for the purpose of intimidation, but as a pro-active means to find out the truth.

He was reported in local media as saying not everyone who was brought in for questioning would be charged.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

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’.

• READ MORE: Days of Fiji ‘banana republic’ protests remembered in Bavadra reunion

“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.

The Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (SAFEnet) recorded 147 digital attacks in Indonesia during 2020, the majority of which targeted groups that are often critical of the government such as academics, journalists and activists.

“Throughout 2020 we found 147 incidents of digital attacks. As many as 85 percent of attacks were directed at critical groups. One of which was our academic colleagues,” said SAFEnet executive director Damar Juniarto during a discussion titled Freedom of Expression, the Law and the Dynamics of Development last week.

Juniarto said that journalists often experience doxing – the disclosure and dissemination of private data. Activists meanwhile experienced far worse incidents.

• READ MORE: West Papua media freedom articles

Juniarto gave as an example cases in Papua where activists have had their social media accounts taken over by unknown parties. Others have received food deliveries from online delivery apps which were never ordered.

“This kind of situation never occurred during the period of the previous (administration)”, said Juniarto.

Also speaking at the discussion, Airlangga University Faculty of Law lecturer Herlambang P Wiratraman said that the silencing of critics by the authorities had become increasingly complex.

Attempts to gag critics tended to take the form of digital attacks such as doxing, or disclosing and disseminating private data. On the other hand, efforts by censors, persecution and the jailing of critics were still taking place.

Producing hoaxes
“Things today are complex. In concert with technological development the method [used] to silence critics of the organisers of power isn’t by blocking access but through attacks by irrelevant information,” said Dr Wiratraman.

In other words, explained Dr Wiratraman, silencing critics in the digital era was also done by producing hoaxes. And the more complex the silencing of the media becomes the more it influenced the retreat of democracy in Indonesia.

Dr Wiratraman gave an example of when epidemiology expert Dr Pandu Riono from the University of Indonesia criticised the development of covid-19 drugs after which his social media account was hacked.

Then there was the case of Gajah Mada University student and resource persons in a study of the constitution in relation to impeaching the president.

“What became a question mark was that the committee, the discussion organisers could be stopped and [the discussion] closed down through digital attacks,” he said.

“They were even terrorised by means of sending food which hadn’t been ordered using an online motorcycle taxi, visited by unknown individuals, getting door-knocked,” he continued.

Nevertheless, Dr Wiratraman said that these two incidents were not surprising given that similar incidents had happened in the years before.

Journalists arrest
He also touched on the arrest of journalists and documentary film director Dandhy Laksono on the night of September 26, 2019.

Laksono was questioned by investigators from the Metro Jaya regional police special crimes detective directorate over alleged hate speech.

He was bombarded by 14 questions about a tweet on his Twitter account related to Papua and Wamena on September 23, 2019.

“Such as when Mas [Brother] Dandhy Laksono was brought in by police”, said Dr Wiratraman.

“Indeed digital attacks as well as attacks on campus have been unrelenting and even recorded since 2015”, he added.

Translated by James Balowski of IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Mayoritas Serangan Digital Menyasar Akademisi, Jurnalis dan Aktivis”.

Indonesian police have asked participants at a protest action against Special Autonomy (Otsus) in Papua to take covid-19 rapid tests at the site of the demonstration in front of the Home Affairs Ministry office in Jakarta this week, reports CNN Indonesia.

The protesters refused, saying it was an attempt to silence them.

Police Assistant Superintendant Budi asked all of the demonstrators at the Wednesday protest to take turns in undergoing a covid-19 rapid test. Police had provided healthcare works and rapid test for free.

• READ MORE: West Papuans reject jakarta plan for special autonomy extension
• Other West Papua articles

“Please protesters take a rapid test first to confirm that everyone here is safe from the [corona] virus pandemic”, said Budi from a police command vehicle in front of the Home Affairs Ministry office.

Budi said that the protesters needed to take a rapid because there were too many of them, adding that under the Micro Enforcement of Restrictions on Public Activities (PPKM) the maximum limit on a gathering was 10 people.

The police claimed that they wanted to ensure that the demonstrators were safe and even declared they would take firm action if the students failed to follow the rules.

“Before we [have to] take firm action, please follow the rules,” said Budi.

Papuan students refuse
The Papuan students however refused to take the rapid test saying that they felt that the rule was only intended to restrict freedom of expression.

“Regarding the rapid test, last December we also refused because there was no mandatory letter. So, we reject the rapid test. This is curbing democratic space for Papuan people on the grounds of Covid-19”, said one of the speakers, Ambrosius Mulait.

Police continued to appeal to the demonstrators but the Papuan students were reluctant to take a rapid test. Instead, they began singing together.

“Papua is not the red-and-white, Papua is not the red-and-white, Papua is the Morning Star, the Morning Star”, shouted the demonstrators, referring to the red-and-white Indonesian national colours and the Morning Star independence flag of Papua.

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Pedemo Otsus Papua Tolak Rapid Test di Depan Kantor Tito”.

When I first met Julian Assange more than 10 years ago, I asked him why he had started WikiLeaks. He replied: “Transparency and accountability are moral issues that must be the essence of public life and journalism.”

I had never heard a publisher or an editor invoke morality in this way. Assange believes that journalists are the agents of people, not power: that we, the people, have a right to know about the darkest secrets of those who claim to act in our name.

If the powerful lie to us, we have the right to know. If they say one thing in private and the opposite in public, we have the right to know. If they conspire against us, as Bush and Blair did over Iraq, then pretend to be democrats, we have the right to know.

• READ MORE: For years, journalists cheered Assange’s abuse. Now they have his path to a US gulag
• Assange’s UK detention violates international law – Australia must intervene

It is this morality of purpose that so threatens the collusion of powers that wants to plunge much of the world into war and wants to bury Julian alive in Trumps fascist America.

In 2008, a top secret US State Department report described in detail how the United States would combat this new moral threat. A secretly-directed personal smear campaign against Julian Assange would lead to “exposure [and] criminal prosecution”.

The aim was to silence and criminalise WikiLeaks and its founder. Page after page revealed a coming war on a single human being and on the very principle of freedom of speech and freedom of thought, and democracy.

The imperial shock troops would be those who called themselves journalists: the big hitters of the so-called mainstream, especially the “liberals” who mark and patrol the perimeters of dissent.

Fabricated character assassination
And that is what happened. I have been a reporter for more than 50 years and I have never known a smear campaign like it: the fabricated character assassination of a man who refused to join the club: who believed journalism was a service to the public, never to those above.

Assange shamed his persecutors. He produced scoop after scoop. He exposed the fraudulence of wars promoted by the media and the homicidal nature of America’s wars, the corruption of dictators, the evils of Guantanamo.

He forced us in the West to look in the mirror. He exposed the official truth-tellers in the media as collaborators: those I would call Vichy journalists. None of these imposters believed Assange when he warned that his life was in danger: that the “sex scandal” in Sweden was a set up and an American hellhole was the ultimate destination. And he was right, and repeatedly right.

The extradition hearing in London this week is the final act of an Anglo-American campaign to bury Julian Assange. It is not due process. It is due revenge. The American indictment is clearly rigged, a demonstrable sham. So far, the hearings have been reminiscent of their Stalinist equivalents during the Cold War.

Today, the land that gave us Magna Carta, Great Britain, is distinguished by the abandonment of its own sovereignty in allowing a malign foreign power to manipulate justice and by the vicious psychological torture of Julian – a form of torture, as Nils Melzer, the UN expert has pointed out, that was refined by the Nazis because it was most effective in breaking its victims.

Every time I have visited Assange in Belmarsh prison, I have seen the effects of this torture. When I last saw him, he had lost more than 10 kilos in weight; his arms had no muscle. Incredibly, his wicked sense of humour was intact.

As for Assange’s homeland, Australia has displayed only a cringeing cowardice as its government has secretly conspired against its own citizen who ought to be celebrated as a national hero. Not for nothing did George W. Bush anoint the Australian prime minister his “deputy sheriff”.

The Judases in the media
It is said that whatever happens to Julian Assange in the next three weeks will diminish if not destroy freedom of the press in the West. But which press? The Guardian? The BBC, The New York Times, the Jeff Bezos Washington Post?

No, the journalists in these organisations can breathe freely. The Judases on The Guardian who flirted with Julian, exploited his landmark work, made their pile then betrayed him, have nothing to fear.

They are safe because they are needed.

Freedom of the press now rests with the honourable few: the exceptions, the dissidents on the internet who belong to no club, who are neither rich nor laden with Pulitzers, but produce fine, disobedient, moral journalism – those like Julian Assange.

Meanwhile, it is our responsibility to stand by a true journalist whose sheer courage ought to be inspiration to all of us who still believe that freedom is possible. I salute him.

John Pilger is an Australian journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He has been mainly based in Britain since 1962. Pilger is a strong critic of American, Australian, and British foreign policy, which he considers to be driven by an imperialist and colonialist agenda. Quote: “It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas of the message and myths that surround it.”

By Simon Floth in Armidale, NSW

Julian Assange is scheduled to appear in a British court today for several weeks of hearings regarding the US attempt to extradite him.

This concerns Wikileaks obtaining and jointly publishing US-classified data with leading outlets in 2010.

Assange remains imprisoned for this, after serving a maximal sentence, ostensibly, for breaching bail in connection with a closed investigation for sexual assault allegations made by Swedish police.

• READ MORE: For years, journalists cheered Assange’s abuse. Now they have his path to a US gulag

Remand for extradition requires an indictment having been the basis of an arrest. Approval must then come from the Home Office for the Court to process the matter.

But Judge Vanessa Baraitser has scheduled a new arrest of Assange at the first hearing. Her rationale is that she is powerless to reject a superseding indictment – despite its submission a year past the deadline – or to accept it in any way apart from just:

• Presuming future arrest;
• Presuming Home Office approval on the day of the arrest;
• Leaving Assange incarcerated, though the basis for it had been removed when the US decided he would face a different indictment there.

Third indictment files
This third indictment was filed – to the detriment of a year of preparation made by the defence – late last month by US President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice.

His administration has often been described by the media as hostile toward it, in multiple contexts, including editorials in prestigious broadsheets opposing extradition of Assange.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits any law that abridges “freedom of speech, or of the press”.

Yet the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act have increasingly been used in contravention of that provision. Assange is accordingly facing 175 years in prison, effectively the term of his natural life, under conditions widely denounced as purposely inhumane.

The United Nations maintains that Britain must free and compensate Assange. So why has it not done that and why hasn’t Australia insisted on it?

The reason is essentially pretence, based on a shared agenda with the US.

Britain does not deny that it is bound to uphold the relevant international laws, because it incorporated them into its domestic law by way of ratification. Nor does it dispute the matter in further detail with the UN. It simply acts as if there is nothing to answer for.

Strictly bound
But unless the UN errs regarding their interpretation or application of these laws, the ratifying country is strictly bound to accord with any given ruling.

It can then be held to account, for instance, by journalists. Their role is to seek comment from that government regarding the UN view of how the law applies, report critically on resulting silence or statements as needed and repeat until the matter is resolved.

Yet the press has never seemed to realise that this is its job. As a consequence, many apparently feel there is nothing binding about international law.

Some even entertain the barbarous notion that without corporeal force to back them up, UN rulings and statements are just incidental fluff.

So when the media and society as a whole are negligent, courts and politicians get away with thumbing their noses at that UN and generally carrying on as if it did not exist.

Likewise for civil servants, as shown by a recent comment from Dennis Richardson, formerly Australia’s Director-General of Security, as well as Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Though he nodded to Australian intervention for a journalist in Egypt, that was different in his view, since Assange is in the UK and “last time I looked the UK was a liberal democracy”.

Arbitrary detention
By that line of reasoning, either the UN is mistaken to identify torture and arbitrary detainment in Britain, or there is no actual problem with that being perpetrated on our citizen there.”

In short, nothing calamitous would ever get past the “learned judges” in the UK, as Richardson describes those who preside over Assange’s “fate”.

Yet these judges show contempt for the position of the UN. This is not because they have a better sense of how the law applies in this case or are more impartial. On the contrary, just by virtue of being UK judges, they have a conflict of interest when appraising any ruling applicable to their country.

Nor have they generally been so qualified or familiar with details of the matter as the panel that spent 16 months weighing submissions from all parties. Britain also lost an appeal after having agreed to abide by the decision, which of course, it did not.

But according to Richardson – who effectively spoke for the generally mute leadership of Australia on this matter – so long as the UK is a democracy it should not be accountable to us for its treatment of Assange. If a democracy tortures our citizen, we can live with it.

While some let the matter slide this way, Britain is in violation of legal obligations as determined by the appropriate authority. It is unreasonable to hold that its courts should be left alone to continue in such violation.

The matter should be taken from the courts by the politicians that sent it to them. The prosecutor, judges and politicians should in the meantime be made cognisant of how they need to meet Britain’s obligations under the arrangements it committed to.

Pressured into compliance
Specific details of the case should not be excluded from that education, as the UK needs to be pressured into compliance by all civil means.

Yet the mainstream media has never taken this issue by the horns and is only just coming around from having contributed to the problem. It might have prevented or solved it and could still win the day, contingent on nothing but its own resolve.

Furthermore, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has ample power to successfully intervene for Assange and has been advised to that end by prominent legal experts, among others.

Indeed, how could Britain remain defiant if he so much as hints at commenting openly on its failure to comply with medical advice to move Assange to an adequate hospital?

If the press or Morrison are unprepared to act in these ways, it is mainly because of the catch-22 that Britain’s illegal and unconscionable action goes unremarked in public. Such quietude is no less malefic than meek, as it continues to enable outrages by leaving deferential trust in place.

To reiterate, as the authority to rule on such matters, the UN has found that Britain is mistreating a publisher for the US. This is no trifling technicality.

Australia can even sue Britain in its own courts if it fails to provide medical care that Assange has been determined to require. This would evidently leave the UK with no means to continue the pretence of due process.

Britain would simply capitulate
Yet long before it came to that, Britain would simply capitulate with whatever optics are needed to soften the blow to its pride.

The key phrase is “abuse of process” and the pivotal authority is the UN. With any passable media or parliamentary focus on these concepts, even Morrison will be swept along to rescue Assange. He has no means to improve on Richardson’s attempt to wave British abuses out of view, especially since the media began to reveal aspects of the broader injustice.

Some are apparently too proud of lacking sympathy for Assange to abide any defence of him. Nevermind if such defence is derived from politically motivated retribution for publishing authentic documents, found to be in the public interest by major outlets around the globe.

It seems they would sacrifice any point of difference with totalitarian regimes just to be sure that he doesn’t suffer any less than he might.

The Convention Against Torture (CAT) is ratified in the US, UK and Australia. Its second article states that:

‘No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.’

By article 1 of the CAT, every official who acquiesces with torture anywhere contributes to their state’s culpability for it.

The Australian consulate in London has not assisted or rescued Assange from documented torture. If that was part of its job, then the buck stops with Scott Morrison to ensure it does the job.

Likewise, if that was not its job then the buck stops with Scott Morrison to do the job himself or get Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne to do it.

Dr Simon Floth is an Australian analytical philosopher who has lectured in metaphysics and logic at the University of New England. This work is republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

• UK endangers Assange’s life by imprisoning him during covid-19
• Press freedom on trial: Chronicles from the Julian Assange extradition hearing
• Workers for Assange: Uniting to fight for Assange’s freedom
• Ending the torture of Julian Assange
• Open letter to Scott Morrison regarding Julian Assange

Former Papuan political prisoner Filep Karma says President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo promised to release Papuan political prisoners during his administration.

Widodo made this pledge, said Karma, to five of his fellow political prisoners in Jayapura, Papua, who were released in 2015, reports CNN Indonesia.

“When the Bapak [Mr] president released my five friends from prison in Jayapura, he told them, this is reconciliation and I will free all political prisoners,” said Karma, as quoted on the UK human rights group Tapol’s YouTube account on Friday.

READ MORE: Papuans Behind Bars – the facts

Now however, he said, the number of Papuan political prisoners had instead grown to 46 who were to this day still incarcerated in jail.

Karma said that he had personally made a request for their release with Justice and Human Rights Minister Yasonna Laoly. At the time, Karma asked Laoly to release four Papuan political prisoners who were incarcerated at the Nusa Kambangan penitentiary.

“He said that he would try to get them transferred from Nusa Kambangan to Ambon [North Maluku] and try to get them released. But to this day the four are still in prison,” he said.

Karma related how in Papua, a person could be arrested over free expression. They would be taken by the police to jail, detained and sentenced for years.

This, he said, began to improve when the international community put pressure on Indonesia and provided support to his group.

Later, however, Karma suspects that Indonesia has returned to handing out long sentences to Papuan political prisoners.

Voicing an opinion without suffering violence is not an easy thing for a Papuan person to do, he said. He claims to have once submitted a request for a permit to police to hold a Kamisan (Thursday) action in Papua, but it was rejected by the police.

Charged with treason
In February, seven Papuans were arrested and charged with makar (treason, subversion, rebellion) – Hengki Hilapok, Alexsander Gobai, Steven Itlay, Bucthar Tabuni, Irwanus Uropmabi, Fery Kombo and Agus Kossay.

All of them are being tried at the Balikpapan District Court in East Kalimantan on charges related to their alleged involvement in riots in Papua in late 2019.

In September 2015, President Widodo visited the Abepura Penitentiary in Kamkey, Kota Baru sub-district, Abepura.

There, he personally presented a letter of agreement granting clemency to five Papuan political prisoners. The five political prisoners who were released were Apotnalogolik Lokobal (sentenced to 20 years in prison), Numbungga Telenggen (life imprisonment), Kimanus Wenda (19 years in prison), Linus Hiluka (19 years) and Jefrai Murib (life imprisonment).

“On this day we have released five people, this is a whole-hearted effort by the government in the context of ending the stigma of conflict that exists in Papua,” said Widodo in his greetings as quoted in a release by the Cabinet Secretariat.

The president asserted that the clemency was an initial step in developing Papua without conflict.

“This is an initial [step], later after this it will be followed up by giving clemency or amnesty to other [prisoners] because there are around 90 people who are still in prison. Once again this is an initial start to the release [of prisoners],” said Widodo.

Discrimination towards Papuans
A human rights lawyer in Jayapura, Anum Siregar, believes that the government is discriminative and takes a different position towards Papuan people and other Indonesian citizens.

He said Papuans were easily arrested and charged with makar just because they flew the Morning Star independence flat or voiced their views. In one such case, those who were arrested were investigated without a lawyer and beaten.

“Meanwhile in Jakarta, people who talk about overthrowing the government, creating a new Parliament, a new country, are still not tried. There is discrimination between what happens in Papua and Jakarta,” he said.

Siregar said that repressive actions by the government would only worsen the situation in Papua. By continuing to arrest and detain political prisoners, he said, the government would instead create a greater desire for Papuan independence.

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft. The original title of the article was “Filep Karma Ungkap Janji Presiden Bebaskan Tapol Papua.”

Fiji’s NGO Coalition on Human Rights today condemned police for it called heavy-handed intimidation of students and staff at the regional University of the South Pacific, saying it was “deeply troubled” by the leadership saga.

“It is appalling to see the continued interventions and intimidation by the Fiji government and Fiji police at such a crucial time,” it said in a statement.

Police yesterday served a search warrant on The Fiji Times newspaper and confiscated at least three photographs of students protesting in support of their whistleblower vice-chancellor Professor Pal Ahluwalia.

READ MORE: Secret report reveals widespread salary and allowance rorts at USP

He was suspended by the USP Council executive committee on Monday in controversial circumstances.

“We strongly believe that a sustainable and working democracy must protect and ensure good governance, accountability and transparency at all levels,” said the coalition chair Nalini Singh.

“This has been incredibly lacking in the past few days, as we’ve seen the removal of USP vice-chancellor Professor Pal Aluwhalia and ongoing serious allegations of corruption and financial mismanagement.”

Peaceful protests and solidarity actions have been organised at campuses of the 12-nation university in Fiji and the Pacific in support of Professor Aluwhalia.

Students warned not to protest
Police have warned students against holding protests, said the USP Student Association.

“It is appalling to see police deny students and USP staff their fundamental right to freedoms of association and assembly,” said Singh.

“There is also concern on how this impacts on our regional relations as USP is a regional entity.

“This must be investigated by the relevant body without any heavy-handed intimidation from our government and the security forces.”

The coalition called on the Fiji government to “stop this harassment of USP students and staff” and ensure better accountability so that their grievances are met.

The police must also work within human rights standards, the coalition added.

In yesterday’s search of The Fiji Times, the warrant authorised of­fi­cers to ob­tain “video footage and pho­to­graph ar­ti­cles of USP staff and stu­dent protest dated 9 June 2020”.

Edi­tor-in-chief Fred Wes­ley said the news­pa­per was forced to hand over to po­lice three protest pho­to­graphs which were published in Wednesday’s news­pa­per.

He said other in­for­ma­tion re­quested by the po­lice re­lat­ing to the pho­to­graphs had been referred to the news­pa­per’s lawyers.

Forum chair says ‘work together’
Meanwhile, the Pacific Islands Forum (PIR) chair, Tuvalu Prime Minister Kausea Natano, today called on members to “work together, to chart a course forward” for the region’s premier tertiary education institution.

He said in a statement that USP was a “highly valued institution for educating the young minds of future leaders of our Blue Pacific”.

“As Pacific leaders and custodians of this vital institution of higher learning, we take pride in what the university stands for – a shining example of regionalism, and the benefits from pooling our collective resources for the betterment of our Pacific people,” Natano said.

He added that it was important to uphold the principles that bound the Pacific Islands Forum together – “good governance, respect, transparency, accountability and the rule of law”.

Timor-Leste’s Minister of Justice plans to present to the Council of Ministers a proposal to include criminal defamation in the country’s penal code.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and its affiliate the Timor-Leste Press Union (TLPU) have protested against the move that would undermine press freedom and public interest journalism, reports IFJ.

The proposal to introduce a law of criminal defamation to Timor-Leste’s penal code (Articles 187-A to 187-F) stipulates that any person who publicly states and publishes through social media “facts” or “opinions” that may offend the honour, good name and reputation of a current or previous member of government, church official or any public official can be prosecuted and punished with up to three years in prison.

READ MORE: Ramos-Horta slams criminal libel plan – threat to rights in Timor-Leste

Media rights groups say the new law will have far reaching consequences as it criminalises actual expressions of one’s opinion and even criminalises a third person sharing this information.

The IFJ has addressed its concerns in a letter to Prime Minister Taur Matan Ruak.

The proposed law inadequately defines “offences” and places the legal burden of proving that a story is true upon the journalist and/or publisher.

The offences would carry between one to three years’ imprisonment. A person who offends against a dead person can also be punished with a prison sentence.

TPLU says: “This bill contradicts the Timor-Leste constitution in articles 40-41 concerning freedom of expression and freedom of the press. We from TLPU condemned this law.

“The government is trying to use a national emergency opportunity to endorse this bill with the aim of punishing those who berate leaders and politicians, but in our opinion this is to criminalise journalists and all citizens who criticize the government.”

The IFJ said: “We urge the government of Timor-Leste to take the necessary steps to ensure the proposal does not make it into the penal code.

“If laws to criminalise defamation are adopted this will mark a retreat from a commitment to democracy and an open society which has been to the very great credit of Timor-Leste.”

Former national president and Nobel Prize winner Jose Ramos-Horta and former prime minister and leader of the majority Fretilin party, Dr Mari Alkatiri, earlier this week criticised the draft law being “rushed” through Parliament and its impact on press freedom.

Former East Timorese President José Ramos-Horta says it is not opportune for the government to be debating the possible criminalisation of defamation, with the risk of jeopardising citizens’ rights.

Instead, he says, the Timor-Leste government should concentrate on issues like the economy.

“I don’t think it is a priority issue for the government. Instead of the government and the parliament wasting energy and time discussing new laws, which will constrain our democracy, it is better that they focus on the dynamisation of our economy that is completely paralysed.” he told the Portuguese news agency Lusa.

READ MORE: Criminal defamation in Timor-Leste

Ramos-Horta reacted yesterday to the news advanced by Lusa on Saturday that the Timorese government wants to criminalise defamation and injuries in response to situations of offence of honour, good name and reputation of individuals and entities, in the media and social networks.

The proposed measures, introduced in a draft decree-law to amend the Penal Code, prepared by the Ministry of Justice and to which Lusa had access, provide for prison sentences for defamation and injuries, for the crime of offending the prestige of a person. collective or similar, and the crime of offending the memory of a deceased person.

“I appeal to the Prime Minister to tell the government that we have other priorities. Let us give our society total freedom to speak and criticise,” said Ramos-Horta.
|
“It is what the Prime Minister must do, to show that he is above any suspicion of wanting to hamper public opinion and citizens’ rights,” he stressed.

‘Draconian’ laws
Ramos-Horta recalled that some laws already passed in the media sector were considered “draconian” at the international level, contributing to lower Timor-Leste’s rating in terms of press freedom.

“I don’t see how this new law will help freedom of expression in Timor-Leste and the name of Timor-Leste as a full democracy”, he stressed.

The Timorese historical leader also criticised the fact that the proposal mixes social networks – “which are almost like a coffee conversation” with the media, even if using new technologies and platforms.

“I do not see that over the years the proliferation of social networks has affected in any way, the security, peace or development of the country and the dignity or prestige of the government,” he said.

“Governors are individuals like everyone else. It is not because they are President, Prime Minister or deputies that they are suddenly untouchable people,” he said.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner says that it is “preferable for the good name of those who are open to government” and to act only in cases where “incitement to racial violence or hatred” is taken.

Parliamentary assaults
As an example, he mentions the incidents last month in the Timorese National Parliament, with assaults between deputies, overturned tables, shouting, shoving and the intervention of police officers.

“There has been no greater unrest than what has happened in Parliament. The media has faithfully reported what happened, as it reports bombastic statements that some leaders have made against each other, from different sides,” he said.

“If we do not want the media and social networks to report embarrassing things that do not dignify, let us behave with greater civility,” he said.

Even so, Ramos-Horta asked journalists to be more careful to prove facts before reporting the news, noting that there have been such examples in the country’s media.

The Pacific Media Centre republishes Antonio Sampaio‘s articles with permission.

Protests in at least 30 cities across the US following the police killing of George Floyd have resulted in violent attacks from police and protesters alike against journalists, reports Reporters Without Borders.

Dozens of incidents have been reported so far, ranging from threats to serious physical assaults.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned these attacks in the strongest possible terms and calls for immediate measures to protect journalists.

READ MORE: Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index 2020

Thomasian priests Fr Albert Alejo and Fr Flaviano Villanueva have posted P10,000 (NZ$310) bail each after a judge issued a warrant of arrest in connection with their sedition case.

“Nag-piyansa na kami Fr Flavie at sumama [na] rin si Fr Robert [Reyes] at mga abogado namin. Napirmahan [na] kahapon ang warrant of arrest,” Fr Alejo told The Varsitarian.

The pre-trial conference and arraignment of the case were set fo March 17, according to a court order that granted their temporary liberty.

READ MORE: Philippines court orders arrest of Trillanes, 10 others on sedition charge

The case stems from allegations by ex-convict Peter Advincula who tagged the priests, four bishops and political figures in an alleged “destablisation plot” against the Duterte administration involving the Ang Totoong Narcolist (The True Narcolist) video series, which linked the president and his family to the illegal drug trade.

The Department of Justice, however, dismissed the charges against Novaliches Bishop Emeritus Teodoro Bacani Jr., Cubao Bishop Honesto Ongtioco, Caloocan Bishop Pablo Virgilio David, Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas, and 22 other individuals on February 10.

The Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 138 on Thursday also ordered the arrest of former senator Antonio Trillanes IV, Peter Advincula, or “Bikoy,” and nine other individuals accused of plotting to destabilise the government.

Senior Assistant State Prosecutor Olivia Torrevillas on Thursday said the 11 individuals were charged with “conspiracy” to commit sedition, not “inciting” to sedition, since there was no clear act to cause an uprising.

Fr Alejo obtained his bachelor’s degree from the University of Santo Tomas in Manila. He was also a Varsitarian Filipino writer.

Joenner Paulo L. Enriquez and Ma. Alena O. Castillo are reporters for the student newspaper The Varsitarian. Republished under a Creative Commons licence.

A Philippines court has issued arrest warrants against former senator Antonio Trillanes IV and 10 other people for conspiracy to commit sedition, the court confirmed.

The branch clerk of Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 138 confirmed today that the warrants had been issued by Judge Kristine Grace Suarez to all 11 charged in a case over the so-called Bikoy Ang Totoong Narcolist (The True Narcolist) videos.

The accused, including two priests, will be arraigned on Monday at 2 pm.

READ MORE: Trillanes, from mutiny to amnesty

As many as three people have posted bail at P10,000 (about NZ$310) each, said the clerk. The clerk refused to disclose their identities but two of those who posted bail were priests Flaviano Villanueva and Albert Alejo.

A copy of the warrants were also not provided.

Besides Trillanes, the 10 others charged are:

Peter Joemel Advincula, alias Bikoy
Fr Flaviano Villanueva
Fr Albert Alejo
Yoly Ong-Villanueva
Boom Enriquez
Jonnell Sanggalang
JM Saracho
Eduardo Acierto
Vicente Romano
A certain “Monique”

Last year, Advincula accused members of the opposition, as well as ranking figures in the Catholic Church and human rights lawyers, of conspiring to oust President Rodrigo Duterte through what he claimed was an operation code-named Project Sodoma, which involved producing and releasing the narcolist videos.

Robredo cleared
On Monday, February 10, the Department of Justice filed charges against Trillanes and 10 others over the Bikoy videos but cleared Vice-President Leni Robredo, senators Leila de Lima and Risa Hontiveros, former senator Bam Aquino, former Magdalo representative Gary Alejano, and Otso Diretso candidates Erin Tañada, Chel Diokno, and Florin Hilbay.

All complaints against human rights lawyers, bishops, and members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines were also dropped.

Trillanes, a fierce critic of Duterte, was first arrested under the Duterte administration on September 2018, when he was a sitting senator, for the charge of rebellion. This stemmed from Duterte’s Proclamation No. 572 which sought to revoke the amnesty granted to him in connection to the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege.

The opposition and human rights groups slammed the September 2018 arrest as part of the Duterte government’s crackdown on vocal critics.

Published under a Creative Commons licence.

• Bikoy vs Bikoy – the video tapes controversy