On July 15 and 16, I attended the Regional Symposium on the Criminalization of Free Speech, Expression and Opinion in Asia in Jakarta, Indonesia. The symposium marked the end of Frank La Rue’s, the UN Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, visit to the Southeast Asian region.

The symposium covered a number of different themes, from repressive legislation (one of the key concerns in Cambodia) to threats faced by human rights activists and the State sanctioned killing of journalists.

Decriminalize Free Speech

La Rue opened the symposium with a clear message: free speech needs to be decriminalized. Authoritarian regimes used to employ force to intimidate the population. However, this came at a huge political cost and these regimes are now “intimidating with the law.” La Rue underlined that the international community, including the United Nations, has not opposed this tactic forcefully enough.

The Special Rapporteur emphasized that he believes exceptional limitations on freedom of expression are necessary, but these should only be used in a democratic society (notably one where the judiciary is capable of interpreting the law according to international standards). For example, the use of incitement to crackdown on pamphleting in Cambodia is “absurd.” Where censorship is necessary – for example, with hate speech and child pornography – an independent body, and not the State, should apply these exceptions. “When government gets to control content, it goes to the benefit of political power. These censorship laws become an excuse for governments to limit freedom of expression,” said La Rue.

Repressive legislation and impunity

One of the key themes emerging from all panels, with delegates representing Southeast Asia and South Asia, was the use of legislation to undermine the work of human rights activists, as well as the total impunity of those who commit human rights violations.

In Thailand, the lèse majesté law is a key concern. Pravit Rojanaphruk, a journalist from Thailand, explained how the line between defamation and criticism of the monarchy is blurred. There is also no transparency as to the number of people detained under the law. A recent estimate stood at 300 people charged with an estimate 11 detained. Naturally, the threat of criminal sanctions under the law has a ‘chilling’ effect on freedom of expression.

In Cambodia, three enacted laws (and two laws in draft form) give the government significant control over civil society. A discussion between Kek Pung, the President of LICADHO, and delegates demonstrated the total absurdity of the situation. Pung asked for suggestions on how to address this issue in Cambodia. The panelists offered some feedback, all deemed inapplicable in the Cambodian context: the friendly parliamentarians are the opposition, but their leader, Sam Rainsy, is in exile. Commissioners at the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights’ (AICHR) are appointed and dismissed by national governments. Donors are mum, some in collusion with the government while others do not want to rock the boat.

In Malaysia, a mix of secular and religious laws are used to crack down on minority religious groups, as well as political movements and more liberal Muslim groups. “Silencing opinion and expression in Malaysia happens not only for crimes against religion, but all forms of dissent against government policies and political powers. It is not peculiar for the government to crackdown on defaming Islam, because they do so on all forms of difference in opinion, period,” explained Masjaliza Hamzah, Executive Director of the Center for Independent Journalism in Malaysia.

Ending human rights violations

In his closing speech, La Rue listed concrete suggestions on how CSOs and NGOs could end government impunity and promote human rights. He drew primarily on experiences in Guatemala, his home country.

For example, he suggested the establishment of independent national investigative bodies such as the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala. While this Commission does not have the power to prosecute, it does the investigatory work in human rights crimes. He also suggested persuading each country to adopt a national human rights commission.

La Rue also discussed the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Although it was at first riddled with its own set of challenges, he praised it for providing justice and in some cases saving lives. He compared this to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), which was founded in 2009, and has been described as toothless. La Rue suggested that having the mechanism in place is a first step; regional civil society bodies should now push the AICHR by referring cases and lobbying for greater impartiality in its commissioners.

As a Special Rapporteur, he highlighted the role these individuals play in highlighting human rights abuses. For example, issuing a press release during a Rapporteur’s visit can serve to draw media attention to certain issues. He noted that the Special Rapporteurs can go beyond their immediate mandate, allowing them to leverage a relatively ‘non-political’ mandate. For example, the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation can deal with everything from water containment to land evictions and the role of big corporations in environmental pollution.

Encouraging a grassroots movement

While interesting, these suggestions seemed to illustrate how intractable the situation is in Cambodia. NGOs like LICADHO are drawing on all the resources suggested by the Special Rapporteur. Yet, this is not enough.

However, it does seem that one last avenue, not specifically mentioned by La Rue, has not been sufficiently leveraged. In retrospect, it seems self-evident: the population needs to start lobbying on a mass scale for change and civil society groups need to promote and support this. However, abuse by the police and unfair criminal sentencing by the judiciary has a damning effect on these efforts. Moreover, people have not forgotten the country’s harsh history.

Yet, there is proof that such lobbying is possible and (somewhat) effective: in 2008, a nation-wide thumb printing petition campaign collected over one million signatures in favor of passing the long-awaited Anti-Corruption law. While the law was not adopted until 2011, it does suggest that there is a population willing to be mobilized and capable of organizing itself.

- Communications and/or journalism background

- Experience with web development

- Be willing to relocate to Phnom Penh for a minimum of three months

- Have an interest in human rights issues

This past week I started writing a brief on the use of repressive legislation in Cambodia to restrict freedom of expression and related rights like freedom of association and assembly. With a majority in Parliament, the ruling Cambodian’s People Party has passed or is about to pass legislation that could be used to legitimize their crackdown on human rights defenders, NGOs, journalists and other concerned parties critical of the government.

Penal Code

The new Cambodian Penal Code was passed in December 2010. It replaces the former UNTAC Penal Code. While the new Penal Code does not contain the same UNTAC disinformation clause (which has been used to jail journalists and wrongfully convict other individuals), it creates a number of new crimes susceptible to abuse. This includes a provision for “incitement” which is defined as incitement to commit a crime or incitement of “serious turmoil in society.” Shortly after the passage of the new Penal Code, World Food Program staff member Seng Kunnaka was convicted on the charge of criminal incitement for printing and sharing material from the website ki-media, an online blog critical of the government [Incidentally, as I write this, my access to ki-media is down again. There are rumours the government is having it blocked]. The government is not hiding one of the new Code’s purposes: “Before, using the argument of ‘freedom of expression’ and opposition party status, some people could insult anybody or any institution. This is not the case now,” said the Cambodian Minister of Information.

For a more in-depth analysis of the new Penal Code provisions, check out this report.

Demonstrations Law

The Demonstrations Law was adopted in 2009. It makes it de facto necessary to receive authorization to protest. Demonstrations can be refused if they harm the rights to “freedom and honour of others, good customs of society and national security”. This differs from the ICCPR article which allows for limits on demonstrations only on the basis of “public safety, public order, public health or morals.” Moreover, the law fails to provide judicial redress in cases where authorization is refused. The Centre for Cambodian Human Rights Report also suggests that the law has been used before to crackdown on private meetings. Finally, and possibly the most disconcerting part of the law for the moment, is the creation of “Freedom Parks” across the country. These “Freedom Parks” are areas where protestors can hold protests after providing 12 hours notice. While the parks do not exclude the use of other public venues, there are concerns they may still be used to isolate and neutralize demonstrations.

Anti-Corruption Law

The third law is the Anti Corruption Law passed in May 2011. While a number of corrupt officials have been charged under the law, there are allegations that these charges are more related to factional splits in the ruling party than to corruption in Cambodia. A number of provisions are problematic. In particular, the law does not provide adequate protections for whistleblowers and thus discourages people from coming forward.

Draft Trade Union Law

The draft law contains a number of provisions that offer the government an opportunity to legitimize their crackdown on the trades union sector through the courts. Several articles of the law blatantly violate the International Labor Organization Convention No. 87 (see this article by article analysis of the law). Key concerns include the inclusion of criminal penalties and hefty fines that could be used to threaten union leaders from speaking out against the government. Vague language contained in the law could also be used by the government to curtail freedom of expression. For example, the provision outlawing demonstrations for “purely political purposes” could be used to prevent legal demonstrations or strikes in opposition of government policies.

Draft Associations and NGO Law

This law is currently in draft form, but it is expected that the government will try and pass the law before the end of the year. In violation of freedom of association protected under the Cambodian Constitution and the ICCPR, the law enforces the mandatory registration of associations and NGOs (see this analysis by LICADHO). It also imposes a number of burdensome registration requirements, which would severely restrict the operation of rural grassroots groups with limited resources. It gives authorities unbounded discretion to approve registration applications, with few guidelines to transparently steer these decisions. There is no appeals process if registration is denied. The law is also loosely drafted, giving it an apparently unlimited scope.

In its current form, the law would likely lead to the outlawing of several informal groups which do not want to register with the government or do not have the capacity. These informal networks give a voice to a number of vulnerable groups including sex workers. The likely closure of grassroots NGOs and associations, which provide information to international donors, could impair economic development in Cambodia. With the press muzzled and the private sector often complicit in human rights violations, NGOs are the last body able to report on human rights abuses and corruption in Cambodia.

Apparently a couple of embassies in Phnom Penh (but not the US embassy), when first faced with the Associations & NGO Law, thought it was a perfectly reasonable law to have in place. After all, many Western countries do have some kind of Association and NGO law. What they failed to consider was the Cambodian context. Most importantly, there is no judiciary to enforce the law fairly (see Cambodia’s recent ranking as 35/36 on the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index) or to create a body of precedent that would narrow or at least purposively develop the ambiguity of many of these provisions. Rather, new laws give the government something to point at when they decide to shut down an NGO, move a protest to a Freedom Park or fine a union leader. New laws make it harder to argue that the government is acting out of bounds.

The content and opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of nor are they endorsed by LICADHO or its affiliates.

From Marc Lynch, 

Tyson and Chandrasekaran were both frank about the limitations of trying to speak to Iraqis or Afghans from within a military embed (hopping out of a military vehicle and surrounded by large men with guns is not always the best way to strike up a conversation — through a translator — with locals).  The U.S. military’s decision to shift to a population-centric COIN strategy created more and better opportunities for such contacts, intriguingly. Both mentioned the great value of stringers, Iraqis who could get out into their communities, and who help constitute an effective overall team.  Such use of stringers is essential but raises its own problems, of course – including, not least, their own safety.    I pointed out my dismay at the number of books about Iraq written by even very good journalists which fail to quote or take heed of Iraqis themselves.  Anthony Shadid was brought up several times as an exception, but what makes Shadid exceptional is that he is, in fact, exceptional in this regard both in terms of his Arabic language and his access (ditto Nir Rosen and a few others).

As I mentioned earlier this month when reflecting on some work I did in Garissa, Kenya’s North Eastern Province, the use of stringers seems like an increasingly appealing option for gathering news for an international audience. As a White female foreigner and Westerner, Somali men were not interested in sharing their difficulties as honestly or as readily as they might have with a Somali reporter writing for both local and international press. In the long-run, stringers seem to a more fair and sustainable option. Building capacity of local reporters to file internationally, while cutting costs. The big clincher, of course, is how to protect stringers and give them due credit. 

Also – are there experiences where stringers have community/family allegiances that compromise their work. Thoughts?

Over the past few years, I have tried to sort out my career priorities and the merits of each. Essentially, I want long-term employment that allows me to travel. I want my curiosity – a bottomless resource – to be exploited by whoever may find it useful. I want my interests and experience in particular subjects to grow and expand. I would not mind becoming an “expert” in a few specific topics. My two keys to this “dream situation” have been journalism and development. Both, I continue to realize, have large limitations.

I was taking photos of the watering hole at the bottom of this post when a young Somali-Kenyan grabbed my camera and told me to leave. I was not taking pictures of his animals or of his living space and family. I was solely focused on getting a shot of the small sized-lake which was, surprisingly, brimming with water. My host told the man off and later recounted that there were certain expectations of wazungu – mostly that we were of American CIA origins. Particularly women since they are easier to trust with information. Apparently the BBC Somali Service, inevitably, implants certain ideas about Western cultures through reporting on American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

While not shaken by the incident – this seems to happen increasingly to me – I am frustrated by the overall setting. I am a foreigner in a country I am not always welcome in. My job – reporting on whatever may be around me – is often challenged by the fact that local populations do not want to be a part of the process. I can’t blame them, I would not want to be either. I can’t speak Somali; I am a woman. Despite being dressed in full Somali female garb, I am not readily accepted. As the wars continue in Iraq and Afghanistan, I remain a threat because of my skin color and foreign accent. Of course, all these facts are unsurprising. However, in the long-run, I can’t help but think that the closing of foreign media offices hopefully leading to more local stringers working on an international scale is a great development in media. This equation, though, leaves me out of a job.

The following day, I conducted a series of interviews in the Abakore Primary School. We were talking to students who had transitioned from mobile schools in the bush to the mainstream establishments. Two girls and two boys showed up for the interview. As it was my responsibility to gather and develop their stories, I asked them a series of questions in English, translated into Somali. The children though, partially terrified of my accent, foreign mannerism and white skin, were not keen on answering. Despite being pressed by their Somali interpreters, they remained mute for the most basic of questions. So, field-visits in development also have their limitations – once again, by the default of my skin color and accent, I alienate myself from getting any work done. I also become superfluous to the whole process. Perhaps that’s something foreigners working in host countries need to be reminded of regularly: we are not essential for anything. We’re just a part of the wheel – one that often causes other things to break down.

While not all regions in Kenya have proven to be this hostile to my work (I did some great interviews in Kisumu for example), I am regularly reminded that I should question my role in this country and its overall relevance. No matter what work you do as a foreigner – from local media to development – someone from the community can do it better (and cheaper).

I will be doing a bit of editorial advising over the coming months with The First Drop. However, in order for any advising to be done, we’re looking for a set of founding contributors!

Writing opportunities with The First Drop

We want to provoke passionate, informed and accountable discussion among Canada’s next generation of leadership. We plan to do this by supporting a slate of contributors with widely varying views, and pushing them to generate the most enlightening discussion possible. We are now accepting applications for the first round of contributors.

Contributors! We Want You!

We’re looking for about 20 people who will become the core of the community at The First Drop: our founding contributors, ready to roll as we launch in the next month or so.

Contributors will write 1-3 short articles a month on a topic that matters for Canada’s future. That’s the subject: Canada’s future. In any way you choose. Politics, business, civil society, it’s all good. From what perspective? Legal, artistic, entrepreneurial, military, academic or the snowboard shop. East, West or North (we don’t really have a South, do we?), you’re all welcome. Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc, Green. C’mon in. We don’t care, so long as you can write a good, reasoned, reality-based piece and trigger a great conversation.

Actually, that’s what we really care about – the conversations that emerge from your writing. Have a voice, but no way to get it out there? TFD can be that way. Have a blog or book already? TFD can help you reach a bigger audience and draw in new perspectives. Just want to help us create a community of future Canadian leaders? Great.

Interested? Have a look at our Guidelines to get an idea of what we’re looking for, fire Brendan an email with any thoughts or questions, or just apply and let us know you’re interested.

A picture (courtesy of TMS Ruge) from my interview with Binyavanga Wainana on Friday in London. Blog & article to follow.

Some thoughts on the Kampala Riots: In Uganda, Twitter and Facebook challenge Western media hegemony.

A new dawn for tomorrow’s news. Where does success lie? In the non-profit sector:

America will never have a BBC. The government funding isn’t there. What we do have, though, is a tremendous increase in enthusiasm and initiative that, in the age of the Internet, counts for more than transmitters and printing presses. The retreat of the giant corporations and conglomerates is creating the opportunity for fresh structures to emerge. It remains to be seen whether foundations, wealthy donors, and news consumers will step forward to support them. (Nonprofit Web sites and public broadcasters, it is worth noting, are, in effect, partly subsidized by the public, through the tax deductions taken for the grants and donations made to them.)

I’ve picked up a small gig at a radio station in Australia. Basically, I’ll be on air once a month, from Nairobi, to talk about news from across the African continent. Feel free to send in suggestions.