Written by Guest Contributor · comments (1)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

A PDF of the letter is available here. For more background on the WCIT, see our policy post, Civil Society Must Have Voice as ITU Debates the Internet, and our ITU resource page.

Civil society organizations and academics are invited to join this call to address deficiencies in the WCIT process. For more information, contact signon@cdt.org.

17 May 2012

To Secretary-General Dr. Hamadoun Touré, the Council Working Group to Prepare for the WCIT-12, and ITU Member States:

The undersigned human rights advocates, academics, freedom of expression groups, and civil society organizations write to express our desire to participate in the preparatory process undertaken for the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT).  The current preparatory process lacks the transparency, openness of process, and inclusiveness of all relevant stakeholders that are imperative under commitments made at the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS).  We ask that the Secretary-General, the Council Working Group, and Member States work to resolve these process deficiencies in several concrete ways.  

 

The continued success of the information society depends on the full, equal, and meaningful participation of civil society stakeholders (along side the private sector, the academic and technical community, and governments) in the management of information and communications technology, including both technical and public policy issues.  Indeed, WSIS outcome documents recognize the need for a multi-stakeholder approach in technical management and policy decision-making for ICTs.   The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society urges international organizations “to ensure that all stakeholders, particularly from developing countries, have the opportunity to participate in policy decision-making … and to promote and facilitate such participation.”   And such participation depends on transparency and openness of process at every stage of substantive and procedural dialogue.  

Yet there has been scant participation by civil society in the Council Working Group’s preparatory process for the WCIT so far, even as media reports indicate that some Member States have proposed amending the International Telecommunication Regulations to address issues that could impact the exercise of human rights in the digital age, including freedom of expression, access to information, and privacy rights.  Under the current process, civil society participation is severely limited by restrictions on sharing of preparatory documents, high barriers for ITU membership (including cost), and lack of mechanisms for remote participation in preparatory meetings.  

 

As an important step towards fulfilling WSIS commitments for building a more inclusive information society, the undersigned request that the Secretary-General, the Council Working Group, and Member States:

• Remove restrictions on the sharing of WCIT documents and release all preparatory materials, including the Council Working Group’s final report, consolidated reports from all preparatory activity, and proposed revisions to the International Telecommunication Regulations; 
• Open the preparatory process to meaningful participation by civil society in its own right and without cost at Council Working Group meetings and the WCIT itself, providing formal speaking opportunities and according civil society views an equal weight as those of other stakeholders.  Facilitate remote participation to the extent possible; and
• For Member States, open public processes at the national level to solicit input on proposed amendments to the International Telecommunication Regulations from all relevant stakeholders, including civil society, and release individual proposals for public debate.  

We welcome Secretary-General Touré’s commitment to creating a more inclusive information society and ensuring equitable access to ICT around the world.  Collectively and individually, the undersigned human rights advocates, academics, freedom of expression groups, and civil society organizations work to fulfill this vision through a range of national and global institutions and we call for the same opportunity to engage at the WCIT, consistent with WSIS commitments.  We urge you to ensure the outcomes of the WCIT and its preparatory process truly represent the common interests of all who have a stake in the future of our information society.  

Sincerely,

Access

Article 19

Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

Eduardo Bertoni, Centro de Estudios en Libertad de Expresión y Acceso a la 

Información (CELE), Universidad de Palermo, Argentina

Bytes for All, Pakistan

Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)

Center for Democracy & Technology

Center for Technology and Society (CTS/FGV), Brazil

Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), India

Consumers International

Digitale Gesellschaft e.V.

Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights

Electronic Frontier Foundation

European Digital Rights

Freedom House

Global Partners & Associates

Global Voices Advocacy

Human Rights in China

Human Rights Watch

Internet Democracy Project, India

Internet Governance Project (IGP)

Kictanet, Kenya

Rebecca MacKinnon

MobileActive Corp

New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute

ONG Derechos Digitales, Chile

Open Rights Group

Panoptykon Foundation, Poland

Public Knowledge

Reporters sans frontières / Reporters Without Borders

World Press Freedom Committee

Written by Guest Contributor · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

In 2005, amidst heated debates in the run-up to the World Summit on the Information Society about the Internet's future a group of eminent experts – including Lawrence Lessig, Richard M. Stallman and Stefano Rodotà – issued an appeal for a “Charter of Rights for the Net” in response to what they saw as growing threats to the public interest dimension of the Internet. The Internet Rights and Principles coalition was formed in answer to this call.

The Internet Rights and Principles coalition is one of the dynamic coalitions created under the auspices of the Internet Governance Forum. We are an open multi-stakeholder network of individuals and organisations committed to upholding human rights standards in Internet governance policies and processes.

Reflecting on the 2011 Internet Governance Forum in Kenya, it is clear the Internet Rights and Principles coalition’s vision of upholding human rights standards in Internet governance is more challenging, and more important, than ever.

It is well established that the Internet is a hugely important tool for defending human rights – it allows us to share information about human rights abuses globally in real time, to build communities with shared values, and to mobilize and collaborate to demand change. It also allows us to more fully realize our human rights, particularly the right to freedom of expression which incorporates not only receiving information, but also seeking and imparting it. At the same time, the internet presents many challenges for human rights such as persistent digital divides, censorship, and privacy violations. The internet is changing rapidly, and as governments –for reasons both legitimate and illegitimate – seek to effect greater control of the medium, and businesses seek to monetise it, we risk losing the open nature of the Internet, and with that much of the potential to shape a more egalitarian world.

“Technology is neither good, nor bad, nor is it neutral” so goes Kranzberg’s first law of technology. The challenge for human rights advocates is multifaceted. We must seek to use the tools to advance progressive values, at the same time we must seek to shape the environment, to protect and expand its potential as a human rights enabling space.

Over the past few years the IRP has, through online wikis, email discussions, and widespread consultation elaborated a Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet. The Charter applies existing human rights standards to the Internet, explaining what they mean in the new emerging environment. The Charter also elaborates internet policy principles, such as network neutrality, which are not direct translations of human rights standards but which are necessary to create an ecosystem which supports human rights.

The Charter is an evolving document, the latest version can be read here. At the 2010 IGF in Vilnius we decided that a shorter, “punchier” advocacy document was needed. A small group formed to distil the Charter down into 10 key principles. The 10 IRPs were launched in March 2011 and have to date been translated into more than 20 languages by volunteers.

The environment that the IRP is working within is changing rapidly. In recent years efforts to control the Internet are growing. The OpenNet Initiative, for example, finds an ever-increasing array of countries engaging in some forms of online blocking and filtering. Many governments are tiring of the multi-stakeholder dialogue model of internet governance embodied in the IGF and are instead turning to state-dominated institutions such as WIPO and the OECD. Others are calling for a new global internet policy body. The form such a body might take is still open but there are real fears that it would not be as open to civil society participation and that, as a consequence, human rights concerns would be given less weighting. In addition, given the open and flexible nature of the Internet there’s a concern that government control will be too bureaucratic and slow paced to facilitate rapid growth and change.

In a parallel trend, the last year has seen a proliferation of initiatives advancing sets of principles for Internet governance. These include the OECD Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy‐Making released in June 2011; the Council of Europe Internet Governance Principles; and the on-going Aspen Institute International Digital Economy Accords. Some of these initiatives represent governmental attempts to define principles, others represent a corporate view, and the IRP Charter (together with other civil society documents such as the APC Internet Charter) is what civil society brings to the table.  Therefore the next stage is to see how these contributions can work together to strengthen the normative framework

The way forward. One key theme for the IRP during the IGF 2011 was the need to adapt to these new circumstances in order to have an impact, and this means adapting our strategies and activities.

We decided that we should no longer use our resources to try and create a perfect and definite Charter within the Coalition. Given the on-going efforts to create such a Charter by other actors, our attempts would be likely to be superseded. Instead we should recognize that the Charter has been a very useful platform for us to raise awareness about the importance of protecting and promoting human rights and building consensus about what international human rights standards mean in the internet environment. Now we need to be more externally facing, engaging with the initiatives and dynamics that are actually shaping the Internet.

Our aim is to act as a human rights filter for other initiatives – advocating for the highest level of protection for human rights. This will mean engaging with initiatives in many forums, beyond the IGF. One initiative that we have been invited to feed in to is the work of the Council of Europe to create a Charter of Users Rights. Within the IGF too there are talks about an attempt to build an IGF-wide multi-stakeholder set of shared Internet Governance principles. This is an attempt to reassert the authority of the IGF as the key forum for internet governance issues, and provide a valuable output to guide internet policy making. Here too the IRP has a genuine opportunity to promote a human rights framework for the Internet.

We must continue work with others to build a strong movement for human rights in Internet governance. The 10 IRPs are particularly well designed for such an effort. We must translate them into more languages, particularly the most-widely spoken languages which are still missing such as Russian, Chinese and Japanese. And we need to promote them more proactively to others who are working towards this goal. Finally we must use the 10 IRPs to draw attention to issues where human rights standards are being, or risk being, violated on the Internet. Other groups (such as APC, Access and the Internet Governance Caucus) are already making statements, where our interests overlap we will endorse these and promote them amongst our networks. Instead, our aim should be to draw attention to issues which are not already publicized.

These are exciting times in the internet governance world, and the need to promote a human rights approach is urgent. Decisions are being made now which will shape the Internet environment for years to come. If you are interested in what we are trying to achieve and would like to participate, please do join our email list by signing up here.

Written by Guest Contributor · comments (1)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

(Editor's note: This is one several contributions to GVA by civil society participants at this week's Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Nairobi, Kenya.)

As a young lawyer fresh out of law school working for victims of domestic violence, I quickly learned that protecting human rights and upholding the rule of law did not rest on the lofty aspirations and legal ideals of my jurisprudence lecturers. “Why did I bother with all this?” one client asked me “when my ex just ignores this and harasses me anyway and the cops are sick of coming when I call?”

I learned an important lesson: law draws moral authority from the wider social context in which it operates and by whether it works in practice.  I got involved in the women’s human rights movement to advocate for law reform and human rights.

iHub Nairobi. Flickr photo by zulusafari.

I heard my client’s voice and recalled this lesson again yesterday as I sat a workshop on Internet Governance Principles on Day 2 of the IGF. The foundations of the IGF, as a United Nations mandated forum, are firmly grounded in human rights. But the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a legally binding document. Its moral authority lies not in its lofty ideals and aspirational statements, but by the affirmation of it by all governments that are United Nations Member States.

While access and development have been high on the agenda at the 6^th IGF, there has also been a lot of talk about rights, principles and internet governance. Reflecting on my own experience in the .nz [New Zealand] ccTLD [country code top-level domain] space it came to me: Human rights are as fundamental to internet governance as internet protocols are to the Domain Name System (DNS).

As a person new to the DNS and TCP/IP (the networking protocols on which the Internet is based) I took a naïve and legalistic approach: I turned to some core Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) documents, in particular, RFC 1591 on the Domain Name System Structure and Delegation (1994), to see how these were developed and what I could learn.  I was immediately struck by the way in which human rights and democratic values were clearly baked in to the internet. RFC development, for instance, seemed to be infused with a kind of principled pragmatism so that, for example, they would only be adopted when there was a rough consensus to do so.

Then, when I looked at the actual wording of RFC 1591 the human rights aspects seemed compelling: there were clear concepts of public good and trusteeship. Administrators, for example, were said to be “performing a public service on behalf of the Internet community”.  The designated manager was referred to as “the trustee of the top-level domain for both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global Internet community.”

The notion of good governance and responsibilities were also clear. When it came to choosing a designated manager for a domain, for example, the main concern “is that it be able to carry out the necessary responsibilities, and have the ability to do a equitable, just, honest, and competent job.” In addition, “Concerns about “rights” and “ownership” of domains are inappropriate.  It is appropriate to be concerned about “responsibilities” and “service” to the community.”

My early experience of such protocols was rights affirming and I could see parallels with the human rights concept that it is people, not governments, who have rights. Governments are duty bearers, required to protect the rights of their citizens, not their own power interests.

Yet as I listened to dialogue on internet governance principles at the IGF I was struck by the absence of any discussion about the way in which human rights form part of the very architecture of the internet.

Many participants at the IGF are attesting that governments are increasingly regulating and interfering with access to the internet in the name of their obligation to protect their citizens. These actions are increasingly becoming problematic not only because they undermine or violate the core human rights principles, but also those in relation to the DNS.

If we are to critique proposals for IG, we must do so with a better understanding of the shared rights and underlying values between human rights and the members of technical community who, with great prescience, ensured human rights were baked into the very design of the internet.

It is time for a new initiative to bring together the technical community and human rights advocates. We must work closer together to defend the shared values that are baked in to the internet and human rights to ensure that these are at the forefront in multi-stakeholder discussions about internet governance principles.

Human rights are as fundamental to internet governance as internet protocols are to the DNS and they will only have the meaning and moral authority we give them in practice.

Written by Guest Contributor · comments (3)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Mexico City 29.09.11: After being reported missing on the 23 September 2011 – after leaving the office Elizabeth Macias Castro, Chief Editor for the daily newspaper “Primera Hora”, was found dead in a public plaza on 24 September 2011 near Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipa. A message was attached to Elizabeth’s body accusing her of collaborating with the army and marine intelligence services by posting information online that related to organized crime activities. ARTICLE 19 expresses its deepest condolences to Elizabeth’s family and colleagues and calls upon the local government of Tamaulipas to launch an immediate investigation into the murder and bring the perpetrators of this heinous crime to justice.

The killing of Elizabeth takes place just two weeks after a man and a woman, identified as users of Twitter by the local authorities, were found hanging from a bridge. Similarly to Elizabeth’s murder, a message was left at the crime scene in which the victims were accused of using social media to speak out against the criminal activities in Nuevo Laredo.

The message found with Elizabeth’s body highlighted her online activities on a website called “Nuevo Laredo en Vivo” (Nuevo Laredo Live). According to website, it is an online tool “for the citizens of Nuevo Laredo, who are committed to inform each other of what is happening in the city.” It is also used as a chat room and information message board to help users who fall foul to threats from criminal gangs. Elizabeth was an active participant on the website, providing information and moderating some of the discussion forums.

“The increasing number of deaths of social media activists due to their online activities is an extremely worrying development for Mexico. ARTICLE 19 will be closely monitoring the situation and expresses its solidarity with those brave citizens that are willing to break the silence in the face of deadly repercussions,” said Darío Ramírez, Director of ARTICLE19 office for Mexico and Central America.

Against a backdrop of endemic violence against journalists, social networks and other online communication platforms such as “Nuevo Laredo en Vivo” are increasingly being used by citizens – especially in Tamaulipas break the silence around criminal activities that are not being reported in the press because of the pervading climate of fear and self-censorship.

The declaration of principles of freedom of expression of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights acknowledges that issuing threats, murder, kidnapping and intimidation violates fundamental human rights, particularly the freedom of expression.

Written by Guest Contributor · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

(Editor's note: This is the first of several contributions to GVA by civil society participants at this week's Internet Governance Forum in Nairobi, Kenya. For more information about how to follow and participate in the IGF remotely, click here.)

On the eve of the Internet Governance Forum almost a hundred people gathered to focus on access, rights, development and empowerment. Despite the diversity of voices from the global south, the similarity of issues was startling.

Eva Kaloki from the Kenyan Human Rights Commission emphasised equitable access for those in rural areas.  She also emphasized the power of technology in the hands of people, as evidenced by the birth of Ushahidi, an open source platform used to crowdsource information on the post-election violence following Kenya’s 2007 elections.

Bidi Bala from Fantsuam in Nigeria highlighted that while access issues remained, especially in rural areas, mobile GSM was enabling more access than telecentres. With access comes demand for political participation and signs are emerging of the use of ICTs to document human rights violations, in some cases leading to arrests of perpetrators.

In Pakistan, Shahzad Ahmad of Bytes for All referred to last week’s three-hour shutdown of FaceBook, YouTube and various civil society website.  Government blocking of websites is becoming pervasive.

From India, Anja Kovacs reported that most people (especially the poor) use cyber cafes, but recent laws are threatening their access by requiring retention of user information for 12 months, official identification, a photograph on entry, that cubicles to be no higher than 4½ feet, and prohibiting minors from unsupervised internet use.

Graciela Selaimen from Instituto NUPEF in Brazil noted that Brazilian internet users in the Amazon pay five times more to connect to the internet than users in Paris.

Steve Song of Village Telco summarised the emerging issues of access, development and rights as falling into two broad categories: getting access and maintaining access. Participants from the private sector, government and civil society called for a rights-based approach to internet governance.

Against this backdrop, it is clear that governments are positioning themselves around internet governance issues and their role in multi-stakeholder processes (as seen by the recent statement by India, Brazil and South Africa). But the politics associated with this must not detract from the issues that are facing civil society in developing countries, nor be a smokescreen behind which governments, or others, can hide their increasingly sophisticated interference with human rights and the internet.

If we take our eyes off the rights violations now, it will be too late to try and claw them back. Above all, the risk is that the people of Kenya, cybercafé users in India and CSOs from around the world, will be further marginalised.

That’s why APC is calling for the main theme of the IGF in 2012 to be human rights.

Follow Joy's tweets from the IGF all week at @internetrights. For tweets by all attendees follow the #IGF11 hashtag on Twitter.

(Image courtesy APC.org)

Written by Guest Contributor · comments (3)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

I’m pleased to announce the launch of our new report: “Cameras Everywhere: Current Challenges and Opportunities at the Intersection of Human Rights, Video and Technology.” You can read and download it on our website. The report, like the initiative of the same name, aims to ensure that the thousands of people turning to video for human rights can do so as effectively, safely and ethically as possible.

The revolutions of the “Arab Spring” and the ongoing struggles for change in Libya, Syria and other parts of the world constantly remind us that cell phones, video and the Internet are playing a major role in the social and political change movements of our time. Our report notes the opportunities presented by this rapidly changing landscape as well as some of the risks and challenges, mainly to individual activists who risk their lives bearing witness and standing up for change.

Beyond taking stock of this new visual-media heavy landscape, our report makes specific recommendations to companies, organizations and individuals in the sectors of technology, policy, human rights, and civil society as well as those who fund and invest in such endeavors.

This report was developed by a team at WITNESS including myself, Bryan Nunez (our Technology Manager), and Yvette Alberdingk Thijm (our Executive Director). And the lead researcher and author was our former Hub Manager, Sameer Padania. Our insights and recommendations are based on interviews with over 40 experts and practitioners in the fields of technology, media, technology and policy including people like Bob Boorstin (Director, Public Policy, Google), danah boyd (Senior Researcher, Microsoft Research), Steve Grove (YouTube News & Politics), Joi Ito (Director, Media Lab, MIT), and Marietje Schaake (Member of European Parliament).

We hope you will find the findings of the report thought-provoking and that you will join us in engaging with the technology, human rights and policy fields to support and advocate for the recommendations. You can read more about the next steps we are taking here. Visit the Cameras Everywhere Report section of our website for more on the report.  And we invite you to return to the blog for forthcoming posts focused on specific recommendations of the report and guest author perspectives on some of the topics.

If you are a member of the press, please visit our press release for more information and to request interviews.

Written by Guest Contributor · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Ahead of Malaysia human right defender and blogger – Charles Hector’s defamation trial on 28-29 June 2011, ARTICLE 19 calls on the Malaysian Court to consider the case in line with international freedom of expression standards.

Given the fundamental importance of the right to freedom of expression, and its recognition in Article 10 of the Malaysian Constitution, ARTICLE 19 urges the Court to ensure that Malaysian defamation law is interpreted, to the extent possible, in a manner that respects Hector’s freedom of expression.

Charles Hector is being sued for defamation at the High Court of Malaya in Shah Alam by the Malaysian subsidiary of Asahi Kosei Japan Co. Ltd, a Japanese electronics company. The defamation case centres around articles Hector posted on his blog in which he raises his concerns about the companies’ treatment of 31 Myanmar migrant workers. His findings were based on research he carried out. The company, which has already obtained an injunction against Hector’s blog posts, is demanding damages of RM10 million (app. US$ 3.2 million).

Although Malaysia neither signed nor ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and international standards on defamation are not formally binding on the country, ARTICLE 19 believes the constitutional guarantee of the right to free speech in Malaysia allows wide scope for interpretation.

In particular, ARTICLE 19 calls on the Court to recognise that the burden of proof regarding the falsity of the blog statements should lie with the plaintiff. Furthermore, under international standards, even if a statement of fact on a matter of public concern has been proven to be false, defendants in a defamation law suit should benefit from a defence of ‘ reasonable publication‘ , also known defence of ‘ due diligence’ or ‘ good faith’ . Hence, ARTICLE 19 argues that Hector should not be held liable if it is established that he held a good-faith belief in the truth of his posts.

ARTICLE 19 also believes that given the nature of his blog, Hector should benefit from the privilege of reasonable publication granted in the Defamation Act of Malaysia. Finally, should the Court reject defences and find the statements defamatory, the amount of damages must be assessed in the view of the proportionality.

ARTICLE 19 warns that the award in amount sought by the company could be expected to have a substantial chilling effect on the future exercise of the right to freedom of expression, not only for Hector but for other human rights defenders and media in Malaysia.

Written by Guest Contributor · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

From Morocco to Bahrain, everyday people have taken on the cast iron hold of dictatorships and absolute monarchies resulting in an extraordinary collective awakening that has paved the way for epochal change in the region. The youth movement, which lies at the core of the uprisings, continues to play a prominent role in the pro-democracy and pro-reform demonstrations, which have swept through the region, unabated by government clampdowns or concessions.

To date, there have been revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, a civil war in Libya, major protests in Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Oman, Iran and Yemen and minor protests in Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Western Sahara. The protests have also triggered similar unrest outside the region, including in Azerbaijan. Fuelled by unemployment, restrictions on freedom of expression and government corruption, the protests proved to be the ultimate litmus test for government’s tolerance of freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, across the Middle East and North Africa.

The response from a number of governments has included indiscriminately firing on protesters – resulting in at least a thousand deaths and thousands of wounded – shutting down the internet and phone lines, the jamming of Al-Jazeera’s satellite and other international broadcasters, and further clamping down on press freedom whilst also offering concessions in some cases. A clear example of this dichotomy is currently unravelling in Syria, where the entire Syrian cabinet resigned as a concession to protesters on March 29 2011 but where security forces killed at least 25 pro-democracy protesters in Homs on April 17 2011.

The determination of the protesters across the region to keep the movement “peaceful,” and their success at doing so despite significant state violence has been commended by the international community. These men, women and children who have taken to the streets are part of an unprecedented movement that has built sufficient momentum over the past months to influence the current scope of events. How we, the international community, respond to this movement and support the transition process in post-revolutionary countries such as Tunisia and Egypt, will come to define our work in the region for years to come.

ARTICLE 19 urges Arab states to grasp this opportunity to begin a process of real democratisation, with the respect of freedom of expression at its core. The transition and reform processes require, and should be based on, freedom of expression and freedom of the press, transparency, and the ability of all, men and women, religious and other minorities and vulnerable groups, to speak out and participate equally and without fear in the reform process and the democratic running of their country. The stability of the region relies on such stewardship.

ARTICLE 19 is also calling on Arab governments to hold an independent and transparent investigation into the violations that have taken place over the last months, determine all responsibilities, including the line of command, and bring to justice those responsible. The right to know is a fundamental human right which takes on particular importance in situations, such as those in the Arab world, where people are disappeared, imprisoned, beaten and tortured, or worse still, killed in mysterious circumstances and secrecy.

Social Media, Grass Root Activism and the Arab Uprisings

As one Egyptian activist succinctly tweeted during the protests there, “we use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world.“

Today, more than ever, access to electronic media, the ability to spread ideas online and the cyber activism that this enables have emerged as essential elements to popular movements for greater freedom and, perhaps more surprisingly, even essential to 21st Century revolutions. This is the human rights revelation of the extraordinary cascade of revolutions which are springing up across the region.

In Tunisia, grassroots and independent digital activists such as Nawaat and Tunileaks and bloggers including Fatma Riahi, all of whom the regime had tirelessly sought to repress, played a key role in disseminating information during the uprisings. While the protests that eventually led to the toppling of Ben Ali took root in the rural and marginalised heartlands of Tunisia – far from the national and international spotlight – coverage of the subsequent police brutality, sniper shootings, and wounded protesters in hospitals first came via posts on Facebook and Twitter, and in footage on Flickr and YouTube.

Journalists & Cyber Activists: In the Line of Fire

Although the ripple effects of the uprisings differ from country to country, the ongoing persecution of journalists and cyber activists remains a serious cause for concern for ARTICLE 19. Against this backdrop of continued unrest, a disturbing pattern of violence, harassment and intimidation against journalists, cyber activists and bloggers covering widespread civil unrest is emerging.

There have been widespread allegations of human rights violations and disappearances during the prodemocracy protests, and many journalists, human rights defenders, bloggers and cyber activists have been detained in a number of countries, including in Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. Accusations of torture of protesters and journalists especially in Syria and Bahrain are beginning to emerge, as the scale of government clampdowns is emerging.

ARTICLE 19 calls for the immediate release of all imprisoned peaceful protesters and political prisoners, including journalists and bloggers that are being detained in the context of pro-democracy protests. In addition, the authorities should immediately investigate and disclose the fate and whereabouts all those who are missing, and immediately inform their families.

Libya

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has documented more than 80 attacks on the press since political unrest erupted in Libya last month. They include four fatalities: Ali Hassan Al Jaber, a Qatari cameraman working for Al-Jazeera, Mohamed Al-Nabous, a Libyan journalist and blogger and more recently, two photojournalists were killed – Vanity Fair’s Tim Hetherington and Chris Hondros, a US photojournalist working for Getty Images.

According to reports, there has been 49 detentions, 11 assaults, two attacks on news facilities, the jamming of Al-Jazeera and Al-Hurra transmissions, at least four instances of obstruction, the expulsion of two international journalists, and the interruption of Internet services. At least 18 journalists and media workers, including at least six Libyan journalists and nine foreign journalists are missing or in government custody.

The disappearance of foreign media workers started taking place shortly after the Libyan authorities asked journalists from different international news outlets to leave the country within 24 hours. The government has also decided not to issue new visas for journalists who wish to cover the unfolding conflict.

Amongst the scores of disappearance cases, ARTICLE 19 received reports from Benghazi that three journalist Hassan Zeitouni, an Algerian journalist, Majdi Hilal, Egyptian cameraman and Mohammad Al-Shoueihdi, 26-year-old Libyan cameraman from Benghazi went missing in Ajdabiya in the late afternoon of April 6 2011 when they drove out of town towards the frontline around al-Breiqa. The first news of their detention came on April 8 2011 at midnight, when Libyan national TV showed Zeitouni criticising Benghazi and praising Tripoli.

According to reports, there are good reasons to believe that he did so under pressure. Since then, Zeitouni has been released, but the whereabouts of Hilal and Al-Shoueihdi have yet to be established. The families of the disappeared journalists have not heard from either of them.

ARTICLE 19 is calling on Libyan authorities to immediately provide information on the whereabouts of all journalists detained or missing in Libya.

Egypt

In post-revolution Egypt, the freedom of expression situation in the country took a major blow when the Egyptian military introduced a new requirement requesting that local print media obtain approval for all mentions of the armed forces before publication. In a letter to editors dated March 22 2011, the director of the Morale Affairs Directorate of the Egyptian military, Maj. Gen. Ismail Mohamed Othman demanded that they do not “publish any (topics, news, statements, complaints, advertisements, pictures) pertaining to the Armed Forces or to commanders of the Armed Forces without first consulting with the Morale Affairs Directorate and the Directorate of Military Intelligence and Information Gathering, as they are the authorities specialized in reviewing such issues, [in an effort to] ensure the security and safety of the homeland.”

The first casualty of this law is Maikel Nabil, a blogger who campaigned against conscription and criticised the army's role during anti-government protests , and who was arrested on March 28 2011, after criticising the military in his blogs. According to reports, his blog posts and comments on social networking website Facebook were used as evidence against him in the trial.

ARTICLE 19 is calling on the Egyptian military authorities to remain true to the spirit of the revolution, to repeal the requirement requesting that local print media obtain approval for all mentions of the armed forces and to immediately release blogger Maike Nabil. ARTICLE 19 is concerned with the slow pace of reforms initiated, particularly with regard to the 30-year-old state of emergency which is still in place. ARTICLE 19 calls for all provisions of the Emergency Law to be repealed.

Syria

As the crackdown on human rights defenders, political activists, protesters and journalists reporting on anti-government protests continues across the country, cases of torture and ill treatment in detention are emerging. In Madaya, a suburb of Damascus, the capital, four seventeen-year-olds, were recently handcuffed and taken from their classrooms for spraying anti-government graffiti. This follows on from an incident last week which saw fifteen teenagers arrested for writing anti-government graffiti on walls in Daraa.

ARTICLE 19 has also received reports from family members of journalists who have been forcibly disappeared and whose whereabouts remain unknown, including the Alabiya.net reporter Mohamad Zaid Mastou. Zaid Mastou was arrested on April 6 2011 by Syrian authorities while he was in a cyber cafe in Damascus. According to eyewitness reports, Zaid Mastou was beaten by government authorities during his abduction before being taken off to an undisclosed location.

Zaid Mastou had returned to Syria few days before the outbreak of demonstrations in the last month and was covering the confrontations between security forces and protesters for Alabiya.net. His family have not received any news from him since his arrest. Despite numerous requests, government authorities have refused to provide his family with any information. The situation in the country remains critical: Over 350 individuals have allegedly been killed since the protests began, at least 120 since Friday alone. The security forces have shown no restraint, using live fire ammunition against unarmed protesters. The vast majority were killed for expressing their views in the context of peaceful protests

ARTICLE 19 is calling on the Syrian government to put an immediate stop to the heavy handed and violent crackdown on the protests and the protesters and resulting violations of key human rights, including the right to freedom of expression. In addition, ARTICLE 19 is also calling for an immediate independent investigation into the killings, use of torture and ill treatment, and other violations committed by government forces.

Bahrain

At least 30 people have been killed since anti-government protests by Bahrain's Shiite majority began in February. Hundreds have been detained in the crackdown on the rebellion. Last month, the Sunni-led state saw the worst sectarian clashes since the 1990s after mainly Shia protestors, emboldened by uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, took to the streets. As part of a crackdown on pro-democracy protestors in the Gulf Arab Kingdom, a human rights lawyer and at least two doctors have been detained, and there have been at least 4 reported cases of deaths in custody.

In addition, Zakariya Rashid Hassan al-Ashiri, a blogger who moderated and wrote for a website that covers news and other developments in his village of al-Dair, died under mysterious circumstances while in government custody on April 16 2011. He was charged with disseminating false news and inciting hatred, the BBC reported. Karim Fakhrawi, founder and board member of Al-Wasat, the country's premier independent daily, also died in custody under mysterious circumstances. The government has accused AlWasat of “deliberate news fabrication and falsification.” Since then, the government has announced it will file criminal charges against three of the paper's senior editors and has deported two other senior staffers.

Fakhrawi died on April 12 2011, a week after he was apparently taken into custody.

ARTICLE 19 is calling on the Bahraini government to put an immediate stop to the heavy handed and violent crackdown on the protests, and the violation of the right to freedom of expression, including the right of the press to report on the events. ARTICLE 19 calls on Bahraini authorities to conduct an independent and transparent investigation into the death in state custody of both Al-Ashiri and Fakhrawi, and into the killings, use of torture and ill treatment, and other violations committed by the Bahraini security forces.

NOTES TO EDITORS:

• For more information please contact: Mona Samari, Senior Press Officer ARTICLE 19 + 44 207 324 2510 or email mona@article19.org
• ARTICLE 19 is an independent human rights organisation that works around the world to protect and promote the right to freedom of expression. It takes its name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees free speech.

Written by Guest Contributor · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Strasbourg 11.04.11: Inspired by pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, a recent wave of protests in Azerbaijan has resulted in scores of bloggers, cyber activists, journalists, civil society activists and opposition political party members harassed, arrested and beaten.

In a disturbing new step, the Azerbaijani authorities have launched criminal charges against a cyber activist based outside of Azerbaijan. Strasbourg-based Elnur Majidli, who was involved in organising the protests via his Facebook page, is currently facing charges of inciting hatred.

As the freedom of expression situation in the country continues to deteriorate in the wake of the government clampdown, representatives of the International Partnership Group for Azerbaijan (IPGA) are set to highlight their concerns during the upcoming Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) session in Strasbourg from 11-15 April 2011.

The human rights situation in Azerbaijan has reached a critical level. We are receiving almost daily reports of abuse against cyber activists, journalists and others in connection with exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. This raises the question: how many more need to be arrested or beaten before the Council of Europe takes action to hold this Member State accountable?
The credibility of the Council of Europe depends on such stewardship,

said Dr Agnès Callamard, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19.

Key areas of concern for the IPGA delegation include the recent wave of arrests of bloggers and activists in connection with the protests – some of whom face long prison sentences on the basis of politically motivated charges; increased pressure on non-governmental organisations working on democracy and human rights issues, including the closure of the Human Rights House Azerbaijan;

the recent abduction and beating of two journalists in connection with their criticism of the authorities; and the continued wrongful imprisonment of journalist Eynulla Fatullayev, who remains in jail despite a European Court of Human Rights judgment ordering his release.

This sudden spate of arrests of opposition activists and journalists is alarming. We are deeply concerned by the arrests that took place before the scheduled protests, as this suggests that the authorities are trying to silence people before they even begin to exercise their right to freedom of expression,

said Emin Huseynov, Chairman of the Baku-based Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety.

The IPGA delegation urges the Council of Europe and PACE national delegations to immediately increase their monitoring of Azerbaijan’s compliance with its Council of Europe obligations and hold Azerbaijan accountable. The delegation is comprised of representatives from ARTICLE 19, the Human Rights House Foundation, Index on Censorship, and the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety.

Media Profile: Eynulla Fatullayev

Eynulla Fatullayev

30 October 2007: Fatullayev is convicted of supporting terrorism, inciting hatred, and tax evasion, and sentenced to 8.5 years’ imprisonment (including his previous defamation conviction). The charges were based on an article he had written criticising the Azerbaijani government’s foreign policy towards the United States, arguing that it left Azerbaijan vulnerable to attack by Iran, and listing specific sites in Azerbaijan which Iran could attack.

29 December 2009: Fatullayev is charged with possessing illegal drugs, after prison officials claimed to have found 0.22 grams of heroin in his clothing in a high security jail cell.

22 April 2010: The European Court of Human Rights rules that Fatullayev’s imprisonment constituted a violation of his freedom of expression and right to a fair trial. The European Court orders the Azerbaijani government to immediately release Fatullayev from prison and to pay him a fine for damages and legal expenses.

6 July 2010: Fatullayev is convicted of possessing illegal drugs, and sentenced to 2.5 years’ imprisonment.

4 October 2010: The European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber rejects the Azerbaijani government’s appeal, making the 22 April judgment final. The Azerbaijani government is now in breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

11 November 2010: The Azerbaijani Supreme Court revokes the charges against Fatullayev of defamation, supporting terrorism, and inciting hatred. However, it also resurrects a previous conviction of defamation from September 2006, replacing a conditional sentence with a prison sentence, and retroactively extends the length of the prison sentence Fatullayev served for tax evasion. The Court considers Fatullayev’s conviction for drugs possession a separate matter.

6 December 2010: The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers issues a decision calling on the Azerbaijani authorities to “explore all possible means” of ending Fatullayev’s detention.

28 December 2010: The Azerbaijani Supreme Court upholds Fatullayev’s conviction for drugs possession. The domestic appeals process has now been exhausted.

11 March 2011: The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers issues a second decision in Fatullayev’s case, calling on the Azerbaijani authorities to “remove without further delay all obstacles to the implementation” of the European Court of Human Rights judgment.

Written by Guest Contributor · comments (0)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper