By Waruni Karunarathne
The government has called for legislators to draft laws which deal with certain areas of social media in order to curb hate speech and has declared that it will take stern action against those who use social media to promote communal and religious hatred. In the wake of the incident at Aluthgama, many see the need to take action against those who practice hate speech and incite communal violence.
However, concerns are being raised that this move by the government may restrict people from criticizing the government, thereby violating the freedom of speech and expression of the people. In the meantime some lawyers of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka observed that with the current trend of the government putting pressure on traditional media and banning many independent websites, social media has been the only form of information – and restrictions on using social media will violate the public’s right to access information.
President of the Bar Association Upul Jayasuriya told The Sunday Leader that the government has failed to let the media act independently and the move towards restricting social media users is seen as another form of curbing people’s access to information. He added, “With reference to media freedom, Sri Lanka is placed at 173 out of 178 countries in the world. Rwanda seems to have better freedom of expression than Sri Lanka as they are ahead of us in the list.” According to him, 37 journalists have so far fled the country this year as the government has failed to let the media act independently.
Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) Dr. Prathiba Mahanamahewa added that Article No 14 (1) of the 1978 Constitution clearly recognizes freedom of expression, freedom of publication and freedom of the press. The government cannot arbitrarily censor any media programme because people have the right to receive information. But in the digital world, we receive plenty of information from websites. With social media if any incident occurs, within one second whole world will come to know without any barriers.”He explained that according to the European Union constitution in 2000, the digital rights of the citizens are protected.
He said, however by Article 15 of the 1978 Constitution, the freedoms of speech and publication are restricted – they are not recognized as absolute rights. Therefore he said that there are certain situations where the state can restrict those rights. He pointed out that even in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, those restrictions are there and includes restrictions on disrupting religious harmony. According to Dr Mahanamahewa those restrictions should be imposed in a very accountable way accompanied by proper evidence and reasons.
He added, “Censoring a website is not like censoring the press. These websites are not operating from Sri Lanka; they are hosted in countries like Norway and Sweden, etc. Therefore, he added that the TRCSL can censor or ban them if such things happen. He added, “However, they must prove that it is under Article 15 of the Constitution. Otherwise, a citizen who is denied information from these websites can go to the Supreme Court citing an infringement of their fundamental rights”.
Dr Mahanamahewa gave an example of a case where an individual filed a case in the US Supreme Court against the banning of Al-Jazeera in the US. He pointed out that this particular individual won the case after proving that Al-Jazeera is the only website which provides true information on the Middle East and the US Supreme Court lifted the ban on Al-Jazeera. He added, “Any citizen has the right to go to court in order to protect their rights. On the other hand the Attorney General can decide whether those rights are absolute or restricted. We have to see if arbitrary censorship has been done only after analyzing evidence”. He pointed out that certain amendments to the US Patriot Act even allows law enforcement to search emails and telephone communications and even arrest certain suspects without a search warrant.
However Upul Jayasuriya added that Article 14 (1) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka recognizes media freedom and it is being cited as a fundamental right. He added that under the present regime the law seems to be only applicable to punish the poor and the ordinary whereas the rich and the powerful are not ruled by law. He added that Article 15 of the Constitution refers to emergency situations and there are no emergency situations right now in the country. He said, “When there is a crisis in the country, Article 15 has some amount of a role to play. But we do not have an emergency situation at present”.
He pointed out that ‘hate speech’ is incorporated in Section 2 (1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and thereby it is prohibited for anybody to make any kind of speech that causes communal or religious disharmony – and therefore there is no need to bring in a separate Act. He said, “All what we need is the willingness of the law enforcement authorities and those who are giving orders to the law enforcement authorities to enforce the law”.
Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu said that the existing law in the country if enforced impartially allows action against those who incite communal violence through hate speech. He added that the problem is that the government is not taking impartial action against those who are spreading communal and religious hatred. According to him, if the government is to take impartial action against those who incite religious and communal hatred, it should be done without violating the freedom of speech and expression. He emphasized that in extreme cases, necessary action must be taken.
Information Security Engineer at Sri Lanka Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) Roshan Chandragupta told The Sunday Leader that CERT has been receiving certain complaints on social media. He added that for the last six months they have received over 1050 complaints mostly about fake accounts and pictures. However, he said that CERT has not received complaints from anyone about social media being used to spread religious or communal hatred. He noted that social media including Facebook have their terms and conditions and people can report against particular account users for the content or pictures on their profiles under different categories.
He added that Facebook in particular has defined what they consider hate speech. Accordingly, content that attacks people based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease is considered ‘hate speech’ and not allowed on Facebook.
Thus, according to Chandragupta if any individual comes across such content they can report it to Facebook or other social media operators and if the complaint is found to be bona fide, the content will not be displayed and in some instances the profiles of the persons posting the hate speech will be blocked.
Meanwhile, Secretary to the Ministry of Mass Media Charitha Herath assured that according to his understanding the government does not intend to bring in new legislation, but is only planning to take action according to the existing laws. He added, “The existing laws have enough legal space even to minimize and eradicate hate speech and provide for the protection of people’s rights”
http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2014/07/06/hate-speech-laws-may-threaten-freedom-of-speech/
By Dr Jehan Perera
Government members and President Mahinda Rajapaksa no less, have seen a conspiracy in the anti Muslim riots that took place last month in Aluthgama. The damaging view has gone abroad that Sinhalese have rioted against Muslims. The short reports in the international media do not convey the full picture of what happened.
This has created an incorrect impression abroad of a Sinhalese-Muslim polarisation. Aluthgama was the exception, not the norm. Outside of Aluthgama, relations between Sinhalese and Muslims are largely amicable and peaceful coexistence is the norm. It is not just these two communities, but also Tamils, Christians, Buddhists and Hindus who are all eager to be friends, and not permit communalism to enter between them.
Some months ago, I was passing through Darga Town, which borders Aluthgama, and where there has been a history of Sinhalese-Muslim tension. There have been communal clashes there in the past. We stopped at a grocery store to buy some bottles of water. The Muslim shop owner was serving a Muslim customer. But when he saw us, a Sinhalese family, enter his shop, he excused himself and served us first. This action struck us then, but now in retrospect, I can surmise that he did this because he was conscious of the need to have good relations with the Sinhalese. I see this same sentiment in the inter-religious groups I work with. Those belonging to one religious persuasion go out of their way to please the other. Their desire is for amity, not for confrontation.
After the Aluthgama riots, I was at a meeting where a Buddhist monk exclaimed in anguish, that an entirely wrong picture of the Buddhists has been given to the world.
He was not denying that the Aluthgama riots had taken place and that innocent Muslims had even been killed and their properties burnt. He was merely trying to say that those who attacked the Muslims were not doing this with the consent of the Sinhalese masses. These were small groups acting without the blessings of the larger society, although perhaps with the blessings of powerful elements in society, which is what has given them their vast power and immunity to attack as they will. This is all the more tragic because the message that goes to the Muslims in Sri Lanka, and to the larger international community, is that the Sinhalese are attacking Muslims.
Violence of a few
Those who live outside of Sri Lanka, and those who are victims, are not so interested in the nuances of the situation. Nor is the international media for the most part when they report what is happening. They tend to give only the broadest of outlines. But in reality this is the violence of a few, to which the law enforcement authorities were being deferential. It is the availability of impunity that drives the violent elements to more violence.
It is therefore surmised that the imperatives of electoral politics are what lie at the root of the failure of the government to check the violence. The BBS is part of the government’s electoral alliance. If the Sinhalese voters feel insecure for any reason they will tend to vote for the present government which is seen as strong and pro-Sinhalese.
But the international costs are going to be high. It is evident that the government is feeling the pressure on itself from both the affected Muslims and the larger international community.
The 57 members of the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation based in Saudi Arabia has expressed their serious concern and said that “the recent attacks appear to follow a rising trend of violence instigated by extremists which is spreading fear and mistrust among the population.” There has been widespread condemnation of the police for failing to nip the riot in the bud, and for having permitted a public rally to be held by the BBS despite appeals by local community leaders not to permit it.
It is in this context of accusations directed against the government and the police that the Ministry of Defence has issued an unprecedented denial about having links with the BBS which stands accused of fomenting the riots. This denial of any connection or involvement with the BBS is a welcome disassociation even if it comes late. In particular the Defence spokesperson has refuted the allegation that the Defense Secretary, who is counted as among the most powerful in the country, has any special relationship with the BBS. He has also clarified that the Defense Secretary’s attendance at a public ceremony at which the BBS was also present, and which has generated much controversy, had nothing to do with any association with it.
Two requirements
The government’s affirmation of its commitment to peaceful relations between the communities and to ensure justice for all will be confirmed if two matters are addressed speedily. The first is that an independent inquiry be held into what transpired in Aluthgama. Such an inquiry panel may be selected with the participation of the Minister of Justice who is himself a Muslim and who has complained of misrepresentation of the causes of death of some of the victims of the riots. The Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) who submitted the postmortem report on one of the victims killed during the Aluthgama violence has been summoned to court after his report was disputed. In these circumstances a credible fact finding body will be able to dispel the doubts as to what really happened at Aluthgama, and who paid the price.
The second requirement is that punitive action be taken against the instigators of the violence. The police have now questioned the BBS leaders with regard to the speeches made prior to the riots. They have also taken 117 persons into custody, with 85 of them being produced before courts and 25 being released on bail. But these steps are unlikely to reassure the Muslims and other potential targets, so long as extremist groups are given a free hand to mobilise their members for action, at the time and place they choose. The violence in Aluthgama followed a sustained hate campaign against the Muslim community in the Aluthgama area and elsewhere in the country which has still to be countered by either legal or political means.
Small groups of extremists can create disturbances even though the ethos of the larger majority is to live in peace and harmony. In these circumstances the fullest application of the law must be employed to quell any disturbance. It is the non-application of the law due to political interference that has made inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations within the country a potential point of conflict. Inter community relations between Sinhalese and Muslims are currently not based on fear of each other, but this can change as it once did between the Tamils and others during the war. The danger in permitting the situation to drift is that it can lead to radicalisation from which there will be no return.
http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2014/07/06/majority-must-not-be-blamed-for-aluthgama-violence/