DOCSLIB.ORG

The Freedom of Thought Report 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Freedom of Thought Report 2017 THE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT REPORT 2017 Key Countries Edition A Global report on the rights, legal status and discrimination against humanists, atheists and the non-religious THE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT REPORT 2017 Key Countries Edition Freedom of Thought 2017: A Global Report on the Rights, Legal Status and Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists and the Non-religious, was created by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU). The International Humanist and Ethical Union is the global representative body of the humanist movement, uniting a diversity of non-religious organisations and individuals. Its mission is to represent and support the global Humanist movement, and to build a world in which human rights are respected and all can live a life of dignity. If you have updates, additions or corrections for the report please email [email protected] or visit the website at freethoughtreport.com. To receive updates and news from IHEU, or join as a supporter, visit iheu.org. Constitution & Government Education & Children’s Rights These maps depict the findings of the full Freedom of Thought Report which is available in a complete Online Edition at freethoughtreport.com. The maps correspond to each of the four thematic strands of the Report: Constitution & Government, Education & Children’s Rights, Society & Community, and Freedom of Expression & Advocacy of Humanist Values. Each map shows the highest severity level (see key, right) of any boundary condition applied in each thematic strand. 6 Freedom of Thought 2017 | Maps Society & Community Expression & Advocacy of Humanist Values Grave Violations Severe Discrimination Systemic Discrimination Mostly Satisfactory Free and Equal No Rating Maps | Freedom of Thought 2017 7 8 Freedom of Thought 2017 | 9 Grave Violations This map depicts the findings of the full Freedom of Thought Report Severe Discrimination which is available in a complete Online Edition at freethoughtreport.com. Systemic Discrimination This map shows as a colour gradient the “summary score” for each country (the average of the worst severity level (see key, right) of any Mostly Satisfactory boundary condition applied in each thematic strand. Free and Equal No Rating | Freedom of Thought 2017 Preface to the 2017 edition By Andrew Copson The Freedom of Thought Report is a unique source of information on the discrimination and persecution against the non-religious globally. We approach this issue, as we do much of our advocacy and campaigns work, through the framework of international human rights. This framework emerged from various traditions, rising from the ashes of world wars, with broad global consent. And yet, the very concept of universal human rights seems to be increasingly misunderstood today; maligned and degraded by politicians in many countries. The arguments differ from place to place, but often they dispute some of the key characteristics of human rights as such: that they are individual, that they are indivisible, and that they are universal. Andrew Copson is president of Whole groups of people may have their rights violated at once, for example by a the International Humanist and single law, or by one act of hatred. There may also be a place for ‘environmental Ethical Union (IHEU) rights’ and ‘economic rights’, even ‘people’s rights’ - yet the basic unit and driver of any right comes back to the individual rights-holder. Collective concerns for our environment, economic justice and the concerns of whole peoples are derived from our individual humanity. It must be this way, because trying to implement ‘group rights’ as such always subverts and violates the autonomy of some individual (whether inside or outside that group). So, for example, the idea that someone must be imprisoned for ostensibly ‘insulting’ the belief of a group of people puts an imagined, non-existent right of a group not to be offended, before the right of the individual to speak his or her mind. This is why human rights must, at base, be individual. As we can see from this year’s report, human rights also tend to stand or fall together. When the non-religious are being persecuted, it’s usually the case that specific religious minorities are too. This is not a coincidence. It is part of how human rights work. If you violate one right, then not only are you likely to be violating others, you will also be degrading the social good, and making other rights harder to achieve. This is why human rights are interconnected and indivisible. Human rights must apply to everyone equally. This may seem an obvious point, and yet the continued existence of “apostasy” laws demonstrates how inconsistent a state can be in applying something as fundamental as the right to freedom of thought to all citizens. Everyone’s rights are not always respected in practice, but we do all deserve them, not just because it says so on a piece of paper, but because they follow, more or less, from the nature of our humanity. This is why rights are said to be universal. The remit the Freedom of Thought report is discrimination and persecution against the non-religious specifically, but we are proud that all our work seeks to defend the view of individual, interconnected, universal human rights for everyone. The post-war human rights consensus seems under more pressure than ever. However, this is precisely when we need to stand up and defend these basic minimum standards. The Freedom of Thought Report champions the human rights of an often neglected section of society, the atheists, humanists and other non-religious people. We are proud of this work, and I commend this report to you. 10 Freedom of Thought 2017 | Preface Foreword to the 2017 edition By Ensaf Haidar In 2012, my husband, Raif Badawi, was arrested in Saudi Arabia. He had helped to set up a liberal blogging platform. In his own blog, and in opinion pieces for newspapers, he expressed his opinion: that the clerics should have less to do with the business of the state, because an excess of religious conservativism was damaging to society. Today, this opinion becomes ever more common, even among royal reformists! But just for expressing his opinion, Raif faced the possibility of a death sentence on “apostasy” charges, and was eventually sentenced for “insulting Islam” to a long prison term and lashes. On appeal, his sentence was increased to ten years prison and 1,000 lashes. He also faces a ten-year travel ban after his sentence. Ensaf Haidar is a human rights Raif has the terrible and unwanted honour now of being probably one of the most famous prisoners in the world. But many bloggers, journalists and activists in too campaigner and president of many countries face similar charges and punishments. There are many issues at the Raif Badawi Foundation for play in such prosecutions. Authoritarian regimes suppress opinions which they Freedom think are a threat to their own power. However, in the context of this Freedom of Thought Report, I want to highlight the role that is played when the authorities evoke religion to suppress these ‘troubling’ opinions. Raif wrote about politics and society. Yet just because some of his opinions overlap with religion or offer criticisms of religious authorities he can be imprisoned for “insulting Islam”. Raif describes himself as a liberal Muslim, and yet his country tried him for “apostasy”. The idea that he might have left Islam was used to demonize him. It does not matter if you are a humanist or a Muslim, an atheist or a Jew, an agnostic or a Christian. No one anywhere should face such trial just for expressing their view of the world. Freedom of thought and expression are our human rights. I reject the idea that anyone, or any state, has the right to threaten someone with death just because they believe or don’t believe in any religion. I reject the idea that just because someone thinks critically about any aspect of religion they deserve to be prosecuted, still less to be imprisoned, separated from their children for years and years and years. It is in everyone’s interest (religious, non-religious, anyone) that we shine a powerful light on the spectre of atheism. Shine a light, and the shadow will lift! And we will find that there is no spectre. Only a human being. Foreword | Freedom of Thought 2017 11 Editorial Introduction By Bob Churchill This 2017 edition of the Freedom of Thought Report sounds an alarm siren to humanists and to all who care about freedom of thought and expression. Active persecution Through publication of this report, the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) issues a warning: that in at least seven countries the non-religious were actively persecuted in new or evolving major incidents or trends in 2017. This includes the murder of humanists or atheists in at least: Pakistan, India, and the Maldives; we record new waves of incitement to hatred or violence in at least Bob Churchill is Director of Malaysia, Mauritania and Pakistan; and we record new death sentences faced by alleged “apostates” (from Islam to atheism) in Sudan and Saudi Arabia. Communications at the IHEU, and Editor of the Freedom of Thought Under the entry for Pakistan you will read about the murder of Mashal Khan, a Report student who called himself ‘the humanist’ on Facebook, who was beat to death by a mob of fellow students at university. Although some efforts have been made to bring the large number of people involved in his murder to justice, it is unclear whether they will face real sanction for their actions, or whether the supposed ‘blasphemy’ of their victim will be treated as a mitigating factor. The murderers of alleged ‘blasphemers’ often get off lightly, and such cases are notoriously difficult and dangerous even for members of the legal profession; already the lead prosecutor against the alleged killers of Mashal Khan has been forced to quit the case after receiving threats.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion Or Belief
    Level 1, 4 Campion St 594 St Kilda Rd DEAKIN ACT 2600 MELBOURNE VIC 3004 T 02 6259 0431 T 02 6171 7446 E [email protected] E [email protected] 14 February 2018 The Expert Panel on Religious Freedom C/o Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet By email: [email protected] RE: Submission to the Commonwealth Expert Panel on Religious Freedom 1. The Human Rights Law Alliance and the Australian Christian Lobby welcome this opportunity to make a submission to the Inquiry into the Status of the Human Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief. 2. The Human Rights Law Alliance implements legal strategies to protect and promote fundamental human rights. It does this by resourcing legal cases with funding and expertise to create rights-protecting legal precedents. The Alliance is especially concerned to protect and promote the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief. In the past 24 months, the Alliance has aided more than 30 legal cases, and allied lawyers appeared in State Tribunals and Magistrates, District and Supreme Courts as well as the Federal Court. 3. With more than 100,000 supporters, ACL facilitates professional engagement and dialogue between the Christian constituency and government, allowing the voice of Christians to be heard in the public square. ACL is neither party partisan or denominationally aligned. ACL representatives bring a Christian perspective to policy makers in Federal, State and Territory parliaments. 4. This submission focusses on the intersection between freedom of religion and other human rights first in international law, second in Australian law, and third in the lived experience of Australians.
    [Show full text]
  • Artists' Statement on Growing Political and Religious Intolerance
    ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846 Artists' Statement on Growing Political and Religious Intolerance SAHMAT Vol. 50, Issue No. 44, 31 Oct, 2015 The artist community of India stands in firm solidarity with the actions of our writers who have relinquished awards and positions, and spoken up in protest against the alarming rise of intolerance in the country. We condemn and mourn the murders of MM Kalburgi, Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare, rationalists and free thinkers whose voices have been silenced by rightwing dogmatists but whose “presence” must ignite our resistance to the conditions of hate being generated around us. The artist community of India stands in firm solidarity with the actions of our writers who have relinquished awards and positions, and spoken up in protest against the alarming rise of intolerance in the country. We condemn and mourn the murders of MM Kalburgi, Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare, rationalists and free thinkers whose voices have been silenced by rightwing dogmatists but whose “presence” must ignite our resistance to the conditions of hate being generated around us. We will never forget the battle we fought for our pre-eminent artist MF Husain who was hounded out of the country and died in exile. We remember the rightwing invasion and dismantling of freedoms in one of the country’s best known art schools in Baroda. We witness the present government’s appointment of grossly unqualified persons to the FTII Society and its disregard of the ongoing strike by the students of this leading Institute. We see a writer like Perumal Murugan being intimidated into declaring his death as a writer, a matter of dire shame in any society.
    [Show full text]
  • The Freedom of Academic Freedom: a Legal Dilemma
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 48 Issue 2 Article 4 October 1971 The Freedom of Academic Freedom: A Legal Dilemma Luis Kutner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Luis Kutner, The Freedom of Academic Freedom: A Legal Dilemma, 48 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 168 (1971). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol48/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. THE FREEDOM OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM: A LEGAL DILEMMA Luis KUTNER* Because modern man in his search for truth has turned away from kings, priests, commissars and bureaucrats, he is left, for better or worse, with professors. -Walter Lippman. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action.... -John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. I. INTRODUCTION IN THESE DAYS of crisis in higher education, part of the threat to aca- demic freedom-which includes the concepts of freedom of thought, inquiry, expression and orderly assembly-has come, unfortunately, from certain actions by professors, who have traditionally enjoyed the protection that academic freedom affords. While many of the professors who teach at American institutions of higher learning are indeed competent and dedicated scholars in their fields, a number of their colleagues have allied themselves with student demonstrators and like organized groups who seek to destroy the free and open atmosphere of the academic community.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion
    Freedom of thought, COUNCIL CONSEIL conscience OF EUROPE DE L’EUROPE and religion A guide to the implementation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights Jim Murdoch Human rights handbooks, No. 9 HRHB9_EN.book Page 1 Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:08 PM HRHB9_EN.book Page 1 Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:08 PM Freedom of thought, conscience and religion A guide to the implementation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights Jim Murdoch Human rights handbooks, No. 9 HRHB9_EN.book Page 2 Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:08 PM In the “Human rights handbooks” series: No. 1: The right to respect for private No. 6: The prohibition of torture. A Directorate General and family life. A guide to the implemen- guide to the implementation of Article 3 of Human Rights tation of Article 8 of the European Con- of the European Convention on Human and Legal Affairs vention on Human Rights (2001) Rights (2003) Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex No. 2: Freedom of expression. A guide to the implementation of Article 10 of the No. 7 : Positive obligations under the © Council of Europe, 2007 European Convention on Human Rights European Convention on Human Cover illustration © Sean Nel – Fotolia.com (2001) Rights. A guide to the implementation of No. 3: The right to a fair trial. A guide to the European Convention on Human 1st printing, June 2007 the implementation of Article 6 of the Rights (2007) Printed in Belgium European Convention on Human Rights (2001; 2nd edition, 2006) No. 8: The right to life.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion Or Belief
    Level 1, 4 Campion St PO Box 232 DEAKIN ACT 2600 DEAKIN WEST ACT 2600 T 02 6259 0431 T 02 6171 7446 E [email protected] E [email protected] 04 May 2017 Committee Secretary Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade PO Box 6021 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 RE: Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief 1. The Human Rights Law Alliance and the Australian Christian Lobby welcome this opportunity to make a submission to the Inquiry into the Status of the Human Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief. 2. The Human Rights Law Alliance implements legal strategies to protect and promote fundamental human rights. It does this by resourcing legal cases with funding and expertise to create rights-protecting legal precedents. The Alliance is especially concerned to protect and promote the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief. In the past 12 months, the Alliance has aided more than 20 legal cases, and allied lawyers appeared in State Tribunals and Magistrates, District and Supreme Courts as well as the Federal Court. 3. With more than 80,000 supporters, ACL facilitates professional engagement and dialogue between the Christian constituency and government, allowing the voice of Christians to be heard in the public square. ACL is neither party partisan or denominationally aligned. ACL representatives bring a Christian perspective to policy makers in Federal, State and Territory parliaments. 4. Broadly, the terms of reference invite submissions concerning the status of the right in Australia and around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Religious Freedom and Education in Australian Schools
    laws Article Religious Freedom and Education in Australian Schools Paul Babie Adelaide Law School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia; [email protected] Abstract: This article examines the constitutional allocation of power over primary and secondary education in Australia, and the place of and protection for freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) in Australian government and religious non-government schools. This article provides both an overview of the judicial treatment of the constitutional, legislative, and common law protection for FoRB and a consideration of emerging issues in religious freedom in both government and religious non-government schools, suggesting that the courts may soon be required to provide guidance as to how the available protections operate in both settings. Keywords: Australia; education; freedom of religion; constitution; free exercise; section 116; implied freedom of political communication 1. Introduction This article examines the place of and protection for freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) in Australian government primary and secondary education (‘government schools’) 1 and in religious non-government schools. In order to understand that place, it is necessary to outline the legal foundations for education in Australia as well as the protection of FoRB Citation: Babie, Paul. 2021. Religious in Australian law. Australia, like the United States, is a constitutional federal democracy; Freedom and Education in Australian as such, the legal foundations for education involve an uneasy balance of federal (national, Schools. Laws 10: 7. https://doi.org/ or Commonwealth) and state and territory (regional) law and policy. This means that no 10.3390/laws10010007 one unitary source exists for the foundation of government schools, its funding, and for the protection of FoRB.
    [Show full text]
  • Majoritarian Radicalisation and Social Media in India
    AUGUST 2018 Digital Hatred, Real Violence: Majoritarian Radicalisation and Social Media in India MAYA MIRCHANDANI Digital Hatred, Real Violence: Majoritarian Radicalisation and Social Media in India MAYA MIRCHANDANI ABOUT THE AUTHOR Maya Mirchandani is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation and teaches Media Studies at Ashoka University. For nearly three decades, she was a practicing journalist with NDTV, reporting on Indian foreign policy, conflict, and national politics. Maya has recently been involved in research on 'Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism' (P/CVE) that looks for ways to build counter narratives to prevent radicalisation and extremist violence through dialogue and community intervention. The analysis of hate speech and the impact of counter-speech messaging on social media is also a core focus of her research. Maya has won the prestigious Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence in Journalism twice, the Red Ink Award for reporting on human rights, as well as the Exchange for Media Broadcast Journalism Award for best international affairs reporting. ISBN : 978-93-88262-27-9 © 2018 Observer Research Foundation. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from ORF. Digital Hatred, Real Violence: Majoritarian Radicalisation and Social Media in India ABSTRACT Social media's impact on mainstream media, and the way people communicate with one another and disseminate information, has become a subject of serious study for journalists, academics and policymakers alike. While it has been a significant equaliser as a vehicle by which the fundamental right to freedom of expression is guaranteed everyone irrespective of class, creed or geography, these very same platforms are also becoming spaces where—in the garb of free speech—misinformation and hate are able to flourish.
    [Show full text]
  • Insiders, Outsiders, and the Attack on Bhandarkar Institute Adheesh Sathaye
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Digital Commons @ Butler University Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies Volume 19 Article 5 2006 Censorship and Censureship: Insiders, Outsiders, and the Attack on Bhandarkar Institute Adheesh Sathaye Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs Recommended Citation Sathaye, Adheesh (2006) "Censorship and Censureship: Insiders, Outsiders, and the Attack on Bhandarkar Institute," Journal of Hindu- Christian Studies: Vol. 19, Article 5. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7825/2164-6279.1360 The Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies is a publication of the Society for Hindu-Christian Studies. The digital version is made available by Digital Commons @ Butler University. For questions about the Journal or the Society, please contact [email protected]. For more information about Digital Commons @ Butler University, please contact [email protected]. Sathaye: Censorship and Censureship: Insiders, Outsiders, and the Attack on Bhankarkar Institute Censorship and Censureship: Insiders, Outsiders, and the Attack on Bhandarkar Institute Adheesh Sathaye University of British Columbia ON January 5, 2004, the Bhandarkar Institute, a prominent group of Maharashtrian historians large Sanskrit manuscript library in Pune, was sent a letter to OUP calling for its withdrawal. vandalized because of its involvement in James Apologetically, OUP pulled it from Indian Laine's controversial study of the Maharashtrian shelves on November 21,2003, but this did little king Shivaji. While most of the manuscripts to quell the outrage arising from one paragraph escaped damage, less fortunate was the in Laine's book deemed slanderous to Shivaji academic project of South Asian studies, which and his mother Jijabai: now faces sorpe serious questions.
    [Show full text]
  • From Bullet Trail to Bullet Train 125 from Bullet Trail to Bullet Train
    From Bullet Trail to Bullet Train 125 From Bullet Trail to Bullet Train Anand Teltumbde On 5th September 2017, the bullet trail of the Hindutva forces devoured one more precious life. Personally speaking, this was my third loss of a comrade or friend – Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare and now, Gauri Lankesh. The man on the street, too, broadly knows who their killers are. However, even after four years of the first of these murders, the investigations have not made any significant progress. The special investigation team of the Maharashtra police had apprehended one Sameer Gaikwad, a sadhak of the Sanatan Sanstha, on 15th September 2015 for the murder of Pansare and filed a chargesheet against him on 14th December 2015. In Dabholkar’s case, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), brought in on the directions of the Bombay High Court, had arrested one Virendra Tawde, an Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) surgeon and a member of the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS), a splinter of the Sanatan Sanstha, in Pune in June 2016 on the charges of arranging weapons and logistics for the planned murder. Recently, on 17th June 2017, Gaikwad managed to get bail from the Kolhapur District and Sessions Court, which was rejected earlier by the same court as well as by the High Court, and effectively demolished the hope of securing justice for these martyrs. His two accomplices, Vinay Pawar and Sarang Akolkar, both sanstha members are still at large. There is absolutely no reprinted from Economic and Political Weekly, forward movement in Kalburgi’s case whereas in Gauri’s, the vol.52, iSSUE NO.
    [Show full text]
  • Limits to Freedom of Expression?
    LIMITS TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION? CONSIDERATIONS ARISING FROM THE DANISH CARTOONS AFFAIR (Published in IFLA Journal, 32 (2006) 181-188) Paul Sturges Professor of Library Studies Loughborough University, UK INTRODUCTION In September 2005 a Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten published a group of cartoons containing satirical depictions of the Prophet Mahommed. As Islamic communities throughout the world gradually became aware of the publication of the cartoons there were many passionate expressions of distress and anger, largely on two grounds: first that Muslim belief does not accept pictorial representations of the Prophet and second that the cartoons associated the Prophet, and Muslims generally, with terrorism. Public demonstrations, some of them violent and resulting in loss of life, and protests directed mainly at the newspaper and the Danish government followed, whilst the cartoons were reprinted by a number of newspapers in other countries in solidarity with the original publishers. The complex of issues contained within this case is obviously of deep concern to librarians for a number of reasons, most notably the commitment of the profession to freedom of expression as a basic value of library and information work, but also because of the global role of libraries in contributing to providing access to the widest possible range of information and ideas for communities whatever their beliefs. IFLA’s FAIFE core activity provides a central professional focus for addressing these issues and has called for informed and tolerant contributions to the debate. The present article is intended to respond to that call. The essence of the debate is a clash between two opposed views of freedom of expression.
    [Show full text]
  • RESOLUTION on INDIA the State of Freedom of Expression in India
    RESOLUTION ON INDIA The state of freedom of expression in India continues to deteriorate. Writers who voice dissenting viewpoints continue to be at risk for harassment and murder, and India’s defamation laws continue to be exploited by self-interested parties to prevent the publication of material that may well be in the public interest. A culture of intolerance linked to an emerging nationalist discourse and a rise in vigilantism - which PEN International identified in its 2015 and 2016 reports on freedom of expression in the country, and reiterated in its submission to the 27th session of the Working Group of the Universal Periodic Review – continues to grow. The low-cost of initiating defamation proceedings in the courts, combined with an expectation of impunity for attacks carried out against writers, intimidate critical voices into silence and result in a chill on freedom of expression. In the past six weeks alone, three incidents have demonstrated the dire state of freedom of expression in the country: MURDER: On 5 September 2017, Gauri Lankesh, a senior journalist and editor of the weekly Kannada-language tabloid Gauri Lankesh Patrike, was shot dead in front of her home in Bengaluru, Karnataka state. Lankesh, aged 55, was an outspoken critic of communalism and caste-based discrimination in her writing, and a champion of progressive causes, such as supporting student movements. To date there have been no arrests in the case, and the murderers remain at large. At least 16 writers or print journalists have been killed in India since 2013. Lankesh’s murder follows three similar recent murders – of scholar M M Kalburgi, rationalist Narendra Dabholkar, and activist Govind Pansare – which have remained unsolved, and which led to 39 Indian writers and artists returning awards from India’s Sahitya Akademi (Literature Academy) in protest against the Academy’s silence and governmental inaction, and more than 130 writers, artists and filmmakers returning other accolades.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 04 30 LM Thailand
    Public Prosecutor, Office of the Attorney General (OAG) v Mr Somyot Pruksakasemsuk Written Comments of ARTICLE 19 ARTICLE 19 Free Word Centre 60 Farringdon Road London EC1R 3GA UK Tel: +44 207 324 2500 Fax: +44 207 490 0566 www.article19.org 24 April 2012 I. Introduction 1. ARTICLE 19 respectfully submits this amicus brief for the benefit of the Court’s consideration of the salient issues raised by the above-referenced case. 2. The present case before the Court involves the criminal prosecution of Mr Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, editor of the magazine “Voice of the Oppressed” (“Voice of Taksin”), under the lèse-majesté law of Thailand, specifically, Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code on lèse-majesté which states: “Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years”. Lèse-majesté is also entrenched in the Thai Constitution, Section 8, which states: “The King shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated. No person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action”. Furthermore, the 2007 Computer Crimes Act has been used as a law on lèse-majesté. 3. Mr Pruksakasemsuk was arrested and charged under Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code on lèse-majesté on 30 April 2011 and has remained in pre-trial detention since then despite repeated bail requests. As well as being the editor of “Voice of the Oppressed”, Mr Pruksakasemsuk is a labour rights activist and is affiliated with the Democratic Alliance of Trade Unions.
    [Show full text]