— An anti-Valentine’s Day demonstration held in Amritsar, India

Many Indonesian officials and clerics see Valentine’s Day as nothing more than an excuse for illicit pre-marital relations. The deputy mayor of Depok, Idris Abdul Somad, warned the public off celebrating and dismissed Valentines Day as a public holiday for sex and urged citizens to replace romance with religion by participating in Islamic activities. In Jambi, on Sumatra island, and Solo, in Central Java, hundreds of students held protests against Valentine’s Day on 13 February. In Aceh, the only Indonesian province living under Islamic law, authorities enforced a ban on novelty gifts.

In Iran, Valentine’s Day was banned in 2011 to avoid the spread of western culture. It didn’t stop some citizens from celebrating today though, as shoppers hunted for gifts, despite the regime banning the sale of cards or heart shaped novelties, with florists being threatened with closure should they sell red roses. In Saudi Arabia it’s a similar story; Pre-marital relations are met with staunch punishment. Valentine’s is viewed as a pagan holiday and activities are monitored and curbed by the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.

The censorship of Valentine’s Day isn’t excluded to Islamic countries. In Florida, high-school goers learned the hard way that school is for learning, not for loving after two Orlando schools banned Valentine’s Day, promising to turn away deliveries of gifts that arrive at school to avoid distraction.

Regardless of sanctions, lovers will still exchange the whispers of sweet nothings and secretly bought gifts. This Valentines Day, whether it’s a Mills and Boon novel for one, or a supermarket meal deal for two, remember that it’s not forbidden — yet.

The post Censoring Saint Valentine appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Malaysian columnist fined for defamatory tweets appeared first on Index on Censorship.

To say that the two bills are draconian would be a gross understatement. They brutally curtail the constitutional freedom of Malaysians to dissent. It seems that we have been made the victims of a sleight of hand. While we were being distracted by the song and dance that attended the termination of the ISA, Parliament was being harnessed to diabolical purpose. The passing of the two bills has sounded the death knell of civil liberties.

I am not given to hyperbole. The facts speak for themselves.

The SOA is more a procedural instrument. It puts in place the legal framework for the investigation and prosecution of what are described as “security offences”. It allows for the kinds of invasive measures that we have come to understand are needed for governments to combat terrorism effectively.  Government tells us that terrorism is the raison d’etre of the legislation.

The SOA could arguably be justified on this basis, though I question the need for such extreme anti-terrorism legislation in light of our not having been subjected to terrorist attacks or even threats. Curiously, the preamble to the SOA states that action has been taken and further action is threatened by a body of persons both inside and outside Malaysia to cause organized violence against Malaysians, to excite disaffection against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and to procure the alteration though unlawful means of legal institutions in the nation. This is news to me. These are matters of great significance to us; they suggest that we are virtually in a state of war or that we are in the midst of an insurgency.

The truth of the matter is that we have not been made the subject of such scurrilous action and we have not been threatened with such action. The bill recites this so the Government can invoke a provision of the Federal Constitution, Article 149, that allows parliament to enact laws that contravene certain constitutional guarantees including those that prohibit detention without trial and guarantee a fair trial. The SOA allows, amongst other things, detention without trial for a period of 28 days, and empowers the Attorney General to take extraordinary measures including the interception of all forms of communication where he has reason to believe a Security Offence (this is explained below) has been committed.

We should not lose sight of the fact that the ISA was enacted under Article 149 to address the guerrilla insurgency we faced in the 1960s. I have been made to understand that the Opposition’s unwillingness to associate with an obvious untruth is one of the main reasons it does not support the bill. The fact that Government has resorted to Article 149 gives credence to suggestions that the ISA has merely been repackaged and that the Government is not ready to give up the political advantages that such legislation gives it. As one Minister has observed, there were abuses under the ISA and no law is beyond abuse.

The SOA could perhaps be stomached if it was confined to terrorism. It however is not. In fact there is no mention of the word terrorism or terrorist in the legislation at all. Instead the SOA applies to what is referred to as “Security Offences” which is defined by newly introduced offences, hence the amendments to the Penal Code. This is where the real evil is.

The new offences fall within three categories: activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy, espionage and sabotage. What is immediately apparent is that the three offences, and the various permutations the amendments allow for, are so widely defined so as to capture almost any form of conduct deemed undesirable by the powers that be. This is extremely alarming in light of trends on the part of the authorities where civil liberties are concerned.

Take the offence of activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy.  It is defined to mean “an activity carried out by a person or group of persons designed to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by violent of unconstitutional means”. This is worry in light of the way in which we have heard accusations of unconstitutional behaviour being hurled at diverse persons from opposition members to activists. Consider also the way in which the members of Parti Sosialis Malaysia were arrested prior to the Bersih 2.0 demonstration last year for the alleged offence of “waging war” against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

This point is further illustrated by the offence of “possession of documents and publications detrimental to parliamentary democracy” which carries a jail term of up to ten years. This offence is defined to include documents or publications that have a tendency to, amongst other things, counsel disobedience to the law pertaining to public order. It would clearly impact of demonstrations like those organised by Bersih and other activist groups which were deemed by the police to be unlawful. Under this offence, any notices concerning such an event would be a document or publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy. [Police have obtained an order banning another Bersih demonstration, Bersih 3.0, this week - IoC]

It does not stop there. Such offending documents or publications include any invitation or request for contributions or donations for the use of persons who counsel disobedience to the law, amongst others. Persons receiving such offending documents or publications are required now to deliver the same to a police officer failing which that person may be convicted and sentenced to a jail term of ten years as well. This would be the case if those offending documents or publications were republished. So, the net would widen to include any bloggers who author or publish material deemed undesirable.

In the same vein, espionage means “an activity to obtain sensitive information by ulterior or illegal means for the purpose that is prejudicial to the security or interest of Malaysia”. What that means is not clear. “Sensitive information” is defined to include any information that concerns, amongst other things, public order and the “essential public interest of Malaysia”. The scope of these provisions become a little clearer when we consider how it is our leadership has a tendency to label activities detrimental to its political standing as being aimed at undermining the Government. It seems to me that whistleblowers might also be caught by this provision as well, a point worth noting in light of the numerous scandals the Opposition have been disclosing recently.

I could go on but the point has, I think, been demonstrated. The scope of these offences leaves no room for doubt. They are self-evidently geared towards far more than terrorism.  The question I have is this: why has the Government led us to believe that these laws are intended to combat terrorism when in fact they do far more. Parliament has created a monstrous law that defies legal logic as much as it flies in the face of promise of reforms towards a more inclusive and participatory democracy.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is a practising lawyer and the President of Malaysia’s National Human Rights Society (HAKAM). He won the Bindmans/Index on Censorship law and campaiging award in 2009. This article was first published in The Edge, 21 April

The post Malaysia: The death of civil liberties appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Saudi journalist facing the death penalty for his tweets reportedly to be released appeared first on Index on Censorship.

A version of this piece was first published in The Edge on 18 February

On 12 February Malaysia deported a young Saudi journalist named Hamza Kashgari where he is to face charges of blasphemy, an offence that carries the death sentence.

Kashgari fled Saudi Arabia after a controversy erupted after he used to social network Twitter to imagine a conversation with the Prophet Mohammed. Kashgari apologised and deleted the tweets in the hope that this would calm the situation. His efforts were insufficient and a directive was issued for his arrest for blasphemy. Kashgari fled the country, he hoped to secure political asylum in New Zealand but was arrested in Kuala Lumpur while in transit.

It seems that the Malaysian authorities would have rather kept the arrest and deportation off the radar. However, the news began to spread. The authorities began trying to justify themselves and their intended actions. It was suggested that the arrest was part of an Interpol initiative, though Interpol denied any knowledge of the matter.  Attempts were then made to characterise the affair as being part of an extradition exercise but Malaysia does not have an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia.

Lawyers were appointed and began efforts to meet their client and to secure his release. They appear to have been given the run-around or kept in the dark about the fact that the authorities had already unilaterally decided to return Kashgari to Saudi Arabia. The procuring of an injunction from a High Court judge on Sunday to temporarily restrain the deportation came to nought; Kashgari had been deported earlier that morning despite awareness of the intended legal challenge.

One cannot help but question the manner in which the Malaysian authorities conducted themselves. Malaysia was under no legal obligation to return the journalist to Saudi Arabia and the two countries are not bound by an extradition treaty, meaning what Kashgari has done in Saudi Arabia is not of relevance in Malaysia. Kashgari had not committed any offence in Malaysia and had entered the country on a valid travel document. He was not intending to stay in Malaysia; his final port of call was New Zealand.

There is a more fundamental question: what was Kasghari arrested for? That has not been made clear by the authorities; all they have said is that he is wanted in Saudi Arabia. Under Malaysian law a person is guaranteed life and liberty and can only be arrested for having committed a crime. Kashgari did not commit a crime here, he was entitled to contest the legality of his arrest. This is why his lawyers ultimately filed a habeas corpus application.

The situation is ironic. The Home Minister has attempted to justify the deportation as an extradition. But were this to be the case, the person sought to be extradited would be entitled to challenge the validity of the extradition order. Those who have been following the extradition proceedings concerning Julian Assange would have seen how aggressively he has opposed extradition. In the same way, General Augustus Pinochet had fought his extradition to Spain. In such cases it is open to the person sought to be extradited to show that were he to be extradited, he would face consequences that were harsher than those permitted in the deporting country.

Where Kashgari is concerned, this was clearly the case. He is facing a death sentence for having done something that would either not have been an offence in Malaysia or would not have carried a death sentence.

The very real possiblity of Kashgari being sentenced to death has been studiously avoided by the Malaysian authorities. They take the position that this is an internal Saudi matter. Curiously, the Home Minister has gone on to say that Malaysia is not to be seen as a haven for terrorists; the offence Hamza is said to have committed does not concern an act of terrorism.

And underlying all of this is the fact that the Malaysian authorities did not have to intervene at all. Kashgari could have been left to take his flight to New Zealand and the problem would have been New Zealand’s.

All of this marshals into one inescapable conclusion. The Malaysian government acted only in its own interests and chose to prioritise diplomatic expediency over the lawful rights of Hamza Kashgari, even though this may ultimately cost the columnist his life. In doing so, the government acted in complete defiance of legal obligations it was under.

I am not alone in this view. The National Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) has condemned the authorities for having acted as they did.

For all its talk about moderation,  progress and commitment to the fundamentals of the international human rights framework, it is regrettable that the Malaysian government appears to be willing to uphold human rights only where it is politically convenient to do so. Put more plainly, it just does not seem to care.

Were it otherwise, Hamza Kashgari would have had his day in court.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is a practising lawyer and the president of the Malaysian National Human Rights Society. He tweets at @malikimitiaz

The post The mysterious case of Hamza Kashgari appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Saudi Arabia: Hamza Kashgari “repents”, family member says appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Malaysia: Hamza Kashgari deported unlawfully, lawyers claim appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The case of journalist Hamza Kashgari has entered a new and deeply worrying phase as Malaysian authorities have deported the 23-year-old journalist back to Saudi Arabia, where he could be executed for “blasphemy”. There has been widespread and rightful opprobrium of the Saudi government’s response but few seem to question the official Saudi line that their indignation at alleged blasphemy is behind the call for the death penalty. Specifically, the government claims Hamza’s tweets, in which he appeared to express irreverence for the Prophet, is the source of its vendetta against him.

The tweets represented an imaginary conversations with Prophet Mohammed, in which Hamza expressed both admiration, reproach and confusion: “On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you”, he stated. Few have questioned whether the charges are actually a front to stifle discussion over broader political issues, which Hamza raised in other tweets and writings. According to Hamza himself, he is part of the young generation of Saudis who are increasingly resentful of the state’s intransigence and are seemingly willing to risk official wrath in expressing their views. “It’s not logical that, if someone disagrees with the Saudi government, that he should be forced to leave the country. Many of those who have been arrested are fighting for simple rights that everyone should have — freedom of thought, expression, speech and religion.”

The masquerade of religious offence is a poorly constructed artifice to continue to limit the basic human rights of Saudi nationals, including freedom of speech and gender equality. Fostering a climate of fear and oppression is the best guarantee of compliance and Islam is a traditional rallying cry for the masses, ensuring public support at a time of broader upheaval. The monarchy is particularly concerned about dissent at a time when the region has been rocked by protests which have seen longstanding despots ousted and others relinquishing political concessions to avoid instability.

One of Hamza’s tweets was a criticism of the status of women in the kingdom, which the monarchy is keen not to see stirred up, particularly in the wake of the on-going campaign by Saudi women to challenge a long-standing driving ban. It is entirely likely that Hamza’s tweet that “No Saudi women will go to hell, because it’s impossible to go there twice” along with his broader critiques of the regime, are at the real root of the government’s fury.

Saudi Arabia presents itself as the defender of Islam and justifies much of its unacceptable legal and political repression through the prism of religious exceptionalism. The reality is that fewer and fewer Muslims look to Saudi Arabia as reflection of Islamic values and many more support the young generation of Saudis’ struggle for basic human rights.

The current controversy is an opportunistic attempt to rouse Islamic sentiment for a profoundly illegitimate dictatorship, whose shameful abuses of power cannot and should not be masked by the ill-fitting “defence of Islam”.  If Saudi Arabia executes Hamza, it will be in the name of perpetuating its fundamentally un-islamic political oppression and nothing to do with the compassionate model of the Prophet, whose name they claim to be acting upon.

Myriam Francois-Cerrah is a writer, journalist andbudding academic

The post Hamza Kashgari targeted under guise of “religious offence” appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Malaysia: Saudi journalist Hamza Kashgari deported appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Malaysia: Saudi writer arrested for blasphemy over Mohammed tweets appeared first on Index on Censorship.