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 movement is spearheaded by a coalition of 62 non-governmental bodies calling itself “Bersih 2.0” — “bersih” being the Malay word for “clean” and 2.0 for this being a reformed version of the original coalition which included within its ranks political parties. It kicked off its campaign for a reform of the electoral process, centered on eight demands, in October last year. After unfruitful efforts to engage the Election Commission, an institution that is widely perceived as not being independent, and the government in meaningful dialogue, the coalition announced in late June this year that it would organise a rally on 9 July to peaceably protest the lack of political will for reform.

Bersih had staged a successful demonstration in 2007 that many credit for having contributed to the shift of support from the incumbent government political coalition in the general elections of 2008. Concerned at the possible political repercussions and more so for the opposition once against throwing its weight behind the cause, the government reacted.

What it did, and how it did it, reveals the extent to which the freedom of expression, assembly and association has been undermined in Malaysia. It is also indicative of how things might evolve.

Initial efforts by the Najib administration involved posturing on the part of the government, the police and NGOs aligned with the government. Malaysians were told by the state controlled media and press that the intended rally was an illegal assembly (police permits are required for gatherings of five or more persons in public) and that the rally was counter-productive as it would be disruptive. Dialogue was invited, though with the condition that the rally was to be called off.

In the face of unwavering commitment on the part of the organisers, the rhetoric was intensified and a campaign of demonisation ensued. The organisers were now labeled as proxies for the opposition, were anti-Malay and anti-Islamic, and being intent on toppling the government. Restrictions were issued as to how the rally was to be characterised.

Government proxies began agitating and inciting racial tension with seeming impunity. The police inconsistently began arresting individuals who were promoting the rally. In one of the earliest episodes, 31 members of the Socialist Party of Malaysia, including Dr Michael Jayakumar, a Member of Parliament, were arrested for allegedly conspiring to wage war against the King. They were, it was said, involved in a plot to resurrect communism and this was provenby their having in their possession t-shirts printed with the images of pre-independence communist guerillas and socialist pamphlets. 6 them, including Dr Jayakumar, were ultimately detained without trial indefinitely. They are still being detained.

In the period that followed, the police began arresting anyone that was wearing a Berish t-shirt or anything that resembled it. The Home Minister declared Bersih 2.0 an illegal society, a decision that justified more invasive action by the police. The Bersih 2.0 secretariat was raided and seven members of its secretariat were arrested. So were opposition politicians who mentioned the upcoming rally in speeches or who otherwise promoted the event. Organisers were called in for questioning.

The chief of police upped the ante by revealing the purported discovery of hidden caches of weapons seemingly linked to the rally and declaring that some might be killed on the day of the rally.

Intervention by the king, who called for more consultation on the matter between the government and the organisers, led to the organisers agreeing to hold the rally in a stadium. The necessary permit was not forthcoming and the organisers now asked supporters to converge on a historic stadium in the middle of the city on the afternoon of 9 July. The police then obtained a court order barring 91 persons from entering specific areas of Kuala Lumpur on 9 July. The city was locked down, with roadblocks established on major arteries, barricades erected and bus permits into the city cancelled for the weekend.
The measures did not work. Some 50,000 Malaysians made it through to peaceably express their support for the cause despite brutal measures by the police. Accounts of the events of Saturday suggest that extreme force was used without reason or provocation. 1,667 persons were arrested. These were in addition to the 60 or so persons who had been arrested in the first phase of the campaign. All indications point to a significant number being charged with offences, in particular the organisers.

In the wake of the event, state controlled media and news agencies have wholly distorted the nature, success and impact of the protests to the great frustration of many. The coalition has filed a legal action to challenge the ban order and the six detained have filed habeas corpus applications. Both actions have yet to be scheduled for hearing.

An uneasy state of calm has descended for the moment, with the government and Bersih 2.0 each proclaiming that their mission was a success. That the Najib administration considers itself justified in having waged a campaign of intimidation against the citizenry is worrying. It indicates a willingness on its part to do whatever it takes to secure its political position. This has grave implications.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is the President of the National Human Rights Society of Malaysia and a lawyer based in Kuala Lumpur. He was the 2009 recipient of the Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression for Law and Campaigning

The post Malaysia’s ‘Bersih 2.0′ movement silenced appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Speaking at the event, Jonathan Dimbleby said: ‘Freedom of expression helps to define our essence as human beings and citizens. Everywhere this right is under growing threat. The Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards are a chance to celebrate those who against all odds have made distinguished contributions to this vital cause – to protect and enhance liberty in Britain and around the world.’

The recipients of the awards for 2009 are:

The Guardian Journalism Award: The Sunday Leader – Sri Lanka
The Sunday Leader and its journalists have been subject to continual threats and brutal harassment since it was launched 15 years ago. The assassination of the Sunday Leader‘s editor and co-founder Lasantha Wickrematunge in January provoked protests and vigils around the world. His brother Lal has since bravely taken on the position of editor, continuing the important work of the newspaper.

The Economist New Media Award: Psiphon
Psiphon is a revolutionary software programme that allows Internet access in countries where censorship is imposed. The programme turns a regular home computer into a personal, encrypted server, capable of retrieving and displaying web pages anywhere. Psiphon was developed as a human rights software project by the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. One of its aims is to design software that is easy to use, so that those with limited technical abilities can take advantage of the technology.

The TR Fyvel Book Award: Beijing Coma – Ma Jian
Spiked with dark wit, poetic beauty and deep rage, Beijing Coma takes the life (and near death) of one young student to create a dazzling novel about contemporary China. In May 1989, tens of thousands of students are camped out in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. But what started as a united protest at the slow pace of their government’s political reform has begun to lose direction. People from all over China are coming to join the demonstration, but the students at its heart are confused by the influence they suddenly wield, and riven by petty in-fighting. One of them, Dai Wei, argues about everything from democracy to the distribution of food to protesters, little knowing that, on 4 June, a soldier will shoot a bullet into his head, sending him into a deep coma.

The Bindmans Law and Campaigning Award: Malik Imtiaz Sarwar – Malaysia
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is a leading human rights lawyer and activist and the current president of the National Human Rights Society (HAKAM). Imtiaz has been a central figure in fighting lawsuits brought against journalists and bloggers, and was the lead counsel for Raja Petra Kamaruddin, popular blogger and editor of Malaysia Today, whose release he secured last year. In August 2006, a poster declaring him to be a traitor to Islam and calling for his death was circulated in Malaysia. He has proposed setting up an inter-faith council, and spoken in a series of public forums on the need for religious freedom.

The Index on Censorship Film Award: The Devil Came on Horseback
Using the exclusive photographs and first-hand testimony of former US Marine Captain Brian Steidle, Directed by Annie Sundberg and Ricki Stern The Devil Came on Horseback takes the viewer on an emotionally-charged journey into the heart of Darfur. Steidle had access to parts of the country that no journalist could penetrate; he was unprepared for what he would witness and experience, including being fired at, taken hostage, and being unable to intervene to save the lives of young children. Ultimately frustrated by the inaction of the international community, Steidle resigned and returned to the US to expose the images and stories of lives he believed were being systematically destroyed.

There to collect awards were Lal Wickrematunge the editor the Sunday Leader, Nart Villeneuve the CTO of Psiphon, Ma Jian the author of Beijing Coma, Peter Noorlander on behalf of Malik Imtiaz Sarwar and Annie Sundberg the director of The Devil Came on Horseback.

Also in attendance were nominees for the Bindmans Law and Campaigning award Harry Roque and Harrison Nkomo as well as Guardian Journalism award nominee Sanjuana Martinez.

Radio interviews by the BBC recorded in the run up to the awards with Lal Wickrematunge, Nart Villeneuve, Harrison Nkomo and Sanjuana Martinez can be found on our website www.indexoncensorship.org in the coming days.

The post FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AWARD 2009 RECIPIENTS ANNOUNCED appeared first on Index on Censorship.