East Timor: Government vows to decriminalise defamation

IFEX ::

"(SEAPA/IFEX) - The government of Timor Leste announced on 24 September 2008 its decision to decriminalise the country's Defamation Law, a move that was welcomed by the Timor Lorosa'e Journalists Association (TLJA)"

Mexico: Judge exonerates journalist but sentences writer in lawsuit stemming from book's publication

IFEX ::

"(ARTICLE 19/CENCOS/IFEX) - On 23 September 2008, more than four years after the beginning of legal proceedings, a Mexico City judge exonerated journalist Miguel Ángel Granados Chapa in a case brought against him by Congressman Gerardo Sosa Castelán. Judge Miguel Ángel Robles Villegas, however, sentenced writer Alfredo Rivera Flores to pay an as yet to be determined fine in the same case."

Philippines: Tabloid columnist, editors and publisher face libel charges; court denies petition filed by newspaper staff

IFEX ::

(CMFR/IFEX) - On 16 September 2008, the Philippines Supreme Court upheld the guilty verdict on a 1999 libel case filed by a customs official against a columnist, three editors, and the publisher of a local tabloid. Libel is a criminal offence punishable with jail terms in the Philippines.

The Supreme Court's Second Division denied the petitions filed by columnist and broadcaster Erwin Tulfo, editors Susan Cambri, Rey Salao and Jocelyn Barlizo, and Carlo Publishing House Inc. president Philip Pichay, asking for the reversal of a Court of Appeals decision upholding their conviction in a libel case filed by lawyer Carlos So. So was an official with the Bureau of Customs Intelligence and Investigation Services at Manila's Ninoy Aquino International Airport.

So filed the libel case after Tulfo accused him of corruption and extortion several times in his "Direct Hit" column in the tabloid "Remate" in 1999.

United Nations Human Rights Council rejects idea of Defamation of Religion

IFEX :: HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL REJECTS IDEA OF DEFAMATION OF RELIGION

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL REJECTS IDEA OF DEFAMATION OF RELIGION

It's a small but important victory for free expression defenders: the UN Human Rights Council dropped efforts to endorse the concept of defamation of religion at its latest session, say ARTICLE 19 and news reports.

Following calls from IFEX members ARTICLE 19 and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), among other press freedom groups, the Special Rapporteur for contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance, Githu Muigai, found it was not necessary to promote defamation of religion as a new concept.

Rather, he said that current legislation on inciting racial or religious hatred was sufficient, in comments made during a short Human Rights Council debate on 18 September.

At the debate, Jean-Baptiste Mattéi, speaking for the European Union, also applauded the reversal. "It is fundamental to make a distinction between criticising religions and inciting religious hatred. Only the latter... should be banned."

Resolutions that allow for free expression to be restricted to ensure respect for religions have been passed since 2002, and pressure to protect religions from defamation has been growing, especially since the Danish cartoons controversy.

IFEX members, such as ARTICLE 19, CIHRS, Freedom House and the World Association of Newspapers, have campaigned extensively against the growing trend of using religious anti-defamation laws to limit free speech. Other IFEX members, including Cartoonists Rights Network International, have been keeping the issue on their radar.

At a parallel event in Geneva organised by ARTICLE 19, CIHRS, and the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), 50 non-governmental organisations and representatives of delegations explored some of the legal and other arguments against defamation of religion.

They argued that religious believers have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs and are protected as such in international law. But they cannot expect their religion to be free from criticism. "The states chose to focus their efforts on protecting religion itself, not the believers and not freedom of religion," said ARTICLE 19.

ARTICLE 19 and CIHRS also said that the resolutions have not been tailored to address the very serious problems of discrimination and intolerance, but focus instead on limiting criticism of religion. Plus, they are drafted in vague terms which leaves them open to being abused, said the groups, and only help to justify censorship and the stifling of dissent.

At the parallel meeting, organisations such as East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders (EHAHRD) and Bahá'í International Community also echoed the Special Rapporteur's assessment that international human rights law offered sufficient protection for religious believers. Besides, said EHAHRD, the current debates on defamation of religion are a way for many governments to divert attention from their own poor human rights records.

Defamation of religion has been most recently promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an intergovernmental organisation comprising 57 states with majority or significant Muslim populations. In the spring, OIC had voted for the concept of defamation of religion to be added to UN resolutions. Although the text refers frequently to protecting all religions, the only religion specified as being attacked is Islam.

Some Muslim states continued to press for a defamation of religion concept. Algeria's Ambassador to the UN, Idriss Jazaïry, said at the Human Rights Council debate, "Islamophobia has taken the place of anti-Semitism, which has become politically incorrect in many rich nations. Freedom of expression must not allow the creation of a new form of anti-Semitism against Arabs and Muslims."

There is rumour that the defamation of religion concept will be resurrected at the follow-up conference on racism, which will be held in Geneva next April.

Visit these links:
- Joint statement of ARTICLE 19, CIHRS and EIPR submitted to Human Rights Council: http://tinyurl.com/3gotej
- Summary: http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/96938
- Human Rights Council session: http://tinyurl.com/49pr7y
- Human Rights Tribune on session: http://tinyurl.com/4y6n8v

(24 September 2008)

France: Rapper acquitted of libeling police

Rapper in France is acquitted of libeling the police - International Herald Tribune

"It all started in April 2002, when Hamé's group, La Rumeur, released its first album, and with it a magazine. Inside, the rapper had written an article accusing the police of acting with impunity in their treatment of immigrants and their descendants.


"The reports of the Interior Ministry will never acknowledge the hundreds of our brothers killed by the police without any of the murderers being held to account," wrote Hamé, now 32, whose parents came from Algeria in the 1950s.

"The reality is that living in our neighborhoods today means you have a greater chance of experiencing economic abandon, of psychological vulnerability, of discrimination in the job market, of unstable housing, of regular police humiliations," he wrote."

Singapore: FEER convicted for defamation of Singapore's rulers

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Editor 'defamed' Singapore leader

"Singapore's High Court has ruled that the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) magazine defamed Singapore's rulers."

"Singapore state media reported that Justice Woo Bih Li had reached
his conclusion of defamation by summary judgement, as requested by the
Lees.

In such a judgement, the court makes a ruling without the case
going to trial, as it agrees with the applicant that the defence
arguments are baseless, the Straits Times newspaper added."

Singapore: newspaper faces possible contempt charge for criticising judiciary

"In a separate case, Singapore's attorney general is seeking contempt
proceedings against the publisher and two editors of the Dow
Jones-owned Wall Street Journal's Asian edition for two editorials and
a letter that allegedly impugned the "impartiality, integrity and
independence of the Singapore judiciary," according to the Web site of
the attorney general's office. One of the editorials, "Democracy in
Singapore," published June 26, concerned comments made in the same
defamation hearing Nair attended.
"Open discussion of the issues
raised by this prominent defamation case is a part of a fair judicial
process, and should not lead to further punitive measures," said Bob
Dietz, CPJ's Asia program coordinator. "Online commentators like Nair
should not have to serve time for criticizing the authorities, even in
harsh terms." "

http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/97154