Thursday, July 26, 2018

Why the Paisley scandal should prompt wider scrutiny of the UK-Sri Lanka war crimes denial lobby

Jul 24, 2018

Earlier last week, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards issued a damning report on the conduct of UK MP Ian Paisley Jr in relation to his dealings on Sri Lanka. It follows an investigation into allegations, originally published in the Telegraph newspaper, that the MP failed to disclose details of two luxury all-expenses-paid family holidays to Sri Lanka in 2013 – after which he had proceeded to lobby the British government on behalf of his generous hosts. In a letter in March 2014, Paisley urged then Prime Minister David Cameron not to support an international probe into mass atrocities carried out during the Sri Lankan civil war.

Among the report’s key conclusions are that Paisley:

breached the House’s rule on paid advocacy (lobbying in return for reward or consideration) by writing to the Prime Minister on 19 March 2014 to lobby against supporting a UN resolution on Sri Lanka. This amounted to asking for an exclusive benefit for Sri Lanka, when he had received personal benefit and hospitality from the Sri Lankan government within the previous twelve months;
at the same time, breached the House’s rules on declaration by failing to declare the personal benefit and hospitality from the Sri Lankan government in his letter to the Prime Minister of 19 March 2014;
breached the House’s rules on registration of interests by failing to register within the 28 days agreed by the House the two visits he made to Sri Lanka with family members in March/April 2013 and in July 2013.

The report goes on to state:

“These two visits to Sri Lanka provided a very substantial personal benefit to Mr Paisley and his family. I find it surprising that such an experienced MP did not ask himself whether it was proper to accept such benefits from a foreign government. I also find it surprising that he did not realise that, if accepted, these benefits would call into question his impartiality when he next spoke about the affairs of that government.”

As a result of the Commissioner’s findings, Paisley faces suspension from the UK House of Commons for 30 sitting days, the longest ever on record. Should a ‘recall petition’ triggered by the suspension receive the support of 10% of his constituents, the MP could also lose his seat and face a by-election.

Cui Bono?

Ian Paisley Jr meeting with former Sri Lankan High Commissioner to the UK Amari Wijewardene in September 2017, reportedly to “discuss a post-Brexit trade deal”

Paisley is not the only individual in Westminster to have vigorously opposed war survivor demands for a credible process of justice and reconciliation in recent times. As we reported on earlier this year, it is an endeavour that has also been enthusiastically championed by another Parliamentarian, Lord Naseby, who has sought to cast doubt and spread disinformation about the scale of war-time atrocities in 2009.

While there is no suggestion that Naseby has fallen foul of Parliamentary standards, either in registering or declaring his interests, many will rightly be asking questions about the scale of the benefits that he has received from the government of Sri Lanka in in the past few years – given his energetic efforts to deflect international scrutiny of the war and given what we now know about the gold-plated nature of Paisley’s visits.

While House of Lords register of interests does not (unlike the Commons register) reveal information about the precise costs incurred during foreign trips, it does show – as we document here – that Naseby has visited Sri Lanka ten times since 2002, with many of his expenses, including flights, hotels, and local travel, being borne by the government of Sri Lanka.

Incidentally, a Sri Lankan journalist recently made a Right to Information (RTI) request to the Sri Lankan Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) asking them to provide details of Naseby’s expenditure over the past decade and a half. Curiously, the MFA’s response featured only details of a single visit in 2012 – which included use of a chartered air force helicopter for the sum of 1.2 million LKR – with no explanation as to the omission of the years.

A breakdown of expenses for Lord Naseby’s 2012 visit to Sri Lanka, as disclosed by the Sri Lankan Ministry for Foreign Affairs following an RTI request.

Until the government of Sri Lanka or Lord Naseby volunteers this information, the total figure of costs borne by the Sri Lankan public is likely to remain unknown. The Sri Lanka Campaign has written to Lord Naseby asking him to share, in the interests of transparency, the full details of his expenses in relation to the remainder of his visits.

Parliamentary procedures matter. But so do personal principles.

The procedural rules of Parliament aside, at the heart of the matter – in the case of both Paisley, Naseby, and others – is the basic morality of politicians accepting benefits from a government accused of serious human rights violations, at the same time as conducting lobbying in support of that government to refute those accusations. Whether or not an interest has been properly registered or declared in accordance with the rules of Parliament is arguably a secondary concern to the underlying fact that there are individuals in the UK Parliament who have defended, and who continue to defend, the Sri Lankan state’s shameful war record while receiving personal benefits from it. This a point that risks being overlooked in the wider media coverage of the Paisley scandal.

While last week, quoting the prophet Isiah, Paisley read a statement in the Commons expressing regret and remorse for his actions, strikingly absent was any apology for the tens of thousands of civilian victims who continue to be denied justice for appalling abuses carried out at the end of the war[1]. Perhaps now would be the time for him, and others in Parliament who have sought to deflect the call for accountability in Sri Lanka, to reflect upon another of the prophet Isiah’s proclamations: “Cease to do evil. Learn to do right. Seek justice. Defend the oppressed.”

Footnotes

[1] Somewhat oddly, given his apparent contrition ha

IMPUNITY IN SRI LANKA AND THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY INTO DISAPPEARANCES OF PERSONS – M.C.M. IQBAL

26/07/2018

The violation of the language rights following the enactment of Official Languages Act No. 33 of 1956, started the process of human rights violations of the Tamils of Sri Lanka which eventually led to the pogroms against them in 1958, 1977, 1983 and the massacres of 2008 -2009.

71 onwards

To understand the upsurge of impunity and disappearances of persons in the country, there is a need to look at the insurgency of Sinhala youth in 1971 which was brutally suppressed by the police and security forces of the Government. An estimated 65,000 Sinhala youth perished in the process. That was one of the occasions that the military and the police of Sri Lanka had, practice torture, abductions and summary executions their own youth and gain experience in these methods of suppressing dissent with the tacit approval of the government.

Since there had been no investigations into those incidents and no one was held responsible any of those incident, except for the case of a beauty queen from Matara being marched nude along the streets before being brutally killed. That is the period when the culture of impunity germinated in the minds of the police and security services personnel.

The mid 1980s

The mid 1980s saw a similar but more wide spread discontent among the Sinhala youth known as JVP ers. The prime reason for that was the economic policies of successive governments which failed to quench their thirst for jobs by the educated youth. The turbulence caused by them reached a boiling point in 1987 when the Indo-Lanka Accord was signed as the JVP thought this accord which was
to create Provincial Councils with devolved power, would lead to a division of the country into two. Their rioting went berserk making it virtually impossible for the rulers to control them and govern. Having failed in its attempts to appease the JVPers the Government, had to give a free hand to the police and security forces to deal with the JVP rebels, using whatever means they thought necessary to subdue them. By this time the impunity that had been sown in the minds of the police and the security services personnel during the insurgency of 1971 had grown to alarming proportions. There were instances of heads of JVPers being severed by the security forces and displayed in prominent junctions to scare the people of the area and deter fresh recruits to the JVP. Abductions, torture, killings and causing
disappearances of persons suspected to be members of the JVP or its supporters, became the order of the day between 1985 and 1995. This period is known as the ‘period of terror’ in the South. These incidents reached a peak during the Parliamentary and Presidential elections of 1989 and 1990. It is estimated that more than 60,000 Sinhala youth had been killed during that period. The culture
of impunity had by then matured and had become endemic among the police and the security forces of Sri Lanka.

CBK commissions

It was during this climate that Chandrika Bandaranaike, got elected in 1994 as the President of Sri Lanka. To honour an election pledge she had given to bring impunity and violence to end, she appointed three Commissions of Inquiry into Disappearances of Persons on a Zonal basis and another with All-Island jurisdiction in 1998. The latter was to deal with the 10,000 odd cases left un-inquired by the Zonal Commissions.

Commissions of Inquiry in Sri Lanka are fact finding bodies and have no judicial power. Their task was to conduct inquiries and investigations into the complaints received in terms of their Mandate, which expected them, inter alia, to elicit ‘credible material indicative of the persons responsible’ for the disappearances of the persons concerned They have to arrive at conclusions after inquiries and
investigations based on a balance of probabilities and not look for evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Such Commissions are obliged to report their finding back to the President on the matters in their terms of reference. The law gives the option to the President to keep all the contents or any part of their Reports from being made public. Implementing any recommendation of such Commissions is at
the sole discretion of the President. Consequently not everyone is aware of the contents of these reports, in full. They do not even know the names of the persons against whom credible material indicative of their responsibility for the disappearances had been found. The lists included not only those of police and security forces personnel but also of politicians and civilians. (This information is known to the writer as he was the Secretary to two such Commissions of Inquiry). Their names were never made public and hardly any action had been taken so far against any of them based on the findings of these Commissions. In fact some of those whose names are in the lists of these Commissions, are in key positions today in various establishments under the State.

Mass graves and torture chambers

These Reports also contain credible evidence received by the Commissions about mass graves and torture chambers that had existed during the relevant period. While villagers living nears the spots where the graves exist had given evidence and victims of torture who had later escaped being caused to be disappeared had appeared before the Commissions and given vivid evidence of the manner in which

they had been tortured and the names of those who were in charge of such chambers. Yet, so far no action whatsoever has been taken with regard to those matters. The victims of torture who gave evidence before the Commissions continue to live in despair. Some of them had been maimed during the course of the torture.

These gave a further boost to the impunity of the police and security forces personnel concerned who became bolder and continued the violations with rank impunity during subsequent operations against the militancy in the North and East.

If in spite of the evidence on such matters provided to the Commissions by the victims themselves who are Sinhala youth, had not been acted upon, what would happen to any evidence that may come to light in the course of any investigation in the future into what had happened to the Tamils during the

conflict, is not difficult to surmise.

Thus it could be seen that the purposes for which Commissions of Inquiry into disappearances of persons, had been appointed, were not realised. But they helped the Government to respond to questions from the victims, persons who were concerned about them and the international community, saying that they have set up mechanisms to deal with their issues and side track the queries.

Another benefit that the Governments which succeeded that of President Chandrika Bandaranaike had from the Reports of the Commissions she had set up was, that they had a ready reckoner in the list of perpetrators provided in the Reports to find the names of the Police and Military personnel who were adept in causing disappearances of persons and use them for many of such incidents that took place during the successive regimes.

The Mahanama Thilakaratne Commission and the Udalgama Commission appointed in 2006 and 2013 respectively suffered the same fate as the Commissions already mentioned. When the Udalagama Commission was appointed in 2006 to inquire into high profile human rights violations, to allay the

fear of such Commissions going to be a farce, the government invited a group of Independent International Group of Eminent Persons to ensure the inquiries of that Commission are conducted according to international norms and standards.

The IIGEP

In spite of that this Commission too flopped. This is what the IIGEP had to say in their final Report on this matter “the absence of political will and (the) institutional inability of Sri Lanka to conduct human rights inquiries in accordance with international norms and standards”. Eventually IIGEP had to abort it’s mission. The Commissions terms too was ended before they could finish their task.

This view of the IIGEP is applicable to the recommendations of all the commissions that had been appointed by successive Governments in Sri Lanka on issues relating to human rights. In the circumstances it is no surprise that the police and the security forces acted with utter impunity in their military operations relating to the massacre of civilians during and after the war that ended in 2009. The Panel of Experts appointed by the UNHRC after the conclusion of the war had this to say – “the conduct of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity during both war and peace” . In spite of such statements the Government of Sri Lanka
always maintains it is a matter of internal affairs and denies the need for an independent investigation into war crimes allegations. In fact the current President has stated on more than one occasion that he will not allow anyone to take legal action against ‘the war heros of Sri Lanka’ . Will not such statements
glorifying the security forces foster impunity ?

Let us now have a look at some of the constitutional mechanisms available in Sri Lanka to victims of human rights violations to obtain relief. The fundamental Rights Chapter of the Constitution of Sri Lanka includes some of the key human rights spelt out in the UN Charter on Human Rights. That includes, inter alia, the right to be free from torture, freedom from arbitrary arrest, presumption of
innocence until proved guilty by a due process of the law, and even the right of all persons to equal protection of the law. In spite of these provisions in the Constitution those are the very rights that have been grossly and blatantly being violated in Sri Lanka, then and now.

Prevention of Terrorism Act

Another provision in this chapter which says these rights could be denied while laws relating to public security are in force, gives the Government the justification for their actions. It is no secret that during a major part of the period of the conflict and thereafter, the abhorrent Emergency Regulations and the obnoxious Prevention of Terrorism Act were in force. These were universally condemned and as a consequence the Government ostensibly withdrew the Emergency Regulations and stealthy included the undesirable provisions of the Regulations into the Prevention of Terrorism Act. That Act continues to be in force still, in spite of an undertaking given by the Government to the UNHRC that this law would be
repealed as soon as possible. Another such law is the Torture Prevention Act of Sri Lanka which was enacted following Sri Lanka acceding to the Torture Convention in 1994. The intention of this Act to prevent torture was nullified by the government including a provision in the Act stating that any case against a police or military personnel on allegations of torture could be only filed by the Attorney-General. The in-effectiveness of these mechanisms to deal with perpetrators of human rights violations too, contributed to the upsurge of impunity among the perpetrators.

During times of the Universal Periodic Review on the progress of dealing with human rights situation in the country, Sri Lanka has always painted a rosy picture. Every time Sri Lanka has made promises of progressively improving the situation. Often the Government has also been taking measures that gave a
deceptive impression to the international community. A typical example of such an action is the creation of an Office of Missing Persons (OMP) almost two years after the law relating to it was enacted. On the face of it, this Office appears to honour the pledge to set up a mechanism to deal with issues of the victims of disappearances of persons that had taken place during the conflict. A closer look at
the various provisions show, that it is a flawed institution. Among the matters in the law that makes one think so, inter alia, is the fact that its proceedings are to be extremely confidential; the findings of the OMP should not lead to any civil or criminal action against any perpetrator identified; the funds of the OMP are going to be from the Consolidated Fund which is directly under the control of the Secretary to the President; and the term of the members of the OMP being limited to three years and are eligible to be re-appointed, would prevent them from making any findings that would make the Government unhappy which would lead to a refusal of the members being re-appointed. Besides the offence of disappearances of persons is still not in the Penal Code of Sri Lanka nor is the concept of command responsibility. Consequently acting with impunity is the norm even today.

UNHRC Resolution 30/1

The UNHRC too appears to be gullible to undertakings by the Government and continues to give time to the Government to comply with the agreed provisions of UNHRC Resolution 30/1. Even the EU is guilty of such a generosity as it withdrew the ban of the tax concessions given to Sri Lanka believing false pretences of improvements in the human rights situation in the country. In view of this, it is inevitable that impunity will persist in the operations of the police and the security forces personnel. In fact many have left the country after the assumption of a new Government in January 2015 and sought refuge in UK and other countries after having been victims of torture.

It is time the international community recognises and understands the dynamics of human rights violations in Sri Lanka and the deceptive statements the government issues, and ensures the rights of those victims of violations are protected, even by recourse to the principle of the UN’s Responsibility to Protect.

Impunity in Sri Lanka and the Commissions of Inquiry into Disappearances

Featured image by Raisa Wickrematunge

MCM IQBAL- 07/26/2018

The violation of the language rights following the enactment of Official Languages Act No. 33 of 1956, started the process of human rights violations of the Tamils of Sri Lanka which eventually led to the pogroms against them in 1958, 1977, 1983 and the massacres of 2008 -2009.

To understand the upsurge of impunity and disappearances of persons in the country, there is a need to look at the insurgency of Sinhala youth in 1971 which was brutally suppressed by the police and security forces of the Government. An estimated 65,000 Sinhala youth perished in the process. That was one of the occasions that the military and the police of Sri Lanka had, practice torture, abductions and summary executions their own youth and gain experience in these methods of suppressing dissent with the tacit approval of the government. Since there had been no investigations into those incidents and no one was held responsible any of those incident, except for the case of a beauty queen from Matara being marched nude along the streets before being brutally killed. That is the period when the culture of impunity germinated in the minds of the police and security services personnel.

The mid 1980s saw a similar but more wide spread discontent among the Sinhala youth known as JVPers. The prime reason for that was the economic policies of successive governments which failed to quench their thirst for jobs by the educated youth. The turbulence caused by them reached a boiling point in 1987 when the Indo-Lanka Accord was signed as the JVP thought this accord which was to create Provincial Councils with devolved power, would lead to a division of the country into two. Their rioting went berserk making it virtually impossible for the rulers to control them and govern. Having failed in its attempts to appease the JVPers, the Government had to give a free hand to the police and security forces to deal with the JVP rebels, using whatever means they thought necessary to subdue them.

By this time the impunity that had been sown in the minds of the police and the security services personnel during the insurgency of 1971 had grown to alarming proportions. There were instances of heads of JVPers being severed by the security forces and displayed in prominent junctions to scare the people of the area and deter fresh recruits to the JVP. Abductions, torture, killings and causing disappearances of persons suspected to be members of the JVP or its supporters, became the order of the day between 1985 and 1995. This period is known as the ‘period of terror’ in the South. These incidents reached a peak during the Parliamentary and Presidential elections of 1989 and 1990. It is estimated that more than 60,000 Sinhala youth had been killed during that period. The culture of impunity had by then matured and had become endemic among the police and the security forces of Sri Lanka.

It was during this climate that Chandrika Bandaranaike, got elected in 1994 as the President of Sri Lanka. To honour an election pledge she had given to bring impunity and violence to end, she appointed three Commissions of Inquiry into Disappearances of Persons on a Zonal basis and another with All-Island jurisdiction in 1998. The latter was to deal with the 10,000 odd cases left un-inquired by the Zonal Commissions.

Commissions of Inquiry in Sri Lanka are fact finding bodies and have no judicial power. Their task was to conduct inquiries and investigations into the complaints received in terms of their Mandate, which expected them, inter alia, to elicit ‘credible material indicative of the persons responsible’ for the disappearances of the persons concerned. They have to arrive at conclusions after inquiries and investigations based on a balance of probabilities and not look for evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Such Commissions are obliged to report their finding back to the President on the matters in their terms of reference. The law gives the option to the President to keep all the contents or any part of their Reports from being made public. Implementing any recommendation of such Commissions is at the sole discretion of the President.

Consequently not everyone is aware of the contents of these reports, in full. They do not even know the names of the persons against whom credible material indicative of their responsibility for the disappearances had been found. The lists included not only those of police and security forces personnel but also of politicians and civilians. (This information is known to the writer as he was the Secretary to two such Commissions of Inquiry). Their names were never made public and hardly any action had been taken so far against any of them based on the findings of these Commissions. In fact some of those whose names are in the lists of these Commissions, are in key positions today in various establishments under the State.

These Reports also contain credible evidence received by the Commissions about mass graves and torture chambers that had existed during the relevant period. While villagers living nears the spots where the graves exist had given evidence and victims of torture who had later escaped being caused to be disappeared had appeared before the Commissions and given vivid evidence of the manner in which they had been tortured and the names of those who were in charge of such chambers. Yet, so far no action whatsoever has been taken with regard to those matters. The victims of torture who gave evidence before the Commissions continue to live in despair. Some of them had been maimed during the course of the torture.

These gave a further boost to the impunity of the police and security forces personnel concerned who became bolder and continued the violations with rank impunity during subsequent operations against the militancy in the North and East.

If in spite of the evidence on such matters provided to the Commissions by the victims themselves who are Sinhala youth, had not been acted upon, what would happen to any evidence that may come to light in the course of any investigation in the future into what had happened to the Tamils during the conflict, is not difficult to surmise.

Thus it could be seen that the purposes for which Commissions of Inquiry into disappearances of persons, had been appointed, were not realised. But they helped the Government to respond to questions from the victims, persons who were concerned about them and the international community, saying that they have set up mechanisms to deal with their issues and side track the queries. Another benefit that the Governments which succeeded that of President Chandrika Bandaranaike had from the Reports of the Commissions she had set up was, that they had a ready reckoner in the list of perpetrators provided in the Reports to find the names of the Police and Military personnel who were adept in causing disappearances of persons and use them for many of such incidents that took place during the successive regimes.

The Mahanama Thilakaratne Commission and the Udalagama Commission appointed in 2006 and 2013 respectively suffered the same fate as the Commissions already mentioned. When the Udalagama Commission was appointed in 2006 to inquire into high profile human rights violations, to allay the fear of such Commissions going to be a farce, the government invited a group of Independent International Group of Eminent Persons to ensure the inquiries of that Commission are conducted according to international norms and standards. In spite of that this Commission too flopped. This is what the IIGEP had to say in their final Report on this matter “the absence of political will and (the) institutional inability of Sri Lanka to conduct human rights inquiries in accordance with international norms and standards”. Eventually IIGEP had to abort it’s mission. The Commissions terms too was ended before they could finish their task.

This view of the IIGEP is applicable to the recommendations of all the commissions that had been appointed by successive Governments in Sri Lanka on issues relating to human rights. In the circumstances it is no surprise that the police and the security forces acted with utter impunity in their military operations relating to the massacre of civilians during and after the war that ended in 2009. The Panel of Experts appointed by the UNHRC after the conclusion of the war had this to say – “the conduct of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity during both war and peace” . In spite of such statements the Government of Sri Lanka always maintains it is a matter of internal affairs and denies the need for an independent investigation into war crimes allegations. In fact the current President has stated on more than one occasion that he will not allow anyone to take legal action against ‘the war heroes of Sri Lanka’ . Will not such statements glorifying the security forces foster impunity?

Let us now have a look at some of the constitutional mechanisms available in Sri Lanka to victims of human rights violations to obtain relief. The fundamental Rights Chapter of the Constitution of Sri Lanka includes some of the key human rights spelt out in the UN Charter on Human Rights. That includes, inter alia, the right to be free from torture, freedom from arbitrary arrest, presumption of innocence until proved guilty by a due process of the law, and even the right of all persons to equal protection of the law. In spite of these provisions in the Constitution those are the very rights that have been grossly and blatantly being violated in Sri Lanka, then and now.

Another provision in this chapter which says these rights could be denied while laws relating to public security are in force, gives the Government the justification for their actions. It is no secret that during a major part of the period of the conflict and thereafter, the abhorrent Emergency Regulations and the obnoxious Prevention of Terrorism Act were in force. These were universally condemned and as a consequence the Government ostensibly withdrew the Emergency Regulations and stealthy included the undesirable provisions of the Regulations into the Prevention of Terrorism Act. That Act continues to be in force still, in spite of an undertaking given by the Government to the UNHRC that this law would be repealed as soon as possible. Another such law is the Torture Prevention Act of Sri Lanka which was enacted following Sri Lanka acceding to the Torture Convention in 1994. The intention of this Act to prevent torture was nullified by the government including a provision in the Act stating that any case against a police or military personnel on allegations of torture could be only filed by the Attorney-General. The in-effectiveness of these mechanisms to deal with perpetrators of human rights violations too, contributed to the upsurge of impunity among the perpetrators.

During times of the Universal Periodic Review on the progress of dealing with human rights situation in the country, Sri Lanka has always painted a rosy picture. Every time Sri Lanka has made promises of progressively improving the situation. Often the Government has also been taking measures that gave a deceptive impression to the international community.

A typical example of such an action is the creation of an Office of Missing Persons (OMP) almost two years after the law relating to it was enacted. On the face of it, this Office appears to honour the pledge to set up a mechanism to deal with issues of the victims of disappearances of persons that had taken place during the conflict. A closer look at the various provisions show, that it is a flawed institution. Among the matters in the law that makes one think so, inter alia, is the fact that its proceedings are to be extremely confidential; the findings of the OMP should not lead to any civil or criminal action against any perpetrator identified; the funds of the OMP are going to be from the Consolidated Fund which is directly under the control of the Secretary to the President; and the term of the members of the OMP being limited to three years and are eligible to be re-appointed, would prevent them from making any findings that would make the Government unhappy which would lead to a refusal of the members being re-appointed. Besides the offence of disappearances of persons is still not in the Penal Code of Sri Lanka nor is the concept of command responsibility. Consequently acting with impunity is the norm even today.

The UNHRC too appears to be gullible to undertakings by the Government and continues to give time to the Government to comply with the agreed provisions of UNHRC Resolution 30/1. Even the EU is guilty of such a generosity as it withdrew the ban of the tax concessions given to Sri Lanka believing false pretences of improvements in the human rights situation in the country. In view of this, it is inevitable that impunity will persist in the operations of the police and the security forces personnel. In fact many have left the country after the assumption of a new Government in January 2015 and sought refuge in UK and other countries after having been victims of torture.

It is time the international community recognises and understands the dynamics of human rights violations in Sri Lanka and the deceptive statements the government issues, and ensures the rights of those victims of violations are protected, even by recourse to the principle of the UN’s Responsibility to Protect.

Editor’s Note: The author was the Secretary to two Commissions of Inquiry into Disappearances of Persons in Sri Lanka and later a Consultant at the National Human Rights Commission. This is the text of a presentation delivered in the UK.

Also read “What you need to know: Facts on the Enforced Disappearances Bill” and “Enforced Disappearances in Sri Lanka: Legacy and Ongoing Challenges“

Where “Anthare” gets it right

In Sri Lanka, the government has historically been in cahoots with the private sphere when it comes to the most “common” sectors (education and healthcare)

2018-07-27

Lahiru Weerasekara, convenor of the Inter University Students’ Federation or IUSF, better known as Anthare, is a colourful if not divisive figure. He inspires love and hate, sometimes on the same terms. He is derided by those who wish to dismantle the State’s grip on education and admired by those who wish to preserve the “free” in free education. It is difficult to ascribe to him every strike action and demonstration that his outfit has carried out, but if there ever were a student leader who epitomised the angst of the moment, the agitation against the privatisation of education, it is he. A friend of mine pointed out recently that everyone’s a radical as long as he does not have children, is not married, and is committed to the hilt with an ideology he or she entertains as the absolute truth. Lahiru Weerasekara does not have children, is not married, and entertains a particularly compelling ideology as the absolute truth. He is no hero of mine, but that ideology of his is compelling enough, so I am with him.

There are two schools of thought regarding higher education in this country. One school contends that free education must of necessity stop at the point a student completes his secondary education, i.e. his A/Levels. Reasons given as justifications for this point of view usually include the fact that the State, meagre as its finances are when it comes to funding government institutions, must buckle up even more when it comes to university education. Proponents of this school contend that what is needed is a vibrant private sector to cater to those who a)can’t enter a local university and b) can pay through higher education if given a chance or choice. Since complete privatisation is untenable if not impractical, they contend further, the ideal system would be a private-public partnership, such as the one implemented and carried out at the Kotelawala Defence Academy. They are not supporters of the free market, they are realists, and as realists, they (at least vaguely) want to balance equity and equality.

The other school of thought opposes any reform in this regard, and to this end wants the State to maintain its grip on higher education. They believe that the government is not doing enough, that it should be spending at least 6% of the GDP on universities and other institutions of higher education (trade colleges, industrial schools, what-not), and that it should do away with private colleges and universities which offer degrees that cannot strictly be monetised and hence exist outside the bounds of the free market (medicine and engineering being just two of these). In other words, not only are they against the commoditisation of education (where they are correct), they are also insistent that whatever attempt the State makes in compromising on their principles and shared perspectives is an act of aggression that can only end in the complete privatisation of education (where they are dogmatic). Given that in Sri Lanka, the government has historically been in cahoots with the private sphere when it comes to the most “common” sectors (education and healthcare), they are correct.

Where do I stand, and where should we stand? Ideally in neither camp, but given that these are divisive times and given that we happen to live in a divisive society, a choice must be made. Malinda Seneviratne once wrote that while education must not be sold off for a song and two cents, this does not give unbridled licence to oppose the entry of students to private institutions if those two above points, i.e. they can’t enter a local University and can pay through those private institutions, are met. But Marx and Engels made it impossible for us to stand with them without opposing Adam Smith, and the Marxists of the 20th century made it impossible for us to support Castro and oppose American imperialism while supporting reform movements in the former camp. In that sense, the divide between Lahiru Weerasekara and Neville Fernando can never be resolved. If we are to stand with the former, we have to oppose the latter. And given the reality today, I am not so sure whether I want to stand with the latter.

Here’s why.

Around a year ago, a prominent online news and comment site ran several opinion pieces from students who had been “cheated” at their A Levels and thus of an opportunity to pursue their dreams to become doctors without leaving Sri Lanka. One after another, and one testimony after another, these students argued that they did not want to leave the country, that they wanted to give back to the people who had funded them (parents and relatives in the case of those who had studied in private schools; the entire public in the case of those who had studied in local schools). For a while at least, these essays worked, and they won the sympathy of a number of objective, unbiased readers. But then, as one piece piled up on top of another, other comments began flowing in. The writers of these comments made one point: that these students had been “planted” and that as students of a derided private medical institution they had a bias for the continuation of its interests. Their case was compelling, and yet, it failed to account for one important fact: the disparity between their access to privilege (from English-speaking backgrounds) and the lack of access thereto of a majority who made it to local universities and had to make the hard yards to make it there.

The simple truth then is that the government, outdated though its institutions may be, is nevertheless reining in on the need to qualify educational attainments by means of universally accepted metrics and thresholds

No amount of testimonials can erase this fact, which is a result of decades of class differences that have gone unchecked and have been institutionalised in the public and private sphere. (I’ll explore this in next week’s piece.) The simple truth then is that the government, outdated though its institutions may be, is nevertheless reining in on the need to qualify educational attainments by means of universally accepted metrics and thresholds. In the absence of a profit motive, Sri Lanka’s higher education sector is determined, on paper at least, to match result with performance and performance with result. This is true not just of academic qualifications, it is also true of professional qualifications (especially accountancy). After all, while the State can be faulted for indulging in age-old and primitive mindsets, it can hardly be faulted for lowering standards by, for instance, taking students through hard modules and topics and then assessing them on easy MCQ and computer based exams. And yet, that is what most private degree awarding institutions are doing now. Where are the quality checks?

Of course, those who bat for private education will say that standards have not gone tumbling down and they are aware always of the need to balance the need for profits with the need for academic performance. But private degree awarding institutions, in Sri Lanka, are assessed by those bodies they are affiliated to, elsewhere, on the basis of success rates. Who’s to say that either those institutions or those bodies, given the prevalence of moneyed interests in both, will not privilege profit over performance and jack up those success rates by, for instance, lowering minimal requirements?

This is a real threat, and it is a threat that has been borne out by evidence. Not here, but in Britain and the West as a whole. In July 2016, for instance, an article in The Guardian raised questions about Pearson and its pervasive influence on English school life. While that influence is much more readily accepted in the United States, where private education is rampant, critics in Britain doubt the ability of for-profit-ventures planning out national exam standards. Of particular concern was the fact that Pearson then was managed by an educationist who had once contended that Ministers must allow state-run schools to be run for profit, which led to this observation being made by a best-selling writer on US education reform: “The corporation [Pearson] is acting as a quasi-government agency in several instances, but it is not a quasi-government agency: it is a business that sells products and services. What part of the field of education does Pearson not manage? At what point do conflicts of interest arise? Is it acting in the best interests of students, of the nation, or of its own business?” Apt.

Here’s the deal. Britain, like Sri Lanka, historically has had an education sector reliant on decrees from the centre. It is no cause for surprise then that the ruckus over some British universities imported here has to do with the fact that those universities are, back home, not that well recognised or for that matter respected. Unlike Sri Lanka, though, Britain does not boast of a lecturers’ union or students’ association that can match up to FUTA or IUSF. This is an important point, because once educational standards start to come down, once the fight for free and comprehensive education takes on an inescapable, national character (it already has), we would need associations that are vehemently concerned over the one issue which brings an unlikely parvenu like me on to the same pedestal occupied by Lahiru Weerasekara: that the profit motive, while cohabiting rather tensely with academic performance in the West, can hardly be expected to cohabit with it once transplanted to Sri Lanka. Besides, we have a macabre history of tinkering with education. If it takes a Lahiru Weerasekara to stop that tinkering, I am afraid we have no choice but to stand with him to put a stop to it.

UDAKDEV1@GMAIL.COM

JULY 1983 IN RETROSPECT: TEN DAYS THAT SHAMED SRI LANKA

Image: President Jayewardene did not appeal to stop the violence and never made a apology.

[Extracted from the Report of The Presidential Truth Commission on Ethnic Violence (1981-1984)]

26/07/2018

On the night of 23rd July, around 11.30 p.m. 13 soldiers on a routine patrolling in the North, travelling in a jeep and a truck came under terrorists’ attack and all 13 soldiers were killed. This was at this time the largest number of army men killed so far in any incident in the North.

News of the killing spread instantly on Sunday in the country. Unknown and unannounced, the army in Thinnavely retaliated, killing on Sunday nearly 10 civilians.

By evening, there were 51 reprisal killings by the armed forces in the entire North. News of the counter killings by the government forces never appeared in print. Evidence was placed before us that if the news of the avenging of the killing of the 13 soldiers had been published, the major conflagration that engulfed Sri Lanka thereafter, would very likely have been avoided.

The country’s media went totally silent on this, namely that 51 (Tamils) had already been killed in response to the killing of the 13 (Sinhalese).

We have no evidence that the Competent Authority Douglas Liyanage blocked this story from the media but factually there was total silence. However, notwithstanding the censorship, the killing of 13 soldiers went across the media, as if that was the news that was being awaited.

No doubt the terrorist attack on the 13 soldiers was totally unforeseen. It was in all probability the happening of the unexpected. It was in fact a news that shocked the country. It was also a news that the country found difficult to accept. But what happened thereafter are matters of the greatest consequence to this country.

Why did the government fail to use on Sunday (24.07.1983) the censorship brought into force, only the previous Wednesday, to prevent the countrywide splash of the news of the killing of 13 soldiers? This was the very question Mr. Sarath Muttetuwegama, M. P. raised in Parliament on 4th August, 1983.

As much as publicity to the reprisal killing of 51 Tamils could have saved the unfortunate events that followed, the censorship of the death of 13 soldiers would have equally well-prevented the cycle of events that ensued.

Government defaulted

The whole of Sunday was available for the government to anticipate trouble and take precautionary measures, as preparations went under way for a Sate sponsored funeral for all 13 soldiers together, in the city’s main crematorium and cemetery – the Kanatte at Borella. Why were no such precautionary measures taken?

If the government’s intelligence services were at work and if it had been known that the government may not have an effective control over the army, knowing the growing anger and frustration, why did the government fail to change plans and call up the Navy and the Air Force to take over the security in the city or to organize 13 separate funerals in the respective villages of the deceased? Either way, the government was in default.

It was only 9 months earlier that at the conclusion of the voting for the Presidential Elections of 20th October, 1982, the government declared a State of Emergency to prevent ‘post-polls violence’.

Though there were no major incidents, the government imposed a precautionary curfew that day (20th October) from 6 p.m. onwards.

This showed the government had tremendous experience to judge anticipated troubles and possible breakdown of law and order and to impose at the right time precautionary curfews.

The government had adequate opportunity, as it prepared for the Kanatte funeral to decide on a precautionary curfew to be imposed soon after the funeral, which the government failed to do resulting in, the eruption of violence in Borella that same evening, following the funeral.

As the fire in Borella, raged throughout the night, easily visible from the Ward Place residence of President Jayewardene, hoodlums from nearby Wanathamulla saw truck loads of armed soldiers in the affected areas, watching the inferno without a single shot being fired. The message that night was clear, there was no question of preventing trouble-makers creating trouble.

Further, the question arises as to why the government failed to declare the curfew in the morning of Monday 25th July, when trouble had already broken out in several parts of Colombo, in addition to the troubles that had occurred in Borella, the previous evening?

This was another question that Mr. Sarath Muttetuwegama raised in Parliament on 4th August, for which no satisfactory response came from the government.

We have the evidence of the Sarvodaya leader, Dr. A. T. Ariyaratne referred to later on in greater detail, that when he spoke with President Jayewardene on the morning of 25th July, he pleaded with the President to impose a curfew immediately.

The Government however declared a curfew only in the afternoon of 25th July, which came into effective operation late in the evening. Mr. Muttetuwegama said in Parliament.

“Everybody knows Sir, the houses and the areas that were attacked, that State CTB buses came with thugs. Surely, I am not telling this to score some point. If you go and ask your friends in those areas you will know. Electricity Board vehicles brought thugs to Agalawatte.

I am not saying the Electricity Board Chairman or somebody else or the Minister gave an order. That is not the point. The state apparatus was used …..”

Ten days of widespread of violence

From Monday 25th July, for ten days, widespread violence directed against the Tamils sent Tamil men, women and children nowhere to go except the refugee camps and the homes of kind Sinhala and Muslim neighbours.

It is necessary to emphasise the difficulties of giving a complete picture of these events, firstly because no official records of any investigations are available; secondly, almost all reports were censored at that time from publication and thirdly most of the victims are still living outside the country – some in South India, most of the others in Western countries.

We have restricted these records to those who made representations, almost all of which were verified by a complement team of investigators appointed by the Commission and to the accounts of those who were able to give oral testimony before the Commission.

We are in no position sitting as we do, nearly 19 years after these events of July 1983 to give even a reasonably complete picture of the events of 1983.

The violations of human rights directed against the Tamils were unquestionably the worst in Sri Lanka’s modern history. Killings, tortures and harassment of unarmed Tamils went hand in glove with the more widespread destruction and damage to Tamil homes, businesses and industries.

Over 75,000 Tamils in Colombo alone and nearly a 100,000 in all, were temporarily located in nearly 27 refugee camps. Refugees in large numbers were sent to the North by ships since the government had failed to stop the violence which raged over a period of 10 days.

The government acknowledged a death toll of nearly 350 in all, but Tamils claimed the number of deaths to be over a thousand. We have no basis to report on the number of deaths or the extent of damage to properties, with any degree of accuracy, for reasons referred to elsewhere in this Report.

Amongst the more prominent of the events of July 1983 were the killings of 51 Tamils in the North on 24th July by army personnel, the destruction of 175 Tamil houses, with one death and a dozen injured in Trincomalee on July 25 by Navy personnel, the killing of 35 Tamil prisoners by fellow prisoners at Welikade Jail, Colombo on July 25, followed by the killing of a further 18 Tamil prisoners at the same prison on July 27. We have dealt with the killings inside the Welikada Jail elsewhere.

No appeal to stop violence

We have faulted the then government, in several places of this report for both acts of omissions and commissions, in the run up to the events that resulted in the communal conflagration of July 1983. But more importantly, the government was guilty of gross negligence in failing to appeal to the people for restraint, peace and calm on July 25, 26 and until the evening of July 27.

There was not a single leader of Cabinet rank to at least appeal to the law breakers to stop violence apart from the government’s failing to perform its fundamental obligations to protect the life and property of its citizens, even by recourse to force.

There were witnesses who testified that this was due to the complicity of a section of the government in ‘teaching the Tamils a lesson’, for the terrorism in the North.

The Government appears to have awakened to its responsibilities only on the evening of 27th July – the third consecutive day of extensive violence, perhaps following the call from the Prime Minister of India Mrs. Indira Gandhi to the Sri Lankan president, informing him that she thought it fit for her Foreign Minister Mr. Narasimha Rao to personally visit Sri Lanka the following day, to get a first hand assessment of troubles in Sri Lanka, which he did the following day.

President’s speech with no apologies

The Cabinet which met the same night of 27th July 1983, was apprised of the Indian Foreign Minister’s visit it was only on the evening of 28th July, 1983 that President Jayawardena made a televised speech to the nation and appealed to the people ‘to lay down their arms.’ The ‘Dawasa’ a Sinhala daily of 29th July 1983, reported in banner headlines, the President’s speech as follows:

“I will fulfil Sinhala aspirations. I will not allow the country to be divided.”

In the President’s speech there was no message to the victims and no apologies. The President however acknowledged the Government’s failure to solve the Tamil problems as promised in the 1977 manifesto of his party. In the President’s speech there was a message that the government understands the feelings of those who created trouble.

Shortly thereafter, on 20th July, Minister of State Mr. Anandatissa de Alwis blamed the JVP, the Communist Party and Dr. Wickremabahu Karunaratne’s NSSP as being behind the violence, alleging the existence of 2nd Naxalite plot.

But, thee was no evidence of any left complicity in the events of July 1983 and the allegation was soon given up, without a single prosecution but only after the detention of large numbers of left leaders and activists.

If the Indian Prime Minister’s despatch of her Foreign Minister to Colombo did give a surprise to the Sri Lanka government, it did not appear to have softened President Jaywardena’s tough stand on the question of Tamil terrorism.

Going by the text of the headline given by the ‘Dawasa’ daily, ‘Sinhala aspirations will be fulfilled and the country will not be a allowed to be divided’. “~<1 n="" nyf="" p="" pf="" ruoz="" sf="" sh="" x="" yf="" yhp="" yy="" z="">
It would appear that four days of intense violence against innocent Tamils in the country did not bring about any remorse or regret upon the President to convey the apology of a nation to the plight of a section of its people, even as a large number of well meaning Sinhala neighbours protected the Tamils.

Indeed, the Dawasa lead story of the President’s televised address to the Nation itself would have given the trouble-makers encouragement and comfort that the head of the State was truly with them, if there had been any doubt about it.

The attacks on Tamils continued for five more days, even after the Head of state addressed the Nation. Sad to record that the ‘Dawasa’ as well as most of the other media failed to douse the flames by reflecting on the horrors suffered by the innocent Tamils, in their hour of need.

To give prominence to ‘Sinhala aspirations’ at a delicate time when the innocent sections of a minority were tying to escape the attacks, fleeing as they did with their women and children would have doubtless given the message that the media too was united with the political leadership and the hoodlums in ‘teaching lessons’.

We need add, only that, the nation was at its lowest ebb with a total break-down of its moral responsibilities.

Courtesy of the Daily News of 2004/07/23.

3 Days in a Kovil: An Eyewitness Remembers Black July

SELVARAJA RAJASEGAR- 07/25/2018

Editor’s Note: This video was created by sister site Maatram, and forms part of an ongoing series marking 35 years since Black July.

Featured image courtesy Selvaraja Rajasegar

“As we travelled a small distance, I stretched my feet under the seat and I saw swords and rods. There were around 11 people in the van. None of them could speak Tamil. They were bearded and had covered their faces with cloth.”

Jegadeeswara Sharma was looking forward to the future. His brother, who worked at an employment agency, had told him about a vacancy for the position of driver in Kuwait. He would received Rs. 30,000 as a salary.

Five days before his flight, Jegadeeswara was staying in a hotel in Fort. In the evenings, he would walk around Colombo. On his third day there, he was returning from his walk near Colombo Harbour, when he heard something had happened near Jaffna.

The year was 1983.

View his story, shot and compiled by sister site Maatram, now online here:

To view more content marking 35 years since Black July, click here.

Remnants of a skeleton dug up at Chemmani

26Jul 2018

Work took place in Chemmani at an excavation site where human bones were discovered last week.
Police recovered remnants of a skeleton including parts of a skull and a leg, although further digging did not produce the rest of the remains.

The recovered bones have been taken securely for investigation, Jaffna police said.

Earlier this week, ITAK leader Mavai Senathirajah said that the frequent discovery of unidentified graves and mass graves around the Northern Province was indicative of the extent of atrocities carried out against the Tamil people and evidence of Sri Lankan soldiers’ war crimes.

Mr Senathirajah urged for all mass graves and unmarked graves to be investigated thoroughly.

Are they playing Good Cop, Bad Cop? Has President Maithripala Sirisena declared war against the media in a subtle manner?

2018-07-26

President Maithripala Sirisena has declared war against the media and has done this in a subtle manner. President Sirisena cautioned the media about negative reporting and attempts made by them to attack, weaken and destroy the Government. This accusation was made when he launched the Moragahakanda Reservoir, on Monday.

Cautioned the media about negative reporting
Attempts to attack, weaken and destroy the Government
Fails to understand what is news to Govt. doesn’t sell newspapers
The President and Media Minister are politicians and working for their survival

The President wants the media to only highlight the good things that the Government does. But what he fails to understand is that what is news to the Government doesn’t help to sell newspapers. The most important fact that decides the survival of a newspaper is readership. Journalists working hard to produce news have had to do justice to readers. Their responsibility is not to keep the Government happy.

It is true that a few journalists who have personal agendas might be working towards contributing towards a regime change. If this can be proven, such journalists have to acknowledge the fact that they’ve been very unprofessional.

It is true that a few journalists who have personal agendas may be working towards contributing to a regime change. If this can be proven, such journalists have to acknowledge the fact that they’ve been very unprofessional.

But when we read in-between the lines regarding what the President has uttered we are compelled to bring to the picture the Government media arm, which State Minister for Finance and Mass Media Mangala Samaraweera affirms has been a failure. The minister once said that the State media failed to accurately convey to the people information about the Government’s development programmes.

This confirms the fact that what the Government sees as news doesn’t appeal to hardcore journalists (Serving state media) who don’t have personal agendas. The Government should fear journalists who have personal agendas and don’t adhere to media ethics. It is these journalists who do more damage to the country, not the scribes who perceive the truth and write about it.

The media experienced severe hardships during the war because defence columns were subject to Government censorship. The former controversial Minister Mervyn Silva once said on television that the media shouldn’t highlight the fact that the bakery, which starts supplying bread to the nearby Army camp had recorded an unusual rise in the sale of bread. The Minister said that this type of details, when reported in the media, would help the LTTE rebels to figure out how many were in the Army camp.

The President wants the media to only highlight the good things that the Government does. But what he fails to understand is that what is news to the Government doesn’t help to sell newspapers.

We came to know that Prince Harry was whisked away from a camp in Afghanistan, where he was engaged in military duties when his presence there was leaked to the media. Harry was removed from that camp because the mention of his presence there would have prompted rebels to carry out attacks in full force, which would have exposed other security personnel to unwanted danger.

The media plays a significant role in the survival of a government. We have seen in the past that people were undecided till the last minute about whom to vote for at an election. A classic example of this was the last LG Polls. This is when opinion published in the newspapers helps readers -who are also voters - to take a decision. What readers need during such times is a critical appreciation of how the government has functioned and not sunshine stories that praise only the Government’s development work.

We have a similar situation now even though the next Presidential Election is scheduled for 2020. We have already started speaking about potential presidential candidates. One of them is already busy showing the citizens that he is the most suitable, given his no-nonsense approach to whatever he undertakes.

The scholars in the country and the minorities, who now form the majority vote base (This writer is going by statistics available from the last LG Polls) still prefer the present Government to a dictator from among the top brass of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna, at the 2020 Presidential Election.
Months before the President gave that subtle warning to the media, Minister Samaraweera told the media that the Government had no intention of restricting the democracy and the freedom that the media were enjoying. Quite rightly he had said that the people could take the good from news reports and reject what’s bad.

The scholars in the country and the minorities, who now form the majority vote base ….still prefer the present Government to a dictator from among the top brass of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna, at the 2020 Presidential Election.

But at the end of the day, we must not forget that the President and Media Minister are politicians and working for their survival. It’s strange that Sirisena sees something unhealthy in the environment that the journalists have created which is a contrast to what the Media Minister sees; a healthy environment where the Government sees no need to restrict journalists.
Are these two playing the roles of Good Cop and Bad Cop?

ONLINE HARASSMENT OF JOURNALISTS: THE TROLLS ATTACK

In a report published today, entitled “Online harassment of journalists: the trolls attack” (attached), Reporters Without Borders (RSF) voices concern about the scale of a new threat to press freedom, the mass harassment of journalists online.

26/07/2018

The perpetrators may be ordinary “haters” (individuals or communities of individuals hiding behind their screens) or “troll armies” of online mercenaries created by authoritarian regimes. In both cases the goal is the same, to silence journalists whose reporting annoys, often using exceptionally abusive methods.

For months, RSF documented these new online attacks and analyzed the modus operandi of the press freedom predators, who have been able to exploit the latest technologies to extend their oppressive reach.

“Online harassment is a phenomenon that is spreading throughout the world and now constitutes one of the gravest threats to press freedom,” RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said. “We have discovered that information wars are not just waged between countries at the international level. Journalism’s predators also deploy troll armies to hunt down and harass all those who investigate and report the facts honestly. These despots let their mercenaries train their guns on journalists on the virtual terrain as others do in actual war zones.”

What RSF’s report reveals:
● It is hard to establish a direct link between governments and online conspiracies against journalists. RSF has investigated and documented cases of online harassment of journalists in 32 countries, shedding light on hate campaigns orchestrated by authoritarian or oppressive regimes in such countries as China, India, Turkey, Vietnam, Iran and Algeria.

● RSF has analyzed the modus operandi of the press freedom predators, who orchestrate their online attacks against journalists in three stages:

Disinformation: journalistic content on social networks is drowned in a flood of fake news and pro-government content;

Amplification: the impact of pro-government content is artificially enhanced by commentators who are paid by the government to post messages on social networks or by bots, computer programmes that automatically generate posts;

Intimidation: journalists are personally targeted, insulted and threatened, in order to discredit them and reduce them to silence.

● These aggressive cyberharassment campaigns are also waged by communities of individuals or political groups in supposedly democratic countries such as Mexico, and even in countries that are ranked at the top of the World Press Freedom Index such as Sweden and Finland.

● The consequences are often dramatic: many of the cyberharassment victims RSF spoke to said they had ended up censoring themselves in response to the torrents of online abuse, the scale of which they had never imagined possible

● Women journalists are affected the most by cyberharassment. Two thirds of women journalists have been the victims of harassment and, in 25% of the cases, the harassment occurred online.

● In India, for instance, freelance journalist Rana Ayyub is attacked online by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s trolls, called Yoddhas, who target her because of her investigative reporting on Modi’s rise to power. “I’ve been called Jihadi Jane, Islamo fascist [and] ISIS sex slave,” she said. “My face has been superimposed on a naked body and my mother’s photograph has been taken from my Instagram account and photoshopped in the most objectionable manner possible.”

● Mexican investigative journalists such as Alberto Escorcia are also targeted by trolls. He was threatened after shedding light on how “dormant” online accounts are used to influence election campaigns, as in Mexico’s recent elections for president, deputies, senators and governors.

● In the Philippines, Maria Ressa was attacked by trolls while the news website she edits, Rappler, was the target of judicial harassment. Philippine journalists who, like her, cover the government in a critical manner have been constantly targeted since Rodrigo Duterte’s election as president in 2016.

● In France, two men were given six-month suspended prison sentences and fined 2,000 euros at the start of July for threatening radio reporter Nadia Daam online. A third man, who had threatened her after the trial, was then also given a six-month suspended prison sentence.

● Companies such as Devumi that specialize in selling fake social media accounts have a direct responsibility in the amplification of these online threats. Large-scale harassment of journalists has never been so easy and so inexpensive.

● In response to these findings, RSF has formulated 25 recommendations for governments, the international community, online platforms, media outlets and advertisers with the aim of addressing these new digital threats. RSF’s report also includes a tutorial entitled “Journalists – how to deal with troll armies” that reminds journalists about the digital security practices they should adopt.

Reporters Without Borders