Sedition in India

India is the world's largest democracy. But under prime minister Narendra Modi it has become increasingly undemocratic, with police increasingly stifling dissent. And now that has reached its nadir with a group of school children questioned and their teachers arrested for sedition for staging a play which criticised government policy:

Days after a sedition case was slapped against a school in Karnataka, its headmistress and a student's mother have been arrested for the alleged involvement in staging of a drama portraying Prime Minister Narendra Modi in poor light over the CAA and NRC, police said on Friday.

The police action came after they questioned the two women, a few staff members of the Shaheen School in the district headquarters town of Bidar and students on Thursday.

They were produced before a court which remanded them to judicial custody, police said adding further investigation was on.

The drama was staged by students of fourth, fifth and sixth standard on January 21.

A sedition case was booked by police on January 26 against the school, along with some other sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on January 26, based on a complaint from social worker Neelesh Rakshyal.

This is like something from the era of absolute monarchy, and it is appalling that it is happening in a supposedly democratic state like India. But that's what happens if you leave colonial laws like this lying around: governments use them.

Reforming the Education Acts

The government introduced the Education and Training Bill to Parliament yesterday. Its a massive bill, which replaces both existing Education Acts, as well as various other bits of legislation (including some which are still proceeding through the House). I'll leave the serious analysis to teachers and people who actually know about education policy at various levels. But there are a couple of interestign points. On the administrative side, it introduces a new dispute resolution system, with a chief referee and dispute resolution panels to resolve disputes between students and schools (this is presumably to reduce the workload of the Ombudsman and the courts). And while it retains the "close the school" dodge which allows legally secular schools to hold religious instruction, it now requires it to be explicitly opt-in (though in a later section, it seems to retain the old opt-out drafting, which will need to be fixed). This is a good step forward, but it is not enough, because these provisions (and the requirement for explicitly secular teaching) apply only to primary and intermediate schools; state secondary schools are not included, and so can still shove religion down their student's throats. If we're going to have this compromise, then it needs to apply to all state schools, not just some.

Also: the old requirement for teachers to take an oath of allegiance as a condition of employment - imposed after the sedition trial of Hatty Weitzel in the 1920's - has not been included. So no more patriotic bullshit, huzzah!

Scandalised

When the Justice Committee reported back on the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt of Court) Bill, free speech advocates breathed a sigh of relief. As originally introduced, the Bill reitered the ancient offence of "scandalising the court" - basicly, a special sedition law protecting judges from criticism. The select committee, following practice overseas, removed it. But now, thanks to an amendment introduced out of the blue at the committee stage, its back:

The Government is pushing to protect the integrity of the judiciary by limiting free speech and making it illegal to publish fake news about the courts, also known as "scandalising the court".

And it has taken aim at National MP Nick Smith, using his contempt of court conviction from 2004 as a reason for justifying the move.

Justice Minister Andrew Little said a new clause in the Contempt of Court bill, currently awaiting its third reading in Parliament, is a justified limitation on free speech to protect the administration of justice.

Really? The law imposes a penalty of up to 6 months imprisonment for making a "false accusation" about a court or a judge. The basis for it is that judges are important people doing an important job and therefore public confidence in them shouldn't be undermined by false accusations. But politicians and public sector CEOs are also important people doing an important job. Does Little think people making false accusations and undermining public confidence in them should also be thrown in jail?

But don't take it from me. Here's Geoffrey Palmer, basicly the architect of the BORA, on the subject (quoted on Scoop because the NZLJ is behind a corporate paywall):

This new offence amounts to a statutory libel on a judge or a court. The judiciary are part of the system of government, although independent from Parliament and the Executive. False statements made in attacks upon the government are no longer punishable under the criminal law of libel and slander and sedition. Why should it be any different for the judiciary and the system of justice than for the political arms of government? ... These provisions in the Bill seem to be bringing back an approach to speech that has recently been rejected by the Parliament.

And to that I'd add: if the confidence of the public in judicial institutions rests solely on the threat of jail - that is, on terror - then they deserve neither our confidence or our protection. The fairness, impartiality and competence of our courts and judges should speak for itself, and it usually does (usually). The real threat to public confidence is not wild accusations on websites no-one pays attention to - but laws such as this.

This bill should be recalled to committee and this clause removed before it is allowed to pass. Laws which protect the powerful and punish their critics have no place on our statute books.

Thailand's dictatorship strikes back

Last month, Thai voters gave the finger to the country's military dictatorship, electing - against all odds - a majority opposition coalition to throw out the junta. But now the military has struck back, charging a major opposition leader with (of course) "sedition":

The leader of a new party that has challenged Thailand’s military government has been charged on Saturday with sedition, the latest legal action facing the rising star after a disputed March election.

The sedition charge, which was filed by the junta, was the second criminal case opened against Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, 40, since he formed the progressive, youth-oriented Future Forward party last year.

The 2015 case resurfaced after the Future Forward party made a surprisingly strong showing in the 24 March election, coming in third with 6.2m votes.

[...]

Police told Reuters the complaint dated back to 2015 when Thanathorn, who was running his family’s car parts empire at the time, allegedly “provided assistance” to a leader of protesters against the 2014 military coup who violated a junta ban on gatherings of more than five people.

I don't think you'll find a better example of how sedition laws are a political weapon used by establishments to keep themselves in power. Which is precisely why anyone who values democracy should support getting rid of them. Fortunately we've already done that in New Zealand.

A victory for freedom of the press in Fiji

For the past three weeks, Fiji Times executives and journalists have been on trial for sedition over a letter to the editor that they published. Today, they were acquitted:

Fiji's High Court has found three executives of The Fiji Times newspaper and another man not guilty of sedition.

The four men, and the newspaper itself, were charged with sedition over a letter published in the indigenous language publication Nai Lalakai in 2016.

[...]

During a three-week trial the prosecution had argued the aim of the letter was to sow feelings of ill-will towards Muslim Fijians.

But in handing down his verdict, Justice Thushara Rajasinghe said, "the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the letter was seditious" and he acquitted all four men of the charge.

Its a clear victory for freedom of the press, and an unexpected one - the Fijian judiciary is not noted for its independence (in part because they hire judges on short-term contracts, rather than appointing them for life). And I'm now wondering whether Justice Rajasinghe will have his contract renewed, or whether he'll effectively be fired by the government for failing to punish its enemies.

Spain has political prisoners again

Under Franco's dictatorship, Spain had political prisoners. And now, under the Francoist People's party, it has them again, with two Catalans jailed for sedition for organising peaceful protests for independence:

The leaders of two of the main pro-independence civil society organizations have been sent to prison without bail on sedition charges. A Spanish judge decided to imprison Jordi Sànchez, president of the Catalan National Assembly (ANC), and Jordi Cuixart, president of Òmnium Cultural, for their role in the October 1 referendum. Both of them will already sleep in jail tonight. The same judge also decided to release without passport the chief of the Catalan police, Josep-Lluís Trapero, accused of not having done enough to stop voters from participating in the independence referendum.

The initial investigation against Trapero, Sánchez and Cuixart focused on demonstrations on September 20 and 21, when fourteen high-ranking officials of the Catalan government were arrested and people protested massively, and peacefully, in the streets. But the case was extended to also include events during the October 1 referendum and the alleged “flagrant inaction” of Catalonia’s police corps, the Mossos d’Esquadra, to stop the vote.

Sánchez and Cuixart lead two of the biggest pro-independence organizations in Catalonia, responsible for organizing the massive pro-Yes demonstrations of the last few years. The prosecutor argues that they mobilized people on referendum day, asking citizens to protest in front of polling stations, thus impeding police officers from closing them down.

They could be facing between 4 and 15 years in jail for peacefully advocating for their political views. In a supposed "democracy". But then, democracies don't blockade polling places and beat people for voting either. If this is the sort of state Spain is, then Catalans are entirely sensible to want to leave it.

Sedition in India

Last weekend Amnesty International held a meeting in the Indian city of Bangalore to discuss human rights abuses by Indian forces in Kashmir. During the meeting, some of the attendees began calling for "Azadi" - freedom. So naturally, they're all being charged with sedition:

Amnesty India's project manager Arijit Sen said a right-wing student group lodged a complaint, and police filed charges, known in India as a first incident report, or FIR.

The FIR reportedly mentions a number of offences, including sedition, unlawful assembly, rioting and promoting enmity.

I can think of no better example of what sedition laws are for: to suppress criticism and dissent of an authoritarian, nationalist government. And its a perfect example of why such laws are incompatible with democracy and need to be repealed.

Absurdity in Thailand

How absurd is Thailand's lese majeste law? A man could be jailed under it for insulting the king's dog:

A Thai factory worker could go to prison for a "sarcastic" post on social media in which he disparaged the king's dog, Tongdaeng.

The worker, Thanakorn Siripaiboon, faces years in prison for his crimes, which include sedition and insulting the king.

As the New York Times reports, Siripaiboon's lawyer, Anon Numpa, said the precise insult towards the dog was not specified in the military court where he was charged.

The idea of punishing people for criticising those in power is deeply undemocratic. Punishing people for snarking about their pets is simply absurd. Rather like monarchy itself, really.

Sedition and terrorism

Yesterday, in the debate over the Key / Kitteridge Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill, Winston Peters proposed an appalling "solution" to what to do about suspected terrorists: resurrecting sedition:

New Zealand First Leader Rt Hon Winston Peters put forward an amendment to the Countering Terrorism Fighters Bill in Parliament today, seeking to re-enact sedition laws repealed in 2007 with the support of all parties except New Zealand First.

“In 2007, we asked Parliament if we as a country would feel safer having repealed sedition laws? Judging by the Countering Terrorism Fighters Bill and ‘tough’ new security laws Mr Key so clearly wants, the answer is a flat no,” Mr Peters said.

“What home-grown terrorists wish to engage in was defined by the then sedition laws.

Only because those laws were so broad as to criminalise any expression of dissent against the government. But while they'd capture those who advocate killing people because of their religion (something which is also covered by conspiracy law, insofar as the advocacy constitutes direct incitement), it also captured people who wrote pamphlets about the confiscation of Maori land, or obnoxious emails. Not to mention a host of other people whose only "crime" was disagreeing with the policies of the government of the day or failing to display sufficient loyalty.

Which also neatly highlights the core problem of our new anti-terror laws: in the past, the state has systematically abused its powers and used broad laws as a tool of political persecution. Our anti-terror laws are open to the same abuse. And with the intellectual heirs of those anti-socialist, anti-pacifist, anti-Maori panty-sniffers alive and well in our security agencies, such abuse seems like a given. With the kicker that because surveillance and passport cancellations happen in secret, we won't have a public record of it.

Looking at history, the message is clear: we can't trust the spies, and we can't trust the state. Given more power over our lives to either is like giving automatic weapons and methamphetamine to a psychopathic killer. Better not to take that risk.

Sedition in India

On 18 August, an Indian man refused to stand for the playing of the national anthem in the cinema. He has now been charged with sedition, insulting the Indian national flag and Constitution, and preventing the singing of the national anthem. He faces a life sentence if convicted.

This shows us what sedition laws are really used for: suppressing dissent and enforcing mandatory displays of loyalty. They are an affront to freedom of expression and an affront to the basic right to disagree with the government. The fact that India is still applying them shows that it is a backward nation which does not respect basic political freedoms.

Sedition: Absurdity in India

Those who support sedition laws justify them on the need to protect the state from traitors and terrorists. In practice, such laws are used to criminalise opposition to the government of the day. But in India, its gone from the evil to the absurd, with 67 Kashmiri students charged with sedition for cheering for the wrong cricket team:

The police in northern India have filed sedition charges against 67 Kashmiri students after some of them cheered for the Pakistani cricket team during a televised match with India on Sunday night.

The charges were filed Tuesday following an official complaint against the students by Manzoor Ahmed, vice chancellor of Swami Vivekanand Subharti University in Meerut, according to M. M. Baig, a Meerut police official. In addition to sedition charges, the students were charged with “instigating hate between two communities.”

And that's what sedition is at its heart: a means of enforcing public loyalty to governments which deserve none.

The charges have now been dropped, but the students have been indefinitely suspended from their university. Freedom of speech? Not in India.

Fiji: A directed verdict?

For the last week, Brigadier General Pita Driti has been on trial on charges of sedition and mutiny over allegations he plotted to overthrow dictator Voreqe Bainimarama. This morning, the panel of three "assessors" - Fiji's equivalent of a jury - acquitted him of both charges. But the judge turned around and convicted him anyway:

One of Fiji's senior military heads has been found guilty of plotting to overthrow strongman Voreqe Bainimarama and planning to kill one of his main supporters.

In a sensational turn, High Court judge Paul Madigan overturned the unanimous findings of a three person assessor or jury panel who earlier this morning found Brigadier General Pita Driti not guilty of the plot.

The evidence heard last week suggests several of Fiji's colonels were also plotting to overthrow Bainimarama in 2010. But Madigan's unusual over-ruling of an assessor panel under-scores the heavy international legal criticism laid against Fiji's judiciary that it is not independent of the military regime.

Overturning the assessor's verdict is perfectly legal, but given the nature of the charges and the doubts that have been raised about the independence of Fiji's judiciary, it smacks of a directed verdict. We'll probably never know whether it was, but Fiji's mickey-mouse colonial relic judicial system does has done itself no favours here, and seems purposely designed to create doubts.

Meanwhile, the case is also another example of the absurdity of sedition laws:

Driti pleaded not guilty to a charge of uttering seditious words which included saying that Sayed-Khaiyum should be removed and that Bainimarama has "lost the plot" and should be removed from leadership.

Neither of these statements would be considered objectionable (or surprising) in a mature democracy. But Fiji is no longer a democracy, and its leaders are not mature. Banning such criticism serves only to prevent scrutiny of their actions, and the resulting lack of accountability directly contributes to the poor governance the coup-mongers complain of.

Sedition in India

Aseem Trivedi is an Indian cartoonist. He runs a website, Cartoons against corruption on which he posts pointed political cartoons attacking India's corrupt political system. For this, he has been charged with sedition and "insulting national symbols" (the article says "treason", but other sources identify the clause in the Indian Penal Code, and its sedition). If convicted, he could be sentenced to life imprisonment.

I can't think of a more perfect example of why such laws need to be erased - and I'm very glad that we managed to do it here.

Time to end the Weitzel clause

In the dark days of 1921, the Massey government prosecuted a teaching student named Hatty Weitzel for sedition for distributing communist literature. because of the support shown for Weitzel by her fellow students, they subsequently passed a law to prevent "disloyal" teachers from corrupting young minds by requiring them to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. This law is still in force today, as s162 of the Education Act 1964.

But how is this law enforced? Someone used FYI, the public OIA request website, to ask. And the answer seems to be that it isn't. Here's what the Ministry of Education had to say:

Any enforcement of this requirement is up to individual school boards of trustees as the employers of teachers. Neither the Ministry of Education nor the New Zealand Teachers Council maintain oversight of such affirmations, or enforce or monitor them.

So, do schools enforce it? Auckland Grammar doesn't, and I suspect if you asked other schools you'd find they don't bother either. And the reason is pretty clear, as the Ministry of Education notes

In 1921, the main arguments behind introducing the requirement for teachers to swear allegiance to the Crown centred on their role in shaping the minds of children as future citizens [sic] of the British Empire. This is now no longer a key consideration for our society.

and yet, the law is still on the books, and could be used at any time to dismiss any teacher a school board didn't like. Which means it has to go. Repeal was apparently part of the oaths Modernisation Bill in 2006, but that was dropped by the National government in 2010. Time for a Member's Bill?

Time to repeal "sedition for judges"

Sedition was an archaic crime, which basically allowed governments to prosecute and persecute simply for criticising them. Many civilised countries (including New Zealand) have abolished it. But even where it has been abolished, its ugly twin "scandalising the court" - which allows judges to prosecute and persecute simply for criticising them - survives. But now the UK is reviewing that archaic law, with an eye to repealing it:

The ancient offence of scandalising the court is to be reviewed to see if it is still necessary.

The offence is a form of contempt of court, but has not been successfully prosecuted since 1931.

It is committed by publishing anything that ridicules the judiciary to the extent that it is likely to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

As with sedition, this legal protection is either unnecessary or undeserved. Either the administration of justice is so obviously fair, impartial, and competent that it can survive such ridicule, in which case it does not need such protection - or it is not, in which case it does not deserve it. It speaks volumes that the only place this law is actively being used at the moment is Fiji, where the military regime is attempting to force people to pretend its kangaroo courts are still "independent".

The only justice systems protected by this law are unjust ones. The only judges it protects are the corrupt and incompetent. It should be struck from the books - in New Zealand as well as the UK.

Sedition in Fiji

Back in August, anti-regime graffiti calling for dictator Frank Bainimarama to go started appearing all over Fiji. Last week, five men, one of them a kiwi, were arrested for it, and charged with sedition. The arrests are the usual story we have come to expect from Fiji: the suspects were detained for a week without charge (the legal limit is 48 hours), during which they were threatened with torture by police. They have now been remanded in custody - quite unusual for a crime of speech rather than violence. The chances of them receiving a fair trial in Fiji's post-coup court system (where the government handpicks judges and sacks those that show any commitment to the law) are remote.

Just another example of how Fiji has turned into a tinpot little shithole under Bainimarama. Decent countries don't prosecute people for expressing their dislike of the government. Decent countries don't have to. But then, its been obvious for a while that Fiji isn't a decent country any more, is it?

Sedition in India

In October, Indian author Arundhati Roy gave a speech [PDF] in New Delhi in which she said "Kashmir has never been an integral part of India". Thanks to those words, she has been charged with sedition, and is potentially facing life imprisonment.

Its important to note that it is not the government doing this. The charges have been filed at the behest of militant Hindu nationalists, who went to court to force the police to accept their complaint. Which shows you how disreputable the whole idea of sedition is: an instrument used by those with strong views (in this case nationalists) to persecute anyone who disagrees with them.

Such a law has no place in a civilised democracy. New Zealand repealed its sedition law in 2007. If India wants to take its place as a respected world power, it must do the same.

A scandalous question

If a judge, through their actions, lowers the authority of the court or brings it into public derision and contempt, is it scandalising the court?

Sedition for judges

In 2007, the government repealed the archaic offence of sedition, consigning it to the dustbin of history. But while we are now free to criticise our government, political system, politicians and head of state, there is one group we are still not free to criticise: judges. In a post on the Justice Wilson saga, Russell Brown points out that "scandalising the court" is still a (judge-created) offence in New Zealand:

great care must always be taken in the way in which the courts' decisions are criticised. Anything reported which is likely to lower the authority of the court or bring it into public derision and contempt may be held to scandalise the court.

For example, you may criticise a judgment on the grounds that it is inconsistent with other judgments; or that it is out of touch with the public mood regarding the crime in question. That kind of criticism, strongly but fairly argued, should not be held to scandalise the court. However, the suggestion that a judge deliberately made an unjust decision, or that he was biased, or drunk, or incapable of carrying out his job, would be held to scandalise the court. You may discuss the issue, but you may not attack the person.

As with sedition, this legal protection is either unnecessary or undeserved. The fairness, impartiality and competence of our courts and judges should speak for itself - and if it doesn't, then it is not worthy of any legal protection. The only judges this rule protects are those who are in fact unjust, biased, drunk, and incompetent. Prohibiting criticism of such judges may "protect the reputation of the court", but only in the same way that covering up for paedophiles protected the reputation of the Catholic Church. And as with the Catholic Church, it leaves those it protects free to continue their abuse.

This rule is a relic of feudalism. It dates from an era where peasants were forbidden to criticise their "betters". We no longer live in that era, and this protection has no place in the modern, democratic age. It should be repealed. If judges suffer unfair attacks on their reputations, they can use defamation law, just like anybody else.

(The same BTW goes for Parliament, which still officially regards it as a crime to "[reflect] on the character or conduct of the House or of a member in the member’s capacity as a member of the House" - which is basically any comment on politics or politicians. Its self-serving law for self-serving people, and it has no place in our democracy).

Tonga: Acquitted

The Tongan Court of Appeal has acquitted five People's Representatives of sedition on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Akilisi Pohiva, Isileli Pulu, ‘Uliti Uata, Lepolo Taunisila and Clive Edwards all faced multiple charges of seditious conspiracy and speaking seditious words over speeches given in the leadup to the 2006 riots. In the three years since, charges have been added and dropped, while a trial has been repeatedly delayed. But the Court of Appeal found that the government had failed to make even a prima facie case that violence was planned or intended, and struck out all charges against four of the accused. Charges of seditious conspiracy against Edwards were also dismissed, leaving him facing only a single charge of "speaking seditious words". That charge will now finally be able to go to a jury - though the odds there are good. Every sedition case over the riots which has come to trial has so far resulted in acquittal - it seems the people of Tonga know political persecution when they see it.

The full judgement is here [PDF].