Taylor Swift wants Duterte-backed anti-terror bill scrapped

MANILA - International pop superstar Taylor Swift has joined calls to junk a new anti-terrorism bill that President Rodrigo Duterte is pushing, which some lawyers and human rights activists warned could be abused to target his detractors.

Swift, in a story on Instagram where she has 133 million followers, shared links on information and a donation drive related to the measure. It contained the hashtags #JunkTerrorBill, #MassTestingNowPH and #OustDuterte. 

She also shared information about the US protests over the death of African-American George Floyd in police custody. 

"When you’re done: Educate yourself. This doesn’t go away once the topic isn’t trending," her Instagram story read. 

Duterte has certified as urgent the bill that would authorize the government to wiretap suspects, arrest them without warrants and hold them without charge for 14 days, among others provisions. 

Opponents of the bill fear it could be used to suppress free speech and harass those who challenge Duterte, who commands a legislative majority and influence within the judiciary and state institutions.

"We think this is against the constitution," said human rights lawyer Jose Manuel Diokno. "Given the broader definition of terrorism, the administration's critics could be tagged as suspected terrorists."

Opposition lawmaker Edcel Lagman criticized Duterte for prioritizing the passage of a bill he described as "draconian" over an economic stimulus package pending congressional approval, which aims to help mitigate the impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

Duterte was "tightening the noose on suspected terrorists at the expense of the protection of human rights and civil liberties," said Lagman, who is also a human rights lawyer. 


Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque dismissed the criticism and said elements of the bill were patterned on those used in countries that had dealt effectively with extremism.

He said the 5-month takeover in 2017 of the southern city of Marawi by militants loyal to Islamic State showed the extent of extremist influence in the country.

"Let us not forget, the remains of Marawi is still there," Roque said. 

Swift has performed at 2 sold-out concerts in the Philippines. 

In the past few years, she has opened up about politics after initially struggling to control her own voice as an artist who found massive fame at a young age. 

She endorsed Democratic candidates in Tennessee in 2018 and has criticized US President Donald Trump previously. -- With reports from Agence France-Presse and Reuters 

news.abs-cbn.com

Pandemic could create 'human rights disaster': UN

The UN rights chief warned Monday that countries flouting the rule of law in the name of fighting the novel coronavirus pandemic risk sparking a "human rights disaster".

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet called on countries to refrain from violating fundamental rights "under the guise of exceptional or emergency measures."

"Emergency powers should not be a weapon governments can wield to quash dissent, control the population, and even perpetuate their time in power," she warned in a statement.

"They should be used to cope effectively with the pandemic –- nothing more, nothing less."

Her comments came after more than 200,000 people have perished in the pandemic and nearly three million have been infected worldwide by the novel coronavirus since it surfaced in China late last year.

Bachelet acknowledged that states have the right to restrict some rights to protect public health, but she insisted that any restrictions should be necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory, and also limited in duration.

"There have been numerous reports from different regions that police and other security forces have been using excessive, and at times lethal, force to make people abide by lockdowns and curfews," she said, lamenting that "such violations have often been committed against people belonging to the poorest and most vulnerable segments of the population."

"Shooting, detaining, or abusing someone for breaking a curfew because they are desperately searching for food is clearly an unacceptable and unlawful response.

"So is making it difficult or dangerous for a woman to get to hospital to give birth."

- 'Incalculable damage' -

"In some cases, people are dying because of the inappropriate application of measures that have been supposedly put in place to save them," Bachelet said.

She also decried the mass arrests in some countries over curfew violations as "both unnecessary and unsafe."

"Jails and prisons are high risk environments, and states should focus on releasing whoever can be safely released, not detaining more people."

The UN rights chief also warned that efforts to rein in dangerous misinformation around the pandemic was in some cases being used as an excuse to crack down on legitimate free speech.

"It is important to counter misinformation, but shutting down the free exchange of ideas and information not only violates rights, it undermines trust," she said.

"Undermining rights such as freedom of expression may do incalculable damage to the effort to contain COVID-19 and its pernicious socioeconomic side-effects," she warned.

Bachelet also insisted that any exceptional measures or state of emergencies introduced in the name of fighting COVID-19 should be subject to proper parliamentary, judicial and public oversight to avoid abuses.

"If the rule of law is not upheld, then the public health emergency risks becoming a human rights disaster, with negative effects that will long outlast the pandemic itself," she said.

Agence France-Presse

Legal questions raised over killing of ex-soldier

PNP defends cop while AFP calls for sobriety, impartial investigation

MANILA – The shooting of a retired soldier who had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in broad daylight has sparked another controversy in the Philippine government’s implementation of the enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) in mainland Luzon as several groups raise legal issues about his killing.

Retired Army Corporal Winston Ragos was shot twice by Police Master Sergeant Daniel Florendo, Jr. on Tuesday, April 21, near a quarantine checkpoint in Barangay Pasong Putik, Quezon City, which led to his death.

WAS RAGOS ARMED?

Based on a police spot report, cops claimed Ragos was carrying a sling bag with a handgun and did not raise his hands when told to. Instead, he allegedly attempted to pull out his firearm inside the sling bag, prompting Florendo to shoot him, hitting him twice in the body.

But Ragos’ sister and witnesses said Ragos was unarmed. CCTV footage showed Ragos throwing away his sling bag before falling to the ground a few seconds after he was shot. In the footage, there was no sign that Ragos had a firearm but police later said a gun was found in his handbag.

One bystander was heard shouting, “Bakit niyo binaril, sir? Dapat kinapkapan niyo muna?”


Human rights lawyer Chel Diokno of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) on Twitter asked: “Was Cpl. Ragos really carrying a firearm in his sling bag? What happened to the sling bag after he was shot? Who took it from the crime scene, searched it, and (allegedly) found the weapon?).”

Quoting the Revised PNP Operations Manual, Diokno said “it should be the investigator-on-case or the Scene-of-the-Crime-Officer, not the operatives involved in the incident, who should take charge of and process the crime scene.”

The latter part of the CCTV footage showed a police officer tossing the sling bag into the police van.

But in the police report, it was Florendo himself, the arresting officer, who allegedly turned over the firearm to investigators – “one caliber 9mm with magazine loaded of (sic) (13) pieces ammunitions/cartridge.”

Police later said on Thursday that they found a loaded caliber 38 revolver in Ragos' bag.

WAS RAGOS COMMITTING A CRIME?

Diokno also questioned what led to the confrontation.

Cops claimed Ragos approached 2 police trainees and told them “Ang sama ng tingin mo, anong problema?” Later, Florendo requested for police back-up.

“What led the police to point their guns at Cpl. Ragos in the first place? Was he committing or attempting to commit a crime at the time? Was he a threat to the lives of the police or other persons in the area?” Diokno asked.

Diokno echoed a statement earlier issued by FLAG expressing concern over the Philippine National Police’s policy of arrests without warning.

FLAG said warrantless arrests may only be made if a person has committed, is committing or attempting to commit a crime; or an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has personal knowledge that the person to be arrested committed it; or that the person is an escaped prisoner.

The group of human rights lawyers also reminded cops of their obligation to inform the person to be arrested of their authority to make the arrest, their intention and the cause of the arrest, among other requirements under the law.

There was no indication in the video clips if the cops informed him why he was being arrested.

COULD RAGOS HAVE BEEN SUBDUED?

In a video which circulated online, Ragos could be seen stretching his arms with his back to the police for more than a minute.

He was asked to drop to the ground but he instead turned around and asked: “Bakit, anong problema ko sa’yo? Ano’ng problema ko sa’yo,” while stretching both of his hands on a railing before he reached for something on his sling bag.

That was when Florendo fired 2 shots.

“Why did the police officers not subdue him when his back was facing them and his arms were raised? Wouldn’t that have allowed them to restrain Cpl. Ragos without firing a shot?,” Diokno asked.

Rights group Karapatan said, there was a chance to stop Ragos without killing him.

“Footage from the incident clearly show that the police had ample time, opportunity and personnel to de-escalate and even potentially disarm the retired soldier without disproportionately resorting to the use of lethal force; instead, they shot him not only once, but twice,” it said in a statement.

“Nearby residents can be seen trying to stop the police from shooting him and one can even be heard screaming: “Bakit niyo binaril, sir? Dapat kinapkapan niyo muna!” (Why did you shoot him, sir? You should have frisked him first!),” it added.

The Commission on Human Rights, which is investigating the killing, reminded the police about their obligation not to use excessive force under international instruments and even their own operations manual.

“Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms,” CHR spokesperson Jacqueline Ann de Guia said in a statement.

If the use of force and firearms is unavoidable, de Guia said, authorities must practice restraint and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offense, making sure to minimize harm and injury, respecting the preservation of human life. 

FLORENDO’S DEFENSE

Florendo’s superiors have come to his defense.

“P/Msgt Florendo was the only person in the best position to make that judgment call, better than any observer, viewer, and opinionated analyst with 20/20 hindsight,” PNP Spokesperson BGen. Bernard Banac said.

PNP Chief Archie Gamboa also justified Florendo’s actions: “There were a series of warnings and the instruction was very simple, Tagalog pa…”

“Marami na rin kasing namatay na pulis. Actually ang instruction ko talaga ‘wag kayong magpauna. When you are confronted by a person armed with a pistol, its equivalent is also a pistol.”

But several rights groups have expressed doubt if Florendo could claim self-defense, as it requires the element of unlawful aggression on the part of Ragos.

Unlawful aggression refers to an actual, sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude, according to a 2003 Supreme Court case.

“The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon,” the Court said in People vs. Rubiso, where the Court rejected a self-defense plea.

It cited previous cases where “mere thrusting of one’s hand into his pocket as if for the purpose of drawing a weapon” was not considered unlawful aggression or even the “cocking of a rifle without aiming the firearm at any particular target” was not deemed sufficient to conclude that one’s life was in imminent danger.

“Hence, a threat, even if made with a weapon, or the belief that a person was about to be attacked, is not sufficient. It is necessary that the intent be ostensibly revealed by an act of aggression or by some external acts showing the commencement of actual and material unlawful aggression,” it said.

AFP REACTION

The Armed Forces of the Philippines, for its part, commiserated with the family of Ragos and said the Interior department and the PNP have assured them of a thorough and impartial investigation.

“We in the AFP agree that the action taken by policeman concerned was his ‘judgment call.’ But as to whether he made the right judgment and whether his actions are appropriate are his alone and does not reflect the PNP as an organization,” AFP spokesperson Edgard Arevalo said in a statement.

Arevalo confirmed Ragos was a former soldier who served in the military for 7 years but who was placed on complete disability discharge due to post-traumatic stress disorder

“Records indicate that he might have acquired his condition in a heavy firefight sometime in 2010 when the detachment he manned was attacked and was nearly subdued,” he explained, disclosing that Ragos was last assigned to the 31IB under the 9ID.

Ragos’s sister had earlier said Ragos acquired PTSD after serving in Marawi.

But Arevalo was quick to point out, they do not want the incident to create animosity between the AFP and the PNP, especially at a time when both organizations are working closely against the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Suffice it to say that there is going to be an investigation and appropriate criminal and administrative charges will be filed and penalties will be meted as may be warranted,” he said.

BLAME ON DUTERTE’S “SHOOT THEM DEAD” ORDER

Karapatan blamed Ragos’ death on the President’s recent statements urging law enforcers to protect themselves if met with resistance by quarantine violators and threatening a martial law-like implementation of the quarantine.

“His killing only goes to show that the President’s ‘shoot them dead’ orders and threats of a martial law-like takeover are not mere exaggerations — we have heard this order in the bloody drug war before. They embolden the military and the police to kill, and the president’s orders translate to dead bodies. ‘Leftist’ or not, anyone — even a retired soldier — can become victims of State fascism,” Karapatan Secretary General Cristina Palabay said.

The National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers had issued a similar warning, saying the “rule of justice” has never ceased to operate and basic economic, social, political and civil rights cannot be reduced to an enumeration of do’s and don’t’s.

“The lockdown and the pandemic are not the government’s "passes" to sow a reign of terror, cultivate a climate of fear and blind obeisance, and commit human rights violations with impunity,” it said in a statement.

The CHR, meanwhile, urged the government to resort to a humanitarian approach instead of martial law-like enforcement of quarantines.

“As a public health measure, the quarantine rules are still bound by legal standards…Needless to say, fundamental rights remain even as some necessary measures need to be taken,” it said.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Using pandemic to erode human rights is 'unacceptable': UN chief

Taking advantage of the coronavirus pandemic to erode human rights would be unacceptable, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Thursday, unveiling a new report on the issue.

As governments around the world implemented extraordinary measures to deal with the outbreak, activists have increasingly warned of strongmen regimes using the crisis to roll back rights.

Rights groups have called states out for everything from violence, threats to press freedom, arrests and smartphone surveillance implemented to fight the wave of infections. 

"Against the background of rising ethno-nationalism, populism, authoritarianism and a pushback against human rights in some countries, the crisis can provide a pretext to adopt repressive measures for purposes unrelated to the pandemic," Guterres said in a statement.

"This is unacceptable."

He called on governments to be transparent, responsive and accountable. 

"Civic space and press freedom are critical. Civil society organizations and the private sector have essential roles to play. And in all we do, let's never forget: The threat is the virus, not people," Guterres said.

The UN report on human rights and COVID-19 suggested that governments think about the consequences of their actions, saying "for better or for worse it is critical to consider the long-term whilst planning our short-term responses."

Agence France-Presse

Apple investor vote sounds 'warning' over China app takedowns

An Apple Inc shareholder proposal critical of the company's app removals in China received a relatively high level of support at the iPhone maker's annual meeting on Wednesday, enough to push the company to respond, experts said.

The proposal, which called for Apple to report whether it has "publicly committed to respect freedom of expression as a human right," was defeated, but 40.6 percent of votes cast supported the measure, according to company figures.

The proposal highlighted Apple's 2017 removal of virtual private network apps from its App Store in China. Such apps allow users to bypass China’s so-called Great Firewall aimed at restricting access to overseas sites, and Apple's action was seen as a step to preserve access to the country's vast market.

Wednesday's vote stood in contrast to previous years when critics made little headway with big investors on the issue.

"A total this high is a striking warning — and it must have come from big institutional investors, not just retail shareholders — that Apple’s human rights policy in China has become a material risk for the company’s reputation," said Stephen Davis, a senior fellow at Harvard Law School's Program on Corporate Governance.

"Apple will be under great pressure to respond rather than ignore this vote," Davis said.

An Apple spokesman declined to comment on the results. Apple had opposed the proposal, saying it already provides extensive information about when it takes down apps at the request of governments around the world and that it follows the laws in countries where it operates.

SumOfUs, the group that put the measure on the ballot, celebrated the totals.

"Apple’s investors have sounded the alarm that Tim Cook needs to listen to the concerns raised by frontline communities such as Tibetans and Uighurs who have long suffered under a tech dystopia," said Sondhya Gupta, a campaign manager for the group.

Cook is Apple's chief executive.

In the past, Apple shareholders have voted down human rights measures related to China by much larger margins. A 2018 proposal that urged Apple to create a human rights panel to oversee issues such as workplace conditions and censorship in China was defeated, with 94.4 percent of votes cast against it.

Sentiment appears to have shifted, experts said.

"Given the high level of support received for the proposal, we expect to see the company engage with its shareholders on the issue and report to shareholders about what happened in the engagements, including any potential actions it intends to take as a result," said Kern McPherson, vice president of research and engagement for proxy advisory firm Glass, Lewis & Co, which supported the measure.

Apple has signaled it is considering action. In a letter earlier this month to Access Now, an open-internet advocacy group, Apple's senior privacy director, Jane Horvath, wrote: "Apple has and always will consider freedom of expression a fundamental human right." The company, she said, "will consider providing additional details on our commitment in the future." The proposal was one of six topics to be voted on at Wednesday's shareholder meeting. By wide margins, shareholders approved Apple's executive pay, existing board of directors and the retention of Ernst & Young as its accounting firm, results that were widely expected.

A "proxy access" proposal to allow shareholders to nominate more than one director to Apple's board was defeated, with 68.9 percent of votes cast against. Also voted down was a measure to tie executive compensation to environmental sustainability metrics, with 87.9 percent of votes cast against it, according to the company.

Shareholders defeated a "proxy access" proposal to allow shareholders to nominate more than one director to Apple's board, with 68.9 percent of votes cast against. They also voted down a measure to tie executive compensation to environmental sustainability metrics, with 87.9 percent of votes cast against it, according to the company.

Apple had opposed both proposals.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

US senator’s aide says hard for US Secretary of State to ignore Congress directive

MANILA—An influential staff member of US Sen. Patrick Leahy who pushed for a ban on Philippine officials behind the detention of Sen. Leila de Lima has confirmed a congressional directive to “apply the law" in the senator's case.

Tim Rieser, foreign policy aide of Senator Patrick Leahy, told ABS-CBN News that Leahy and his colleague Richard Durbin included a provision in the US Senate appropriations committee report that accompanies the annual appropriations bill directing the US Secretary of State to apply the law banning human rights violators from entering American soil to De Lima’s case.

The same provision classified “unjust or wrongful detention” as part of “gross violation of human rights,” making it a ground for applying the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, a US law which authorizes the US government to sanction those who it sees as human rights offenders, freeze their assets, and ban them from entering the US.

“That language was included by reference in the final version of the conference agreement that was negotiated by the House and the Senate and enacted a week ago,” Rieser said.

"It means that the Secretary should look at the information that Senator Leahy and Senator Durbin and other members of the House and Senate believe is credible."

Pro-Duterte bloggers Sass Rogando Sasot and RJ Nieto or Thinking Pinoy earlier questioned the absence of De Lima’s name in the spending bill that US President Donald Trump signed into law on December 20, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the news about the US entry ban.

LINK: 
https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/12/28/19/de-lima-belies-bloggers-fake-news-claim-on-us-entry-ban

De Lima, however, said the explanatory statement of the law states that unless specifically negated, the language in the US House and Senate reports on the bill remains in force.

The Congressional record of the US 2020 consolidated budget directed the State Department to comply with the directives, reporting requirements and instructions in the Senate and House reports.

Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo on Sunday confirmed the ban, citing his conversation with Philippine Ambassador to the US Babes Romualdez.

But Nieto continued to question whether the ban was based only on the Magnitsky clause that he said has been in US budget laws since 2015 or if it was a result of an amendment introduced by US senators Richard Durbin and Patrick Leahy, which he maintains, does not exist.

Rieser confirmed that the controversial clause has indeed been in US budget laws for years now but stressed that the difference now is US Congress specified that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo apply it to De Lima.

“They are correct to the extent that 7031(c) has been in effect for years. Senator Leahy wrote it. It applies globally. However, what’s different is that the Congress is saying that the Secretary shall apply the law in this particular case. That didn’t exist before,” he said.

“To suggest that it is more of the same is to ignore the fact that this year, Congress zeroed in on her case specifically by name, and directed the Secretary to make a determination.”

'HARD TO IGNORE CONGRESS DIRECTIVE'

Rieser said that ultimately, it will be up to Pompeo to implement the congressional directive.

“He could ignore the Congress but it’s not easy to do that when there are multiple, credible sources saying that she is imprisoned because the government is trying to silence her as a result of her criticism of the government’s policies,” he said.

Rieser explained that the provision “was not inserted in the dark of night or in secret or in some manner that wasn’t known. It was done in the usual way that was public, it was reviewed, it was discussed, and it was agreed to.”

He stressed that concern for De Lima’s rights prompted the 2 US senators to propose the amendment.

“Senator De Lima, as you know, has been in prison now for 2 years and has yet to be proven guilty of anything. Senator Leahy is not aware of any credible evidence that has been brought forward against her. Nor has she had the opportunity to defend herself in a trial that would meet international standards,” he said.

“Simply asserting that she is being afforded due process means nothing unless she’s actually being given the opportunity to know the evidence against her and defend herself in an impartial proceeding,” he added.

Philippine Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra on Sunday insisted that no less than the Philippine Supreme Court had upheld the charges against De Lima and that she is undergoing a fair public trial. He said he will invite and allow the legal staff of the US senators to go over the court records and transcripts of De Lima’s cases instead of relying on “second-hand” reports which are, at worst, “multiple hearsay.”

RESPONSE TO PH GOVERNMENT THREAT

Malacañang responded to the US entry ban by banning the 2 US senators from entering the country and threatening to impose visa requirements on US citizens visiting the Philippines. US citizens currently enjoy 30-day visa-free stay in the country.

In a statement Sunday, Leahy called the response irrational.

“Rather than responding by irrationally threatening to deny visas to American citizens, the Duterte government should either release Senator De Lima immediately or provide her the fair, public trial she is entitled to,” he said.

“Sen. Leahy is not interested in denying, or in having the Secretary deny, visas to anybody. What he’s interested in is justice for Senator De Lima,” Rieser said, explaining his boss’ reaction.

“And if the Philippine government’s response is to say it will deny visas to all American citizens, who have nothing to do with the imprisonment of Senator De Lima, that’s the response of a government that has no justifiable explanation for why it is detaining her for over two years, other than to say she’s being afforded due process. How is she being afforded due process? What due process? Why is she in prison? Why has she not been released on bail? What is the evidence against her?,” he asked.

Leahy is one of 5 US legislators who called for De Lima’s release.

He served as prosecutor for 8 years before joining the Senate, where he served as senior minority member of the Senate Judiciary committee.

“[H]e’s very familiar with judicial matters and with criminal procedure and with the rights of accused individuals. And for him, the first amendment and freedom of expression and the right to criticize one’s government is fundamental. Whether it’s our own government’s or other government’s attempt to intimidate or silence those who express views that the government disagrees with, and who are subjected to threats or unlawful imprisonment, Senator Leahy believes it is everybody’s responsibility to speak out about that,” Rieser said.

Rieser himself is an influential figure in Capitol Hill, having served for 3 decades. He is widely regarded as one of the most powerful staffers presiding over US foreign policy and US foreign assistance.

In 2016, Virginia-based American political opinion company Politico named him as one of the 50 thinkers, doers and visionaries transforming American politics, having acted as back-channel that led to the prisoner exchange between the US and Cuba and the resumption of their diplomatic ties.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Tolerance towards LGBT+ people seen rising globally

LONDON - LGBT+ people have seen a rise in tolerance in almost every region of the world over the last decade, according to an index released on Monday.

Iceland was named as the most tolerant country towards LGBT+ people in a survey of 167 countries by British think-tank the Legatum Institute, while central Asian country Tajikistan was in last place.

"It is encouraging to see that our 2019 Prosperity Index shows a rise in tolerance towards the LGBT community globally over the past decade," Shaun Flanagan of the institute's Center for Metrics told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

"However, the LGBT community, as well as other often marginalized groups, such as immigrants, ethnic minorities and religious groups, still face considerable persecution across certain parts of the world today."

The data is part of the 2019 Legatum Prosperity Index, which measures a host of factors affecting countries' ability to create wealth and wellbeing, ranging from investment environment to health and personal freedom.

Social tolerance towards minority groups increased in 111 of 167 countries over the last decade, and across every region except for Eastern Europe & Sub-Saharan Africa, it found.

The rise in acceptance of LGBT+ people was particularly marked, rising from about one in four people expressing acceptance a decade ago to almost a third in the latest report.

Tolerance towards LGBT+ people was measured according to responses to a Gallup poll that asked more than 130,000 people around the world whether their city or area was a good place for gay and lesbian people to live.

Top-ranking Iceland was followed by The Netherlands and Norway in the 2019 index, while Canada and Denmark took fourth and fifth place respectively.

Several of the least tolerant countries criminalize homosexuality, with penalties including a potential death sentence for men in Mauritania and Somalia, both in the bottom five.

However, legality did not always equal acceptance - lowest-ranked Tajikistan decriminalized gay sex in 1998 but LGBT+ people still face widespread discrimination.

It was followed by Somalia, Azerbaijan, Senegal and Mauritania in second to fourth last place respectively. 

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Google, Facebook business models threat to human rights: Amnesty

SAN FRANCISCO -- The data-collection business model fueling Facebook and Google represents a threat to human rights around the world, Amnesty International said in a report Wednesday.

The organization argued that offering people free online services and then using information about them to target money-making ads imperils a gamut of rights including freedom of opinion and expression.

"Despite the real value of the services they provide, Google and Facebook's platforms come at a systemic cost," Amnesty said in its report, "Surveillance Giants."

"The companies' surveillance-based business model forces people to make a Faustian bargain, whereby they are only able to enjoy their human rights online by submitting to a system predicated on human rights abuse."

With ubiquitous surveillance, the two online giants are able to collect massive amounts of data which may be used against their customers, according to the London-based human rights group.

The business model is "inherently incompatible with the right to privacy," Amnesty contended.

The report maintained that the two Silicon Valley firms have established "near-total dominance over the primary channels through which people connect and engage with the online world," giving them unprecedented power over people's lives.

"Google and Facebook dominate our modern lives -- amassing unparalleled power over the digital world by harvesting and monetizing the personal data of billions of people," said Kumi Naidoo, Amnesty International's secretary general.

"Their insidious control of our digital lives undermines the very essence of privacy and is one of the defining human rights challenges of our era."

The report called for governments to implement policies that ensure access to online services while protecting user privacy.

"Governments have an obligation to protect people from human rights abuses by corporations," Amnesty maintained.

"But for the past two decades, technology companies have been largely left to self-regulate."

DISPUTE ON FINDINGS

Facebook pushed back against what it contended were inaccuracies in the report, saying it strongly disagreed with its business model being characterized as surveillance-based.

"Our business model is what allows us to offer an important service where people can exercise foundational human rights -- to have a voice (freedom of expression) and be able to connect (freedom of association and assembly)," said a letter from Facebook privacy and public policy director Steve Satterfield in an annex to the Amnesty report.

"Facebook's business model is not, as your summary suggests, driven by the collection of data about people."

Facebook spotlighted its measures implemented which limit data information used for ad targeting; controls provided to users regarding their data; and steps taken to restrict abuses by apps on the social network.

"As you correctly note, we do not sell data; we sell ads," Facebook said.

Facebook chief and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg has called for governments to implement uniform rules regarding data-handling instead of leaving private companies to make crucial social decisions such as the limits of free speech.

Google did not offer a specific written response.

But the Amnesty report noted that Google announced this month it would limit data that it shares with advertisers through its ad auction platform, following the launch of an inquiry by the Irish data protection authority and had launched a new feature allowing users to delete location data.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

World Bank scales back project in China’s Xinjiang region

WASHINGTON — The World Bank said Monday that it would scale back development work in China’s Xinjiang region after speculation that a $50 million loan it granted in 2015 for an education project was being used to fund Muslim detention camps.

The bank has been conducting a review of the project since Sen. Marco Rubio, (Republican-Florida), and Rep. Jim McGovern, (Democrat-Massachusetts), expressed concern about it in August and after an independent researcher found evidence suggesting that funds were being used to buy police batons and tear gas launchers.

The Chinese government has been facing criticism for detaining more than a million Muslim Uighurs and placing them in “re-education” camps where they are forced to renounce their religious beliefs and embrace the ideology of the Communist Party.

The bank said it reviewed the project extensively and was unable to substantiate the allegations. However, the bank acknowledged the challenge of rigorously monitoring the situation and said it was making changes to the project.

The loan was intended to support five vocational schools in the region by upgrading teams of teachers and curriculums. Some of this money was going to “partner schools” that were indirectly receiving World Bank funding and were not under the bank’s supervision.

“In light of the risks associated with the partner schools, which are widely dispersed and difficult to monitor, the scope and footprint of the project is being reduced,” the bank said in a statement. “Specifically, the project component that involves the partner schools in Xinjiang is being closed.”

The bank said it was also increasing its supervision of the project, which is supposed to continue through next year, by assigning a staff member from Washington to jointly head it and bringing on a senior manager from the bank to participate in site visits.

Last month, the Trump administration imposed some commercial restrictions on Chinese technology companies and other organizations believed to be involved in the repression, and said it would impose a visa ban on officials thought to be responsible for human rights abuses.


2019 The New York Times Company

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Indonesia moving to ban sex outside marriage

JAKARTA, Indonesia - Indonesia is set to vote on a plan to outlaw gay and premarital sex while beefing up its blasphemy laws in a shakeup fuelled by religious conservatism and slammed by rights groups Thursday.

The proposed criminal law overhaul could affect millions in the world's biggest Muslim majority country, including heterosexual couples who might face jail for having sex outside wedlock or having an affair.

But there are also fears it could punish the Southeast Asian nation's small LGBT community as gay marriage is not allowed in Indonesia.

"Indonesia's draft criminal code is disastrous not only for women and religious and gender minorities, but for all Indonesians," said Andreas Harsono, senior Indonesia researcher at Human Rights Watch. 

"Lawmakers should remove all the abusive articles before passing the law," he added.

Updating Indonesia's criminal code -- which stretches back to the Dutch colonial era -- has been debated for decades. 

While a push last year fizzled, the mooted changes now appear set to be voted on in parliament before the end of the month -- with strong support from religious groups.

Shift towards fundamentalism

"Even though the criminal code bill that will be ratified still has shortcomings, it's far better than the (one) today," said Robikin Emhas, spokesperson for the Nahdlatul Ulama, a major Islamic organization.

Rights groups say the proposals underscore a growing shift towards fundamentalism in a country long hailed for its religious tolerance.

"This is a setback," said Papang Hidayat, research manager at Amnesty International Indonesia.

"Religious values as a source of lawmaking has now reached the national level -- that's worrying."

People who have premarital or extramarital sex could face between 6 months and 1 year in jail, as well as fines, under the changes.

There are also penalties for anyone "showing or offering" contraception to minors under 18.

Indonesia's Aceh province already imposes Islamic law, and whipping is a common punishment for a range of offenses including gambling, drinking alcohol, and having gay or premarital sex. 

The proposals call for a wider interpretation of Indonesia's blasphemy law, which has seen members of religious minority groups, including Christians and Buddhists, prosecuted in the past.

The new law would also criminalize "insulting" the president or vice president, which critics said would be a blow to free speech.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Pride flags and foreign policy: US diplomats see shift on gay rights

RIO DE JANEIRO — American diplomats in Brazil recently sought State Department permission to fly rainbow flags this month at the US Embassy and a consulate, citing an increasingly hostile environment for gay Brazilians since the election of the far-right President Jair Bolsonaro last fall.

Washington rejected the request in what some see as the latest sign that the Trump administration may be quietly abandoning the advancement of rights for gay and transgender people as a foreign policy imperative.

The rainbow flag may not be displayed on a “public-facing flagpole,” the department instructed personnel in Brazil and at other missions across the world last Monday.

The symbolic gesture had become routine at US diplomatic posts since 2011, when Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, proclaimed in a landmark speech that “gay rights are human rights.”

The State Department has taken other steps that reflect its shift since the Obama administration days.

There was no public statement this year marking June as Pride Month, and no cable to all its missions like one last year that gave detailed suggestions on celebrating gay pride and “strongly encouraged” them to “advance LGBTI human rights policy objectives” all year.

The department has quietly eliminated the position of special envoy for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights as a high-profile, stand-alone job.

And it is creating a Commission on Unalienable Rights, which gay-rights groups fear is intended to narrow the scope of American advocacy. The panel aims to “provide fresh thinking about human rights discourse where such discourse has departed from our nation’s founding principles of natural law and natural rights,” according to a notice posted on the Federal Register, a government journal, on May 30.

Still, US diplomats in Brazil had no reason to expect official resistance to their proposals to commemorate Pride Month as in years past.

In a memo, teams at the consulate in Rio de Janeiro and the embassy in Brasília suggested that in light of Brazil’s increasing political polarization under Bolsonaro, their actions would “be an opportunity to show support for not only the LGBT community but minority rights as well,” while showcasing “pride and confidence in our own diversity and strength as a society.”

The State Department’s curt rejection left gay personnel and their backers reeling. In conversations this past week, US diplomats who are gay described a prevailing mood of fear and angst. None would speak on the record for fear of retaliation.

Robyn McCutcheon, a foreign service officer who in 2011 became the first transgender US diplomat to transition on the job, expressed disappointment in a recent blog post about the department’s decision not to issue the standard yearly cable encouraging embassies to mark gay pride or a day against homophobia that is observed every May 17.

“Day by day, a death by a thousand cuts, our rights as lgbt+ Americans are being eroded with the removal of a guidance here, the rewriting of a policy there, or just the quiet disappearance of a website,” she wrote.

Officials at the State Department did not respond to questions about the flag policy or say whether the advancement of gay and transgender rights continues to be a foreign policy priority. And while they declined to shed light on the intent of the new commission, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently told reporters it would help him decide how to think about human rights in diplomacy.

“How do we make sure that we have a solid definition of human rights upon which to tell all our diplomats around the world how to engage on those important issues?” he asked.

Pompeo has said his religious beliefs shape his approach to policy. “The task I have is informed by my understanding of my faith, my belief in Jesus Christ as the savior,” he told the Christian Broadcasting Network in April.

Gay advocacy groups said they expected the commission to be a setback.

“We sincerely doubt that this commission is being organized to ensure that the human rights of LGBTQ people and others who experience extreme violence and discrimination are being protected to the fullest extent,” said Ty Cobb, global director of the Human Rights Campaign, an advocacy group.

He added, “Trump and Pence have made it clear they are not allies to the LGBTQ community — neither here at home or abroad.”

Clinton’s 2011 speech before a United Nations body in Geneva that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights” represented an ambitious bid by the United States to lead a global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality and expand the legal rights of gay and transgender people.

American focus on the issue helped galvanize same-sex marriage movements across the world. The Obama administration sought to make headway even in deeply conservative nations, at times coming under criticism for endangering the advocates it sought to empower.

Washington’s stance matters, rights advocates say.

“In environments in which marginalized populations have little other recourse within their own government, they saw the United States as a protector,” said Rob Berschinski, the senior vice president for policy at Human Rights First, who worked on rights issues at the State Department in the Obama administration. “The United States government walking back on issues like LGBT rights matters deeply to those communities; for some it’s a matter of life and death.”

Under President Donald Trump, the United States has not formally abandoned gay and transgender rights as a foreign policy imperative, but the quest has lost visibility and momentum. Some senior diplomats have continued to champion the issue, but they no longer have a comprehensive policy directive to follow.

Trump’s announcement this month that his administration would lead an effort to decriminalize homosexuality across the world has been met with criticism, given his administration’s rollback of rights at home for gay, bisexual and transgender people.

In Brazil their rights have been considerably expanded in the past decade, with permission to marry granted by the courts in 2013 and the ability to change names and gender markers on public documents now made relatively easy.

In addition, Brazil’s top court is expected to issue a ruling this month making homophobic acts a criminal offense.

But anti-gay violence is widespread, and many people feel increasingly vulnerable with the rise of elected officials like Bolsonaro, who said in 2011 that he would rather have a dead son than a gay son. In April, he said Brazil should not market itself as a destination for gay tourists because “we have families.” Anticipating action on homophobia from the top court, the president told supporters he was inclined to appoint an evangelical justice.

Amid this backdrop, a midlevel diplomat at the US Consulate in Rio de Janeiro sent an email to a supervisor in mid-May seeking approval to raise the pride flag alongside the American flag for all of June.

Scott Hamilton, the consul general, backed the idea in a memo to the embassy in Brasília, noting the “atmosphere of increased intolerance and acts of homophobic violence.”

Embassy personnel supported the request, too, and planned to raise a rainbow flag at their compound as well during a public ceremony on June 19.

The rejection from the State Department left the diplomatic commemorations in Brazil on hold and set off frenzied speculation about what it meant for US leadership on gay rights.

At other diplomatic posts, including the US Embassies in South Korea and Israel, pride flags or banners have been put up in public view — but not on flagpoles, as the State Department specifically prohibited. The US Embassy in Germany, where the ambassador is the most prominent openly gay diplomat in the Trump administration, plans to do the same.

But not in Brazil. In a notice issued Friday, the embassy instructed personnel at the five consulates in the country to ensure that any pride “flags are placed internally.”

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Hong Kong court favors gay couple in landmark victory for LGBT+ rights

BANGKOK - Hong Kong's top court on Thursday ruled in favor of a gay civil servant fighting for spousal and tax benefits for his husband in the latest legal victory over equal rights for same-sex couples in a city where gay marriage is banned.

Leung Chun Kwong, an immigration officer who married his husband Scott Adams in New Zealand, went to court in 2017 against the Civil Service Bureau that refused to grant benefits to his husband, and for the right to file taxes jointly.

After a lower court partially ruled in Leung's favor, the government filed an appeal and a higher court last year overturned the judgment. Leung appealed to the Court of Final Appeal which ruled unanimously in his favor on Thursday.

The court said while the protection of the institution of marriage as defined by Hong Kong's laws is a "legitimate aim", the government "failed to justify the differential treatment" which amounted to discrimination.

The city defines marriage as between a man and a woman, but the court said the prevailing views on marriage were not a "relevant consideration" and could not be a reason to reject a minority's claim to fundamental rights.

The ruling is a "huge step forward for equality in Hong Kong", said Man-kei Tam, director of human rights group Amnesty International in Hong Kong.

"This victory brings Hong Kong more in line with its international obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the rights of people with different sexual orientations," he said.

Homosexuality has been decriminalized since 1991 in Hong Kong, a former British colony that returned to Chinese rule in 1997. The city has an annual pride parade and lively gay scene.

It does not, however, recognize same-sex marriage and LGBT+ activists voice concerns about widespread discrimination.

Taiwan last month became the first place in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage after a long struggle but the push for LGBT+ rights is slow elsewhere in Asia.

A global outcry forced Brunei to recently back down on plans to impose the death penalty for gay sex and adultery.

A survey last year by the University of Hong Kong showed more than half respondents in the city backed same-sex marriage.

But rights are only won through court battles, said Tommy Chen, a spokesman for LGBT+ activist group Rainbow Action.

Earlier this year, two gay men launched separate legal bids to overturn Hong Kong's ban on same-sex marriage.

Last September, the Hong Kong government said it would recognize overseas same-sex partnerships when granting dependent visas after a British lesbian won a court battle triggered by being denied a spousal visa.

"Until the government ends discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, (court action) is the only option," Chen said. 

source: news.abs-cbn.com

We do: Taiwan's gay newlyweds urge Asia to follow their lead

TAIPEI -- As they celebrated tying the knot at an outdoor party, many of the first same-sex couples to marry in Taiwan on Friday urged Asian governments to follow their island's lead.

Taiwan's decision to legalize same-sex marriage was not without controversy and came after three decades of campaigning by activists against staunch conservative opposition.

It places the island at the forefront of the gay rights movement in Asia, a continent home to 60 percent of the world's population but where the battle for marriage equality has struggled.

"I think this will have a ripple effect and influence other Asian countries, they will see that this is feasible, that it can be done in Taiwan," Chen Xue, a writer who married her long-term partner on Friday, told AFP in a Taipei park where newlyweds and their supporters had gathered to celebrate.

"Even though there might be some unease in the short term, in the long term it will have positive influences on society," she added. "We are definitely setting up a positive example for other Asian countries."

Taiwan now finds itself among a handful of liberal democracies to have granted equal marriage rights.

Until last week only 26 nations had legalized same-sex marriage, sixteen in Europe, followed by seven in the Americas as well as South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. 

Twelve others have passed some form of civil union laws, while Israel recognizes foreign same-sex marriages.

'ASIAN VALUES'

But in Asia, Taiwan currently stands alone.

Religious and conservative values remain entrenched in countries such as India, Indonesia and Malaysia. 

In East Asia many conservative groups have pushed the idea that same-sex relationships clash with so-called traditional Asian or Chinese "values".

In China, communist authorities only removed homosexuality from a list of mental disorders in 2001 and the LGBT community faces routine discrimination. Gay rights groups have made little progress on marriage in Hong Kong and Singapore. 

Many of those getting married in Taipei said Friday's weddings offered a vivid counter to the argument that gay rights had no place in the region.

"I want to tell people in other parts (of Asia) don't give up and keep on fighting," said Huan, a local celebrity YouTuber who goes by one name, and who married her partner on Friday. "The victory will come in the end."

Lin Meng-huan, a 32-year-old screenwriter, married his partner Chou Chung-peng, an actor. 

"I hope that Taiwan is the beginning of gay rights movement in Asia, not the end, and everybody has to keep fighting," said Lin. 

"I didn't expect Taiwan would be the first in Asia," added Chou. "I hope this love can gradually expand to drive other marriage equality movements in Asia."

Taiwan's breakthrough came in 2017 when the island's top court ruled that denying same-sex couples the same marriage rights as heterosexuals breached the constitution.

The court gave politicians two years to change the law with parliament only just making the deadline.

But popular opinion remains wary. 

In November conservative and religious lobbies won a series of referendums, with a large majority of voters opposed to granting marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Taiwan's current President Tsai Ing-wen and her ruling party members may find themselves punished at the ballot box next January for supporting the law changes.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

Gay couples to 'live more freely' with Thai civil unions

BANGKOK -- Luke Cassady-Dorion believed marriage was for "boring" straight people until he met the man he wanted to spend the rest of his life with. But Thailand, where they live, does not permit same-sex marriage.

So the couple wed in New York.

With Thailand set to pass a landmark law that would make it the first country in Asia to legally recognize same-sex couples as civil partners, they are hopeful the largely conservative Buddhist society is on the path to recognizing their love.

"The LGBT community in Thailand has been campaigning for equal rights for a long time, and this bill is a good and important first step," said Cassady-Dorion, who co-founded a YouTube channel with Tae, or Thapanont Phithakrattanayothin.

"When you normalize same-sex relations, it helps gay people to come out and live more freely, knowing that the government recognizes your rights," said Cassady-Dorion, who is also a yoga instructor.

Thailand has built a reputation as a place with a relaxed attitude towards gender and sexual diversity since homosexuality was decriminalized in 1956, and authorities actively promote the country as an LGBT+-friendly destination.

Yet LGBT+ people face discrimination and stigma in schools, the workplace and health facilities and are often rejected by their families, say activists.

Across Asia, conservative values and deep-rooted biases have hamstrung progress on gay rights. Taiwan voters last year rejected legalizing same-sex marriage in a referendum.

While India's top court scrapped a colonial-era ban on gay sex in 2018, Myanmar, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei outlaw sexual relations between men, and Indonesia has seen an increase in raids targeting LGBT+ people.

Thailand's civil partnership bill, which was approved by the Cabinet on Dec. 25, is therefore an outlier in the region, giving same-sex couples the right to register their unions, make joint medical decisions and own and inherit property.

"LGBT people in Thailand have been waiting for this for a very long time," said Vitaya Saeng-Aroon, a director at the Bangkok Rainbow Organisation.

"There are couples who have been together for 15 years, 20 years, with no recognition or legal protection; they can finally breathe more easily," he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

FAMILY

But many gay people say it does not go far enough. It does not recognize marriage between same-sex partners, or give them the right to adopt or have children as a couple.

"We want to be a family with all the rights and privileges that any family has, but this bill does not give us that," said Areeya, a transgender woman who declined to give her full name for fear of criticism.

Areeya, who is Thai, and her partner Lee, who is American, have been together for 16 years, and they have each adopted a child as single persons.

"Marriage equality is what would be really meaningful but we don't know when - or even if - that will happen. We don't feel particularly compelled to register our union without any real benefits," she said as her younger son climbed on to her lap.

Campaigners also fear they will lose public support to push for full rights once the civil partnership bill is passed.

"People may say: 'You've got this, what more do you want?'" said Wannapong Yodmuang, an activist for marriage equality.

"We have campaigned for so long for equal rights, but this bill will mean we are still treated differently and given fewer rights. We are worried that people will stop fighting, and that we will lose momentum," she said.

The bill is "unlikely" to be passed before elections scheduled for March 24, and will await the new government, said Nareeluc Pairchaiyapoom, a senior official at the justice department.

Government officials have said granting marriage equality will take longer, as it requires changing people's attitudes and amending the country's Civil Code, which deals with the rights of private persons, including family law and inheritance law.

But two-thirds of Thais have no objection to same-sex unions, a survey by the United Nations Development Program found.

Thailand's marriage law can also be changed, said independent researcher Chawinroj Terapachalaphon.

"The marriage law now says "man and woman"; they just need to change it to "person". Everything else can stay the same - it is easily done, and it would ensure equal rights for everyone," he said.

"Everyone understands what marriage is, but few people understand a civil partnership, and none of the existing laws support it. What we need is a full marriage law that is clear and easy to implement, rather than something so complex."

PARTY

Others are ready to celebrate civil partnership.

"We will probably have a nice party when we register our union after the bill is passed, and some sort of a traditional ceremony as well. It's important that we celebrate it," said Ann Baker, who lives in Bangkok with her partner Suthida.

Baker, who is half English, had considered getting married in England, but wanted to have legal status in Thailand, where they both live.

"We are hopeful that we will get full marriage rights here soon, so we can start a family," Baker said.

For everyone looking to party, Cassady-Dorion and Tae - who address LGBT+ issues in Thailand on their YouTube channel Picnicly - have plenty of tips.

Their own wedding in 2014 was a "small ceremony" in Cassady-Dorion's mother's home in Niskayuna, New York, and involved the two of them cooking big batches of pad thai and green curry for the guests.

"Our wedding was the least gay thing I have ever done: it was very normal. But there really was something magical about the moment, and having our family and friends with us as we said our vows," said Cassady-Dorion.

"Marriage should be available to anyone who wants it, and we hope that Thailand will make marriage equality a reality. This bill should only be a step towards that."

source: news.abs-cbn.com