Download the PDF in Sinhala here.
Download the PDF in Tamil here.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 6 December, 2011 Centre for Policy Alternatives on 6 December, 2011 Centre for Policy Alternatives on 22 November, 2011 Freedom of Expression on the Internet in Sri Lanka
22nd November 2011, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives is pleased to release a new report examining the freedom of expression on the Internet in Sri Lanka. Since 2007, the freedom of expression on the Internet has faced considerable restrictions on account of the arbitrary blocking of websites and pronouncements by the government for greater regulation and monitoring of online content. There have also been concerns about the transfer of technology from countries such as China that may strengthen a surveillance regime and lead to further restrictions on web content. These issues along with a repressive legal framework have a chilling effect on freedom of expression on the Internet.
In line with the need to emphasise a rights-based framework when addressing online freedom of expression, the report examines the specific cases and practices that restrict freedom of expression on the Internet with respect to regulation, legislation and arbitrary action. In consideration of international freedom of expression standards, CPA’s report examines the government’s compliance with the broader international best practices and recommendations detailed in the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, which was submitted at the Seventeenth session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
The report looks specifically at the arbitrary blocking and filtering of web content; criminalisation of legitimate expression; the status of intermediary liability and actions of intermediaries; the potential for disconnecting users from Internet access, including on the basis of intellectual property law due to the broad nature of intellectual property legislation. The report also examines the potential threat that cyber-attacks may present to online freedom of expression, as well as the growing concern over and implications of the lack of substantive legislation for the protection of individual privacy and data. The final consideration of this report is with regard to Internet access and the acknowledgement of government policies with respect to providing adequate infrastructure for increasing Internet penetration in the country.
While the reform of existing legislation and regulatory practices is required in order to address the clear concerns about online freedom of expression, the report proposes national and international advocacy to ensure that the government addresses the issue of reform and adheres to international standards on the freedom of expression. There is also a need for a multi-stakeholder initiative so that the perspectives of users, intermediaries and other resource persons are incorporated into the design of legislation and formulation regulatory standards, thereby ensuring wide deliberation and participation to achieve the ultimate goal of strengthening freedom of expression on the Internet in Sri Lanka.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 9 November, 2011 Arbitrary Blocking and Registration of Websites: The Continuing Violation of Freedom of Expression on the Internet
Download this press release in Tamil here, and in Sinhala here. English PDF can be downloaded here.
###
9th November 2011, Colombo, Sri Lanka: We the undersigned civil society organisations and individuals express grave concern over the press release issued by the Director General of the Department of Government Information on 5th November 2011, which requires all ‘websites carrying any content relating to Sri Lanka or the people of Sri Lanka… uploaded from Sri Lanka or elsewhere’ to ‘register’ for ‘accreditation.’ We also condemn the actions of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) that has, according to a Sunday Times news report, moved to block a number of specific websites in line with this. While it is unclear whether the two measures are part of a single initiative or not, they represent an unacceptable incursion into free expression in Sri Lanka.
Websites including www.lankanewsweb.com, www.srilankamirror.com, www.srilankaguardian.org and www.lankawaynews.com were blocked on the day the press release was issued without any consultation or forewarning, raising concerns about the government’s real objectives and the freedom of expression in Sri Lanka.
We note that the Information Department press release does not state what the process of ‘registration’ will entail and whether any sort of liability or conditions will be imposed. We further note that this move by the government is the first step in the realisation of plans mooted by the TRC in 2010 to draft legislation that would make it compulsory for news websites to register with the authority. We also have additional concerns about the press release. Firstly, the press release does not establish with sufficient clarity the categories of either websites or persons who are required to register with the Ministry. Secondly, it is not clear whether and how the requirement for registration will apply to international news websites and websites operated by international organisations that publish news on and in Sri Lanka. Finally, in the interests of transparency, consistency and equal treatment, the Information Department and TRC must explain the legal framework and process under which registration of this nature can be enforced.
This requirement of registration coupled with the blocking of websites, which potentially constitutes a form of prior-censorship, not only produces a chilling effect on the freedoms of expression and information on the Internet, but also constitutes a prima facie violation of a number of constitutionally protected fundamental rights, including Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, which guarantees an individual’s right to freedom of opinion, expression and publication. The obligations of the government with respect to international standards are made clear by Sri Lanka’s ratification of enforceable international legal instruments, which includes the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Needless to say, these measures also do not meet broader standards of international best practice as reflected for example in the report of Frank La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur for the Freedom of Expression and Opinion submitted to the UNHRC on 16th May 2011.
Concerns about defamation and the right to privacy notwithstanding, the government has failed to provide a legitimate rationale for the registration process consistent with the values of a democratic society or international standards on permissible legal restrictions on the freedom of expression. While under the law of Sri Lanka there is ample scope for legal redress in case of defamation or an invasion of privacy, the measures the Ministry has taken so far are also inappropriate and disproportionate to its stated aim of ensuring online media ethics. Furthermore, the practicability of such arbitrary blocks is questionable. Any attempt to impose widespread blocks on websites would lead to an increased interest in them and the use of easily and widely available circumvention tools (and proxies) to access these sites.
The blocking of websites is unconstitutional, illiberal and technically infeasible. The consequence of such arbitrary and extra-legal action is that restrictions are based on the subjective judgement of government authorities in the protection of narrow partisan interests, the complete infringement of international freedom of expression standards, and the quashing of dissent. We are also concerned about the submissive acquiescence of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with arbitrary orders issued by the government for the blocking of websites, and remind them that such conformity makes them complicit in the violation of fundamental rights.
We reiterate that the fundamental right to freedom of expression, information and opinion includes wide access to diverse sources of information on the Internet and call upon the government to rescind the requirement of registration contained in its press release.
Signatories:
1. Anoma Rajakaruna
2. Association of War Affected Women
3. Cedric de Silva
4. Centre for Policy Alternatives
5. Chandra Jayaratne
6. Chandragupta Thenuwara
7. Chulani Kodikara
8. Deanne Uyangoda
9. Dr. Devanesan Nesiah
10. Dilrukshi Handunnetti
11. Emil van der Poorten
12. EQUAL GROUND
13. Families of the Disappeared
14. Floating Space Theatre Company
15. Free Media Movement
16. Gowthaman Balachandran
17. Herman Kumara, National Fisheries Solidarity Movement
18. INFORM
19. IMADR Asia Committee
20. J.C. Weliamuna, Attorney-at-Law
21. Jayathilaka Kammallaweera
22. Jovita Arulanantham
23. Juanita Arulanantham
24. K.S. Ratnavale
25. Prof. Kalinga Tudor Silva
26. Kaushalya Attygalle
27. Kanishka Ratnapriya
28. Lakshman Gunasekara, President, South Asia Free Media Association – Sri Lanka Chapter
29. Lanka Nesiah
30. Lal Wijenayake, Attorney-at-Law
31. Lawyers for Democracy
32. Luwie Ganeshathasan
33. Mahendran Thiruvarangan
34. Dr. Mario Gomez
35. Marisa De Silva
36. Mothers and Daughters of Lanka
37. Muslim Women’s Research and Action Forum
38. National Peace Council of Sri Lanka
39. Nirmanusan Balasundaram
40. Peter Rezel, Management and Development Consultant
41. Priya Thangarajah
42. Priyadarshanie Ariyaratne, Social Democratic Solidarity
43. R.M.B Senanayake
44. Right to Life – Human Rights Centre
45. Rights Now Collective for Democracy
46. Ruki Fernando
47. Dr. Selvy Thiruchandran
48. Sharmini Boyle
49. Shanthi Sachithanandam
50. Sharni Jayawardena, Writer and Photographer
51. Shifan Ahmed
52. Subha Wijesiriwardena
53. Sumathy Sivamohan
54. Shyamala Gomez
55. VILUTHU
56. Women’s Centre – Ja Ela
57. Women and Media Collective
58. Women’s Political Academy
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 2 November, 2011 The Centre for Policy Alternatives Vs Attorney General (Town and Country Planning Amendment Bill) (SC SD 03/2011)
In November 2011, CPA challenged the Town and Country Planning Amendment Bill which if enacted would have expanded the scope of the Town and Country Planning Act; expanded the powers of Ministers to regulate private property by defining areas to be “sacred areas”, “conservation areas”, “architectural areas” or “protection areas”; enable acquisition properties falling within such areas and finally, deem all existing urban development areas to be sacred areas. CPA challenged Parliament’s authority to enact a Bill in respect of the subject of land without first obtaining the views of the Provincial Councils. A three judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the objections of the Petitioner and declared that the Bill cannot become law until the views of the Provincial Councils were obtained and the court further held that the Bill could not have been placed on the Order Paper of Parliament before the President had first obtained the views of the Provincial Councils. The Court declined to examine the other grounds for challenge. The Bill was subsequently withdrawn from Order Paper.
CPA has raised awareness regarding the merits of the issue with key stakeholders including disseminating information among Provincial Councils.
CPA prepared an advocacy note on the draft Town and Country Planning [Amendment] Bill – The note highlighted the potentially harmful aspects of the Bill, and was shared publicly including with members of the different Provincial Councils who were to vote on the issue.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 2 October, 2011 M.A Sumanthiran Vs. R.P.R Rajapaksha and others (Land Circular Petition)
(SC FR 494/2011 and Writ 620/2011)
In October 2011 the Court of Appeal heard the petition filed by Member of Parliament of the Tamil National Alliance Mr. M.A. Sumanthiran, Attorney-at-Law, seeking an interim order restraining the Land Commissioner General and other respondents from implementing the Land Circular No. 2011/04. This Circular deals with land in the Northern and Eastern provinces in Sri Lanka. The Court of Appeal issued a stay order on the operation of the Public Notice requiring people from the North and East to register lands by 20th November 2011. The Attorney General’s Department informed court that the State is reconsidering the Land Circular and that a committee maybe appointed for this purpose. The Circular was withdrawn by the government in January 2012 as a result of the case. This matter is to be taken up in the Court of Appeal in July 2012.
A Fundamental Rights petition was filed on the same matter in the Supreme Court and is to be taken up in 31st July 2012. Proceedings are continuing. The writ application (620/2011) challenging the Land Circular issued in 2011 was withdrawn on 12th July 2012 with the proviso that a fresh application on the same matter could be filed in the future. The present case is terminated on these grounds.
CPA organized a workshop in Jaffna in October 2011 on land issues in the North and East including implications with the said land circular and was organized in coordination with the University of Jaffna and the Bar Association in Jaffna. CPA also conducted other forms of advocacy on the issues.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 29 September, 2011 Audited accounts: December 2010
Audited accounts from December 2010.
Centre for Policy Alternatives on 23 September, 2011 CPA Statement on the new Regulations under the Prevention of Terrorism Act
23 September 2011, Colombo, Sri Lanka: The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) condemns the government’s decision to perpetuate a number of the most widely used Emergency Regulations, such as those relating to detainees, purported ‘surrendees’ and local authorities, in the form of regulations under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). We believe that the reintroduction of regulations of this nature, just over a week after the President declared that the need for the state of emergency no longer exists, is dishonest and wholly incongruent with the President’s promises to Parliament. Further, it will lead to disillusionment among the public who were led to believe that the end of emergency meant the country would now function “democratically under the ordinary law.”
The replacement of Emergency Regulations by the expedient method of PTA regulations confirms the concerns expressed by civil society over a long period that unless and until the PTA is repealed, the termination of the state of emergency offers no genuine promise of improvement in the protection of human rights, especially for minorities and those in the North and East of the country. The fact that the PTA regulations took effect at midnight on 29th August – twenty four hours before the state of emergency lapsed – is a worrying but telling indicator of the fact that the government never intended to relax emergency laws when it announced the termination of the state of emergency.
CPA notes that Section 27 of the PTA, which enables the making of regulations by the Minister of Defence, should not permit the kind of expansive executive rule-making power, which the new PTA regulations have required. Since the PTA is not even remotely concerned with many of the matters dealt with in the new regulations, such as those concerning local authorities, and the manner in which the application of previous Emergency Regulations are sought to be extended without regard to what is permitted under the PTA, these regulations appear to be illegal.
CPA therefore calls on the government to rescind forthwith the PTA regulations promulgated on 29th August, release detainees and surrendees held under lapsed Emergency Regulations, desist from interfering with the administration of local authorities, and take steps to repeal the PTA. CPA also calls on the government to remove forthwith all restrictions relating to areas that were previously demarcated as High Security Zones under lapsed Emergency Regulations, given that there is no continuing legal basis for such restrictions.
Download PDF of press release in English here. Download it in Sinhala here.