FREEDOM OF SPEECH / FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION


FREEDOM OF SPEECH / FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used [United Nations, 1966, 1976]. The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression". Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law [United Nations, 1966, 1967]. Freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights [Andrew Puddephatt & Hodder Arnold, 2005; Kumar, Ambika, 2006].

In Islamic ethics freedom of speech was first declared in the Rashidun period by the caliph Umar in the 7th century. In the Abbasid Caliphate period, freedom of speech was also declared by al-Hashimi (a cousin of Caliph al-Ma'mun) in a letter to one of the religious opponents he was attempting to convert through reason.

According to George Makdisi and Hugh Goddard, "the idea of academic freedom" in universities was "modelled on Islamic custom" as practiced in the medieval Madrasah system from the 9th century. Islamic influence was "certainly discernible in the foundation of the first deliberately-planned university" in Europe [Boisard, Marcel A., 1980].

* Selected REFERENCES / Sources:

Amnesty International: Annual Reports: URLhttp://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/index.html Andrew Puddephatt & Hodder Arnold. (2005). Freedom of Expression: The Essentials of Human Rights. United Publishers. Boisard, Marcel A. (July 1980), "On the Probable Influence of Islam on Western Public and International Law", International Journal of Middle East Studies 11 (4): 429–50. Goddard, Hugh. (2000). A History of Christian-Muslim Relations. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kumar, Ambika. (2006). ‘Using Courts to Enforce the Free Speech Provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.’ Published by Chicago Journal of International Law. Summer 2006. URLhttp://www.allbusiness.com/corporate-governance/4082846-1.html United Nations: ‘International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.’ Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16th December 1966: Entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49. URLhttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm (United Nations) Wikipedia. (2010). ‘Freedom of Speech.’ Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. URLhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression

.

23 September 2015

COURT REVERSES THREE-MONTH BAN ON THE EDGE !



Source:  https://sg.news.yahoo.com/court-reverses-three-month-ban-edge-041500894.html

Court reverses three-month ban on The Edge
UALA LUMPUR, Sept 21 — The Edge Communications Sdn Bhd today successfully contested Putrajaya’s three-month suspension of its two publications, after the High Court here quashed the Home Ministry order issued over reports on 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
High Court Judge Datuk Asmabi Mohamad ruled that the Home Ministry acted irrationally and illegally by issuing the suspension order, also ruling that the latter had breached procedural fairness when issuing a show-cause letter.
Asmabi ruled that the ministry's suspension order be quashed and said damages will be awarded to The Edge after assessment.
"The conclusion, on totality of evidence before the court and relevant law and as discussed earlier, I am satisfied that the decision of the respondent in this case had suffered or is tainted with illegality," she said when delivering her decision at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
Asmabi said the Home Ministry's suspension was made ultra vires or beyond the powers granted under Section 7(1) of the Printing Presses Publications Act (PPPA).
Asmabi had listed down the facts of the case, highlighting that the Home Ministry had issued a show-cause letter on June 29 to the publisher and made a "blanket allegation" without specifying the articles that were alleged to be undesirable publications.
She pointed out that The Edge was put in a "difficult position" as it had published 300 articles since 2009 on 1MDB and could not give a specific response to the general claim in the show-cause letter, noting that the ministry failed to respond to the publisher's request to specify the articles.
"Bearing in mind that what is being affected here is quite a large thing such as revenue, livelihood of personnel under the applicant, the respondents should have been more careful in preparing a show-cause letter in a better manner to notify the applicant which are the relevant articles said to be undesirable or had infringed provisions or guidelines," the judge said, later saying that natural justice was breached as The Edge was not given an opportunity to be heard in relation to Section 7(1).
Asmabi pointed out that the relevant guidelines and Section 7(1) was not mentioned in the show-cause letter, but that the ministry had used this provision to issue the suspension order against The Edge by claiming the latter had violated Section 7(1) and had published undesirable publications.
She said that Section 7(1) only grants powers to the Home Minister to gazette orders against publications, and is not an offence provision that allows action to be taken against The Edge when no gazette was made in this case.
Among other things, Asmabi said that Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi was himself "in doubt" on whether The Edge had published its articles by relying on allegedly unverified information on online news portals, especially Sarawak Report.
Asmabi noted the July 23 notice to the suspension order was issued just a day after the Home Ministry gave a three-hour notice for a meeting lasting 30 minutes with The Edge's representative, where the ministry's officials asked the publisher for the source of its articles.
Before delivering her decision, Asmabi had said: "The decision is also made solely based on facts presented before me unaffected by any surrounding circumstances around 1MDB."
Asmabi ordered costs of RM15,000 to be paid to The Edge Communications, who was represented by its lead counsel Darryl Goon today.
Alice Loke, the lead counsel acting for the Home Minister and the Home Ministry's secretary-general, told Malay Mail Online that she will have to seek instructions on whether an appeal will be filed.
The Home Ministry had in July suspended the printing permits of The Edge Financial Daily and The Edge Weekly for three months over their reports on 1MDB.
The three-month printing suspension was set to end on October 27.
The suspension order came three weeks after Home Minister Ahmad Zahid announced on July 1 that a show-cause letter had been issued to The Edge for publishing what the government deemed to be unverified news on debt-laden 1MDB.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS:

1- How can the Home Minister simply used Section 7 of the Printing Presses Publications Act ? OR uses it "Ultra Vires" that is beyond the power granted ?  

2- Which part of the article is "undesirable", the minister/ministry need to be more specific ?

3- The Edge was not given the opportunity to be heard in relations to Section 7(1) ?  Which is clearly against Natural Justice. 

4- Home Ministry needs to be fair in its zeal to "content" the mass media and general public. Scare tactics is the thing of the past. New civilized approaches need to be implemented.

5- The judge is very fair in this case!  Judges should not be scare by bad politicians! This is the modern civilized world. We practice democracy and no one is above the law!  



Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)