Latest news with #Article10
Sinar Daily
2 days ago
- Politics
- Sinar Daily
Court of Appeal sets Aug 19 for decision in activist's appeal over challenge to online speech law
A three-man bench consisting of Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah set the decision date after parties completed their submissions earlier today. 11 Jun 2025 05:44pm The Court of Appeal has fixed August 19 to deliver its decision in an appeal brought by an activist over the dismissal of her lawsuit that had challenged the validity of parts of a provision in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalises offensive online comments. PUTRAJAYA - The Court of Appeal has fixed August 19 to deliver its decision in an appeal brought by an activist over the dismissal of her lawsuit that had challenged the validity of parts of a provision in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalises offensive online comments. A three-man bench consisting of Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng and Court of Appeal judges Datuk Hashim Hamzah and Datuk Azman Abdullah set the decision date after parties completed their submissions earlier today. Heidy Quah Gaik Li, the founder of Refuge for Refugees is claiming the use of the words "offensive' and annoy' in Section 233 of the Act are invalid as it goes against two fundamental human rights protected by the Federal Constitution. Section 233(1)(a) states that it is an offence for a person to make, create or solicit, and initiate the transmission of any online comment which is "obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive' with "intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. In Sept 2023, the Shah Alam High Court dismissed Quah's lawsuit, leading her to file an appeal in the Court of Appeal. The hearing today was a continuation of proceedings that had begun earlier. Justice Lee was serving as a Court of Appeal judge before being elevated to the Federal Court in May this year. During today's hearing, senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin representing the Malaysian government submitted that speech involving expletives, profanity, crude references, hate speech or incitement to violence are not expressions protected under Article 10 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution. He argued that the right to free speech should be used to disseminate truth, respect for human dignity and perform essential informing function. On the other hand, lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, representing Quah argued the words "offensive' or annoy contained in Section 233 is inconsistent with Article 10 and Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, namely the right to equality and freedom of speech. He argued that the two words in Section 233 are not a "permissible restriction' under public order as prescribed in the Federal Constitution. In July 2021, Quah, 31, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for allegedly making "offensive' online comments in a Facebook post. In April the following year, the Sessions Court granted her a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) due to the charge under section 233(1)(a) being defective. - BERNAMA More Like This
The Independent
04-04-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Anti-abortion campaigner sentenced for breaching clinic ‘buffer zone'
An anti-abortion campaigner has said it is 'dark day for Great Britain' after she was convicted for breaching a 'buffer zone' outside a Bournemouth abortion clinic, while a charity said the case was 'never about global politics'. Livia Tossici-Bolt's case was highlighted by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, & Labour (DRL), a bureau within the US Department of State, which posted a statement on X saying: 'We are monitoring her case. It is important that the UK respect and protect freedom of expression.' She was found guilty at Poole Magistrates' Court of two charges of breaching the Public Spaces Protection Order on two days in March 2023 and handed a two-year conditional discharge. The case involved the 64-year-old from Bournemouth holding a sign saying 'Here to talk, if you want'. The council-enacted buffer zone, which came into effect in 2022 and covers 10 streets, is aimed at protecting patients and staff from harassment and distress while accessing the clinic. District Judge Orla Austin also ordered Tossici-Bolt to pay £20,000 towards court costs and a £26 victim surcharge. Speaking after the case, Tossici-Bolt, a retired medical scientist, said: 'This is a dark day for Great Britain. I was not protesting and did not harass or obstruct anyone. 'All I did was offer consensual conversation in a public place, as is my basic right, and yet the court found me guilty. 'Freedom of expression is in a state of crisis in the UK. What has happened to this country? The US State Department was right to be concerned by this case as it has serious implications for the entire Western world. 'I remain committed to fighting for free speech, not only for my own sake, but for all my fellow citizens. If we allow this precedent of censorship to stand, nobody's right to freely express themselves is secure. 'With ADF International's support, I will now consider all legal options.' Downing Street said it was vital that women using abortion services can do so 'without being subject to harassment or distress', and the right to protest does not 'give people the right to harass others'. Asked about the conviction, a Number 10 spokesman said: 'Obviously sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts so I wouldn't cut across that. 'It's vital that a woman who decides to use abortion services has the right to do so without being subject to harassment or distress.' The official said laws on buffer zones reinforce that 'the right to protest is a cornerstone of our democracy', but that it 'does not give people the right to harass others'. Asked whether there is a problem with free speech in the UK, the spokesman said Britain has 'a very proud tradition of free speech over many centuries, and we remain proud of it today'. District Judge Orla Austin said that Tossici-Bolt had 'deeply-held' beliefs but her rights of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) had to be balanced against the rights of the women attending the clinic and its staff. She said: 'I accept that the defendant engaged in the conduct underlying this case as part of a sincerely motivated desire to attend that location and display her signage outside the clinic, encouraging conversation in relation to matters of particular importance to her. 'This does not mean that her conviction for failing to leave the area when required would be disproportionate, nor give rise to a reasonable excuse on the facts of this case.' She added: 'The zone is reduced to a small area that it is necessary to protect the rights of those using and/or visiting the clinic.' The judge said: 'I conclude that she lacks insight into the fact that her presence could have a detrimental impact upon women attending the clinic, their associates, the staff, and members of the public.' BCP Council welcomed Tossici-Bolt's conviction, stating that the buffer zone enacted in 2022 was there so patients and staff 'could safely access' the clinic 'without fear of intimidation'. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) said the case was 'never about global politics' but instead women being able to 'access legal healthcare free from harassment'. Bpas's chief executive, Heidi Stewart, said: 'Bpas welcomes today's verdict which will protect women and the staff who provide abortion care. 'The clinic in Bournemouth has been subjected to decades of anti-abortion protests which resulted in more than 500 reports of harassment before this local safe access zone was brought into force. 'This case was never about global politics but about the simple ability of women to access legal healthcare free from harassment. 'It is up to the police and judicial system to determine whether individuals have broken the law. I, meanwhile, stand shoulder to shoulder with our staff who work so tirelessly to protect our patients from the impact of anti-abortion harassment outside the clinic gate.' Legal counsel for ADF International Lorcan Price said: 'Everyone who cares about free speech should care about 'buffer zones'. 'A Christian woman has been convicted merely for offering consensual conversation on a public street in Britain. 'This ruling should show all reasonable people that, beyond the shadow of a doubt, abortion facility 'buffer zones' are incompatible with a free society.' His colleague Jeremiah Igunnubole claimed there had been a 'redefinition of words' and that an 'objective and reasonable individual doesn't consider a peaceful, quiet offer of a conversation' to be harassment. In her findings, the judge said a report had been made that 'someone felt harassed alarmed and distressed by her (the defendant's) presence' and 'the fact that she was displaying visible signage directly outside the clinic'.
