Latest news with #Section116
The Advertiser
15-07-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Envoy's recommendations have put the Prime Minister in a bit of a bind
An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last. An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last. An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last. An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last.
Scoop
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
UN Experts Urge Thailand To Drop Charges Against Pimsiri Petchnamrob And Other Pro-democracy Rights Defenders
GENEVA (11 July 2025) – UN experts* today expressed grave concern over ongoing judicial proceedings against Thai woman human rights defender Pimsiri Petchnamrob, calling on the Government to drop charges against her and other human rights defenders who participated in pro-democracy protests. ' Lèse-majesté laws, with their vague formulation and severe penalties, have no place in a democracy. Their widespread and punitive use to silence dissent, suppress public debate, and intimidate human rights defenders, political opponents, civil society activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens violates Thailand's international human rights obligations,' the experts said. 'We urge authorities to drop the charges against Petchnamrob and all others facing criminal prosecution on similar grounds immediately.' In November 2021, Pimsiri Petchnamrob wasindictedunder a total of ten charges, including under Section 112 (lèse-majesté), Section 116 (sedition), and Section 215 (participation in an illegal assembly) of the Criminal Code, for delivering a speech during a peaceful pro-democracy protest in November 2020. Petchnamrob is among at least five human rights defenders who were indicted for delivering speeches at the same protest. Her trial, which began in June 2025, is ongoing before the Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Road, with two additional hearings scheduled in August, followed by the delivery of a judgment. The experts cited findings from a recent country visit report by the Working Group on discrimination against women and girls. The report noted that at least 470 women human rights defenders have been arrested and prosecuted under Sections 112 and 116 since 2020. 'These punitive charges often result in financial hardship, deteriorating health and significant challenges around family care,' they said. 'We reiterate our call to the Government of Thailand to revise and repeal lèse-majesté laws, which have a broad chilling effect on the exercise of rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, leading to a climate of fear and self-censorship,' the experts said. 'Public figures, including the highest political authorities, are legitimately subject to criticism.' 'Thailand must stop criminalising individuals who carry out the critical work of defending civic space and human rights,' they said. The experts have been in contact with the Government of Thailand on these matters, including to express concerns about prosecutions under Section 112 of the Criminal Code. Note: *The experts: Laura Nyirinkindi (Chair), Claudia Flores (Vice-Chair), Dorothy Estrada Tanck, Ivana Krstić, and Haina Lu, Working Group on discrimination against women and girls; Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Gina Romero, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association; Mary Lawlor, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders Special Rapporteurs/Independent Experts/Working Groups are independent human rights experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Together, these experts are referred to as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. While the UN Human Rights office acts as the secretariat for Special Procedures, the experts serve in their individual capacity and are independent fromany government or organization, including OHCHR and the UN. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UN or OHCHR.
Bangkok Post
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Bangkok Post
Rights lawyer's jail time reaches 29 years
Human rights lawyer Arnon Nampa has been sentenced to another 2 years and 4 months in prison for royal defamation and sedition in connection with a speech he gave at a protest in Bangkok in November 2020. The sentence passed on Tuesday by the Criminal Court in Bangkok brings to 29 years and 1 month the total time Arnon has to serve, according to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR). It was his 10th conviction. All of the convictions are still being appealed but countless applications for bail for the 40-year-old Roi Et native have been denied, the lawyers' group said. The speech that Arnon gave did not mention any royal names but it was clear who was being referred to, and those references were defamatory under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, the lese-majeste law, TLHR quoted the court as saying. Arnon and an unnamed co-defendant were also found guilty of incitement under Section 116, the sedition law, as they called for protesters to continue the gathering at Royal Thai Police headquarters. The court sentenced both defendants to 6 months in prison for sedition, and Arnon was sentenced to an additional 3 years for lese-majeste. As the defendants gave beneficial testimony, the sedition sentences were reduced to 4 months, and Arnon's lese-majeste sentence was reduced to 2 years, his lawyers said. Arnon is still facing four more cases involving lese-majeste and other charges in connection with his activities as part of the reform movement that was active in 2020 and 2021. Arnon has been held in detention since Sept 26, 2023 pending appeals against all his convictions. According to data from TLHR to May 31 this year, 1,975 people have been prosecuted for political participation and expression since the beginning of the Free Youth protests in July 2020. At least 281 are facing lese-majeste charges under Section 112 and 156 have been charged with sedition under Section 116.
