Weaponising legislation

Continuing in its Orwellian tradition, the Sri Lankan State is about to push legislation which is diametrically opposed to their purported purpose. 

Be it the Prevention of Terrorism that didn’t prevent terrorism but was used to terrorise political opponents, activists and journalists or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) act that has not strengthened civil and political rights but used against ethnic and religious minorities who do not conform to the Sinhala Buddhist majoritarianism. The latest legislation that may join these ranks of draconian laws is the Online Safety bill which was gazetted by the Public Security Ministry.

The law will dramatically regulate the content of online communication, including by the general public. Several provisions of the bill would serve to undermine the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country, including freedom of information and expression. The Bill would establish an “Online Safety Commission” that would act to: “prohibit online communication of certain statements of fact; prevent the use of online accounts and inauthentic online accounts for prohibited purposes; make provisions to identify and declare online locations used for prohibited purposes in Sri Lanka and to suppress the financing and other support of communication of false statements,” as well as other unspecified matters.

The Bill, comes amidst numerous attempts by the current administration to use legislation to curtail fundamental freedoms of the people. Both the Bureau of Rehabilitation Act, and the proposed Anti-Terrorism law which seeks to replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act, limit the rights of the general public despite their benevolent proclamations. No other legislation is as contradictory as the ICCPR act of 2005.

The ICCPR is one of two covenants called the ‘International Bill of Rights’ that provides the foundation for international human rights law. By definition, the ICCPR is an instrument that enhances the rights of citizens and protects them against excessive restraints by the State. In an ironic twist, in Sri Lanka, the ICCPR act, a law meant to protect human rights and guarantee the peaceful expression of views, has been extensively used for the very opposite purpose, to curtail opinion and terrorise the citizenry. Particularly concerning is the use of the act against minorities, opposition figures and rights activists. The act provides for provisions to criminalise the advocacy of “national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.

The use of this provision has been greatly disproportionate against perceived affronts against Buddhism. There are numerous cases such as Shakthika Sathkumara who was arrested in April 2019 and held in custody for over a year in response to a complaint that his short story ‘Ardha’ (Half) was derogatory and defamatory to Buddhism, and a woman arrested and detained for months on the same charge when police assumed she was wearing a dress with a dharmachakra, a Buddhist symbol rather than a ship’s wheel which it turned out to be.

The proposed new online safety law is due to create a new Commission that would be vested with a wide range of powers, some of which encroach into the functions of the judiciary. It essentially acts as sole arbiter of matter of fact and is entitled to issue notices or directives against any person, internet service provider or internet intermediaries which is alleged to have communicated a prohibited or false statement. The bill does not specify the process through which the Commission would arrive at this decision.

This new law would be yet another blow to the limited democratic space existing for the people. Having witnessed how successive Governments have weaponised legislation such as the PTA and the ICCPR act, this new law needs to be defeated at its very infancy.