cuimun xx

Transcription

cuimun xx

OFFICIAL STUDY GUIDE FOR THE SOCIAL,
CULTURAL, AND HUMANITARIAN
COMMITTEE OF CUIMUN XX
CUIMUN XX
CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS, XXth EDITION
The United Nations General Assembly
Third Committee:
Social, Humanitarian & Cultural
Cambridge International
Model United Nations XX
The United Nations General Assembly Third Committee:
Social, Cultural and Humanitarian
The Social, Cultural and Humanitarian committee (SOCHUM) of the United Nations General Assembly was founded along with the United Nations in 1945, and
is tasked with covering a wide range of social, humanitarian, and human rights
issues.
Currently in its 67th session, the third committee was instrumental in creating
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and as such is a well respected and
influential committee, despite its resolutions being crucially non binding.
More information on the committee, including past resolutions and session
notes, can be found at the following web address: http://www.un.org/en/ga/
third/index.shtml
Contents
3. Introductions from Secretary General and
SOCHUM Chairs
4. Introduction from the Chairs
5. Topic Area: The Human Rights
Implications of Sharia Law in Brunei
6. Statement of the Problem
7. History and Discussion of the Problem
10. Proposed Solutions
11. Key Actors and Positions
12. Questions a Resolution must Answer
12. Suggestions for Further Research
13. Closing Remarks
14. Endnotes
15. List of References
17. Topic Area: Internet Freedom: Online Privacy and Hate Speech
18. Statement of the Problem
19. History and Discussion of the Problem
22. Proposed Solutions
23. Key Actors and Positions
24. Questions a Resolution must Answer
25. Suggestions for Further Research
26. Closing Remarks
26. List of References
Introduction
The Secretary General,
Paul Zenny Tao
Picture of Paul
Hello there!
First of all, congratulations! You have been selected to participate at the Twentieth Session of the
Cambridge University International Model United
Nations (otherwise known as CUIMUN XX) on
the prestigious Social, Humanitarian and Cultural
Committee (SOCHUM), and you’ve made your way
to this Study Guide! This is, of course, essential
reading for the competent Delegate, and I strongly
encourage you to examine this document incredibly closely and analyse all the information it
contains. Whilst Study Guides are a staple of MUN
Conferences, I can assure you that this particular
one you are reading is among the finest offerings
on the international circuit; as a result, I cannot
commend the Directors Chris, Lucy and Nelly
enough for their Herculean efforts in composing
this outstanding reference for you, their lucky
Delegate.
Head Chair of SOCHUM,
Christopher Everett
In the meantime, my Secretariat and I look forward to welcoming you all at the Conference in
Cambridge with a hug, some jazz hands, or (most
probably) a healthy round of “M.U.N is F.U.N”
chants!
Happy MUNing!
SOCHUM has neither the economic clout of DISEC, the hardpower of the Security Council, or the
macchiavelian intrigue of the European Council.
It can’t offer practical operational outcomes like
NATO or inspiration like UNESCO, and lacks the
outspoken politics of the UNHCR and the ICJ.
Yet despite all of this, it is perhaps the most important committee of the United Nations, for it
debates and protects the lifeline of the UN, democracy, and indeed the rule of law: our humanity.
3
The topics my expert colleagues have covered
represent that central theme, ranging from the
physical consequence of belief, to the challenges
to widely accepted rights and freedoms through
the internet.
I hope that you enjoy these debates, that you
learn something from them, and that you enter
CUIMUN with a truly open mind. Most of all, however, I hope you remember the importance of humanity – the spirit of kindness and fraternity – in
these debates, and that you make it your guiding
mission to serve that humanity.
CUIMUN XX: Social, Cultural & Humanitarian Committee
Chair of SOCHUM, Nelly
Ovcharrova
Honorable Delegates,
It is my distinct pleasure to welcome you to the Social, Cultural and Humanitarian Affairs Committee
at Cambridge University International Model United Nations 2014. My name is Nelly Ovcharova and it
is my great honor to serve as one of your committee
chairs. I was born and raised in Bulgaria, and I am
currently a senior at the American University in Bulgaria, majoring in Business Administration and International Relations and Political Science, and minoring
in Philosophy and Anthropology. In addition to this,
I am involved in many different student clubs and organizations and I also write for the official university
magazine. In my free time, I like to travel, read and
learn new languages.
I was first introduced to the MUN world in 2011 by fellow students, and I have been active ever since. I have
Co-Chair of SOCHUM,
Ha Ngoc Quyen
been a member of the organizing team of an MUN
conference at my home
university for three consecutive years, as well as a
delegate and a committee
chair at several other international conferences. I am
excited and honored by the
opportunity to chair at the
Cambridge University International Model United
Nations 2014, as I believe
that it is the ultimate MUN
experience and a must-attend for all MUN enthusiasts.
I look forward to meeting you all at CUIMUN XX in
the beautiful city of Cambridge, and I believe that together we will bring forth a new era of fruitful discussion. Should you have any questions or concerns, do
not hesitate to contact us.
also a freelance journalist at
BBC Vietnamese World Service hub.
Last year’s CUIMUN XIX
Conference was my first
Welcome to the 20th session of Cambridge Univer- ever MUN Conference. I was
sity International Model United Nations! My name in the Crisis Cabinet where
is Lucy Ha, and it is my greatest honor to serve as the topic was the French
one of your committee chairs of the Social, Cultur- Revolution. It was by far
al and Humanitarian Affairs Committee this year. one of the most memoraI hope you are all as excited as I am for CUIMUN ble and unique experiences
2014 and the amazing experience that awaits us in of my university life. I feel,
therefore, very privileged
Cambridge!
by the opportunity to chair
I come from an international background: born at the CUIMUN XX 2014,
in Vietnam, raised in the Czech Republic where I as I believe this is the ultiattended an international high school, and now mate MUN experience and a
studying in London, UK. I am currently a 2nd year must-attend conference for
undergraduate student at the University College all MUN gurus.
London reading in History and minoring in Political Science. Coming from such a background has I look forward to meeting each and every one of
taught me to appreciate different cultures and tra- you in Cambridge. Please contact any of the chairs
ditions, which is shown by my eagerness to learn if you have any concerns or queries. I hope that
new languages. I can speak English, Vietnamese, your delegate experience is challenging, stimulatCzech, French and currently learning Russian. I am ing, enlightening and, above all, rewarding.
Dear delegates,
4
Topic: The Human Rights Implications of Sharia Law in Brunei
“
Theory
states
that
God’s law is harsh
and unfair, but God
himself has said that his
law is indeed fair
- Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei Darussalam
5
”
Topic Area:
The Human Rights
Implications of Sharia
Law in Brunei
“We urge the government to delay the entry into
force of the revised penal code and to conduct a
comprehensive review ensuring its compliance
with international human rights standards.”
- Rupert Colville, spokesman for the Office of the UN
High Commissioner for Human Rights
Statement of the Problem
Sharia law influences the legal code in the majority of Muslim
countries. It has existed alongside other normative systems
since the eighth century (Johnson and Vriens). Most countries decide to adopt only a few aspects of it; adopting the
entire code is rare. The term “Sharia” or “Syariah” translated
from archaic Arabic means “pathway to be followed,” and its
etymology comes from verse 45:18 in the Quran. Sharia law
tackles issues commonly addressed by secular law such as
crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters,
such as sexual intercourse, diet, praying, and fasting. The
content of Sharia is primary derived from the Quran and the
Sunnah – the two major primary sources on Islam (Johnson
and Vriens).
According to Steven A. Cook, a Council on Foreign Affairs
Middle East specialist, “there are so many varying interpretations of what sharia actually means that in some places, it
can be incorporated into political systems relatively easily”
(Johnson and Vriens, par. 1). Sharia law raises many controversies when addressing issues concerning personal status
law and criminal law, because it is often used as a justification
for cruel punishments (amputation, stoning), as well as unequal treatment of women (dress, independence). The biggest
question raised by the international community, however, is
whether “Sharia can coexist with secularism, democracy and
modernity.” The answer is to be found in Brunei and its decision to adopt the Sharia Penal Code Order.
6
Brunei, being the world’s fifth richest nation (as well
as one of two nations with a public debt at 0% of the
national debt) is an oil-rich pene-enclave located in
Southeast Asia (Too, and Country Profile Brunei 3). As
a constitutional sultanate, Sultan and Prime Minister
Sir Hassanal Bolkiah (His Majesty Paduka Seri Baginda Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah Mu’izzaddin Waddaulah) is head of state with full executive authority.
In April 2014, the Syariah Penal Code Order 2013 took
effect (Black par. 1). Considering the fact that Brunei
has one of Asia’s highest Internet penetrations and
social media use, the decision faced stark public criticism in the online space – the only “outlet for public
criticism of authorities” (‘Brunei sultan hits back at
rare criticism over sharia’ par 3).
“It is truly frightening to think that we might potentially be stoned to death for being lovers, that we may
be fined for being of a different sexual orientation, and
that what we wear will be regulated,” one recent posting said (Brown par. 10).
The Sharia Penal Code carries with it four major international human rights violations that are to be considered and discussed. They are, as follows, discrimination against women, violations of the rights of
freedom of religion, freedom of opinion and freedom of expression, implementation of torture or
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment as penalties for crimes committed, and
criminalization of adultery, extramarital sexual
relations, and sodomy, in violation of international
human rights laws.
UN Secretary General on the question of the “Death
Penalty,” stoning exists as a death penalty in 11 countries (Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria (in one-third of
the country’s states), Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen). In
addition, stoning is also practiced in Malaysia (despite
being banned under national legislation), as well as Afghanistan, Iraq and Mali (Stoning: Legal or Practised in
16 Countries and Showing No Signs of Abating 2).
Although the penalty of death by stoning is applicable
to both males and females, studies have shown that
women face the penalty more often than men, and are
less likely to escape the execution (if a criminal is able
to escape from the pit they are buried in to be stoned
during the stoning, they are usually allowed to go
The above mentioned four major international human free. However, because women are buried up to their
rights violations, and the details regarding each one, breasts while men are only buried up to their waists,
have been laid out in a formal letter addressed to Sir men have an easier job escaping the punishment)
Hassanal Bolkiah himself from Sam Zarifi of the In- (‘Frequently Asked Questions about Stoning’ par. 10).
ternational Commission of Jurists (ICJ – not to be con- This makes the Penal Code contrary to the stance Brufused with the International Court of Justice) (4).
nei had upon being made party to the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Discrimination against Women
Women (CEDAW) in 1979.
According to the submission of Women Living Under
Muslim Laws International Solidarity Network to the
History and Discussion
of the Problem
7
In order to understand the
degree of significance of the
problem, it should be discussed as both a gendered human rights violation, as well
as a result of the social-political climate in the countries.
On the one hand, the gendered human rights violation
can be illustrated by the case
of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow.
The thirteen-year-old girl was
stoned to death in Somalia in
2008 in front of 1,000 people,
after being gang-raped for the
crime of adultery. While none
of the men accused of the rape
were arrested, the act of stoning showed the attempt of
authorities “to police female
sexuality from as young an
age as possible, applying concepts of honour to their bodies before they even approach
adulthood” (Stoning: Legal or
Practised in 16 Countries 4,
and ‘Somalia: Girl stoned was
a child of 13’). Furthermore,
according to the Iran legislative system, adultery punishable by stoning is practiced if
the crime is proven by eyewitnesses – either four just men,
or three just men and two
just women (Stoning: Legal
or Practised in 16 Countries
4). This violates the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
(1948), which guarantees
“the right to life, liberty, and
security of person without
distinction of any kind, including sex” (Articles 2 and 3
of the UDHR, see also ‘Stoning
and Human Rights’).
On the other hand, when
discussing the problem
of discrimination against
8
women, the social-political climate in the countries
should be taken into consideration, and several observations should be made. Firstly, it is a symptom of the
existence of a parallel legal system, which allows the
state to repress its citizens. This results in “a climate
of fear” and “arbitrary justice.” Secondly, laws related
to “morality” pose an everyday threat and psychological burden to women (Stoning: Legal or Practised in
16 Countries 5). This violates Article 14, paragraph 1
of the ICCPR: “All persons shall be equal before courts
and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal
charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a
suit of law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial
tribunal established by law.” Paragraph 2 of the same
Article states that “Everyone charged with a criminal
offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent
until proved guilty according to law.”
Torture and Death Penalty
According to the report on Death Sentences and Executions 2013 by Amnesty International, there are 22
countries that performed the death penalty in 2013.
The overall number of recorded executions worldwide
is 778 during 2013, which is an almost 15% increase
compared to 2012 (‘Summary’ 3). Although Brunei
has not implemented the death penalty since 1957,
the punishments for both Muslims and non-Muslims
according to the Penal Code for the crimes of robbery,
rape, adultery, and sodomy are death. Furthermore,
Muslims will also face the death penalty should they
partake in extramarital sexual relations. In addition,
the Penal Code defines the end of childhood by the age
of puberty, which allows the death penalty to be imposed on defendants below the age of 18 (Death Sentences and Executions 2013 ‘Regional Overview’ 19).
9
“Brunei Darussalam’s new Penal Code legalizes cruel
and inhuman punishments. It makes a mockery of the
country’s international human rights commitments
and must be revoked immediately. The new code even
permits stoning to death for acts which should not be
considered ‘crimes’ in the first place, such as extramarital sexual relations and consensual sex between
adults of the same gender” – said Rupert Abbott, Deputy Asia-Pacific Director at Amnesty International
(‘Brunei Darussalam: Revoke new Penal Code allowing
stoning, whipping and amputation’ par. 3,5). This step
away from the global abolition of the death penalty is
in contrast to Resolution 67/176 adopted on 20 December 2012 urging all states to impose a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (A/RES/67/176).
Rupert Colville, the spokesperson for the Office of the
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said about
the new Penal Code: “Application of the death penalty
for such a broad range of offences contravenes international law” (‘UN concerned at broad application of
death penalty in Brunei’s revised penal code’ par. 3).
Furthermore, the absolute prohibition on torture and
other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment is firmly entrenched in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 7 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
and Article 16 of the Convention against Torture and
other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment. In 1997, the Special Representative of
the Commission on Human Rights on the situation in
the Islamic Republic of Iran denounced the practice of
stoning, a penalty provided in Iran’s Islamic Criminal
Code.
Violations of Freedoms
Another questionable rule put forth by the Penal Code
is the penalizing of both Muslims and non-Muslims
for printing, broadcasting, or distributing any publications “contrary to Hukum Syara” (Articles 213, 214,
and 215). This is in direct contrast with the estoppel
established by the Government in response to the Report of The Working Group on the Universal Periodic
Review stating, “the importation of religious materials
or scriptures regardless of any faiths is not banned in
the country” (A/HRC/13/14/Add. 1). In addition, the
Constitution of Brunei Darussalam does not contain
any section or provision for a Bill of rights for citizens.
Freedom of expression and the press is mainly gov-
erned by the Sedition Act (‘Freedom of Expression in not in compliance with their own understanding and
the Constitutions of Southeast Asian Countries’ 1).
expectations of the matter.
The Sedition Act was amended in 2005, worsening
the state of press freedom in Brunei. It contains an expanded list of punishable offenses including “criticism
of the sultan, the royal family, and the national Malay
Islamic Monarchy ideology, which promotes Islam as
the state religion and the idea that monarchical rule
is the only acceptable form of governance” (‘Brunei’ in
Freedom House’s ‘Freedom of the Press 2013’ par. 1).
Any violator of the law faces a fine of up to US$4,000.
Moreover, the government has the authority to arbitrarily shut down media outlets or bar distribution
of foreign publications, with no possibility of appeal,
if the content does not comply with the state requirements. According to the Internet Code of Practice published in 2001, individuals, content, and service providers are liable for publishing anything “against the
public interest or national harmony or which offends
against good taste or decency” (Broadcasting Act ‘Internet Code of Practice’ 1.a). It also obliges all sites that
discuss or contain religious and political content to
register with the Broadcasting Authority. Failing to do
so is punishable by up to three years of imprisonment
and a fine of up to US$200,000.
First, the solution proposed by the Sultan of Brunei, after adopting Sharia law, to also start implementing it as a supreme legislative system. This solution is
highly likely to be supported by other radical Islamic
countries that also have Sharia law implemented in
their legislative systems, such as Iran or Somalia.
Second, the solution proposed by international
organizations dealing with human rights violations and gender inequalities, such as Amnesty
International, the UN Human Rights Council, and
Human Rights Watch. According to them, the adoption of Sharia law should be reversed, as it is not in
accordance with international democratic standards.
This solution is likely to involve a call for reports on
human rights and gender equality to be conducted in
Brunei, as well as huge publicity, protests, and petitions.
The third proposed solution is to remain neutral
to Brunei’s internal affairs, as currently no severe
human rights violations (such as stoning) have taken
place. This solution is likely to be supported by counDespite the fact that the country has one of the largest tries that are actively trading with Brunei and have
internet penetration rates in Asia, the primary internet no interest in harming diplomatic relations; countries
provider is state owned, which gives the government whose democratic practices are questionable, or councontrol over the content. In 2006, the government en- tries who have taken the neutrality standpoint.
forced a law for all internet cafes to install firewalls,
so that users will be prevented from viewing immoral The final option is to force Brunei to abolish Shacontent. In addition, the government monitors private ria Law, either by diplomatic isolation, economic
emails and internet chat rooms activities of citizens sanctions, or other means. This decision is likely to be
suspected of subversive behavior. It is considered that proposed by countries that have a very high level of
the fear of government retribution has reduced the human rights equality, human rights protection, and
number of chat room visitors (‘Brunei’ in Freedom living standards.
House’s ‘Freedom of the Press 2013’ par. 5).
When choosing a solution, the countries representatives are expected to form coalitions that best fit their
international standpoint, and must try to achieve their
There are four major solutions that could be consid- countries’ goals by means of lobbying and negotiating.
ered when discussing the problem. All of them are in However, it is crucial to keep in mind the council’s juaccordance with the different positions of several state risdiction, and to focus on a solution that is in accordactors, but are not necessarily in accordance with uni- ance with the council’s framework (the council cannot
versal human rights and democratic practices. When force its decisions: it can only recommend certain acrepresenting a country, delegates will need to take tions, and work closely with other UN bodies such as
into consideration their country’s position, even if it is the Human Rights Council).
Proposed Solutions
10
Key Actors and
Positions
I. The Sultan and Prime Minister Sir Hassanal Bolikah
– initiator of Sharia Law – According to him, “theory
states that God’s law is harsh and unfair, but God himself has said that his law is indeed fair” (‘Brunei adopts
‘phase one’ of Islamic law’ par. 5).
II. The Unites States’ position is rather ambiguous, as
on the one hand they are bound to provide the sultanate with economic privileges by the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) (Signorile par. 3), while on the
other hand, American society is vigorously protesting
against the human rights violations and undemocratic behavior of the Sultan of Brunei (‘Clive Davis, Oscar
party dump hotel over Sultan owner’s Shariah law in
Brunei’).
III. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the
UN and other NGOs – condemning Sharia Law, aiming
at putting an end to human rights violations:
Deputy Director for the Asia Division of Human Rights
Watch, said: “Brunei’s decision to implement criminal
Sharia law is a huge step backwards for human rights
in the country. It constitutes an authoritarian move towards brutal medieval punishments that have no place
in the modern, 21st century world. The entire world
should express its outrage and heap criticism on this
ill-considered move and urge the Brunei government
to immediately reconsider” (Hunt, par. 7-8).
Rupert Abbott of Amnesty International noted the laws
carried the death penalty for acts that should not be
considered crimes and would “take the country back
to the dark ages.” He further added, “Brunei Darussalam’s new Penal Code legalizes cruel and inhuman
punishments. It makes a mockery of the country’s international human rights commitments and must be
revoked immediately” (Hunt, par. 8-9).
The UN has said it considers some of the penalties to be
“torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” under international law (Hunt,
par. 10). As such their use could warrant an investigation from the International Criminal Court (ICC).
11
IV. China – how will China’s relations with the US and
Brunei change based on these recent events? Is China
going to join the coalition condemning Sharia Law, or
will it support the decision of the Sultan, because of
their military and economic cooperation?
V. Brunei’s neighboring countries – if one small SouthEast Asian country with Muslim influence is able to
fully implement Sharia law, what will be stopping
neighboring countries in similar positions from following suit? Looking for strength in numbers, an Islamic collective in South East Asia (with the possibility
of a recent partner, ISIS, in the Levant) could be both
a military and economic heavy-hitter from day one.
How will the Philippines, dealing with their own Muslim separatist movement, feel?
V. Russia – after adopting the Anti-LGBT Propaganda
Bill in 2013, making it “illegal for anyone to take acts
that could be seen as influencing children on thoughts
of alternative sexual lifestyles”, it will be interesting to
see if and how Russia will react.
Questions a Resolution Suggestions for further
must Answer
research
There are several questions that need to be considered
when preparing a resolution. Fellow delegates, especially those of nearby states, will raise many questions
and concerns, as their best interests may be affected
by this monumental decision. The debate will be a
lively questioning of both human rights under Sharia
Law, and the state of global Human Rights, regardless
of location.
1. Will there be an influx of refugees escaping
religious (or non-religious) prosecution?
Will a population of non-Muslims (or more secular
Muslims) feel the need to escape the country for their
own safety? Being part of a landlocked island, escape
can be complicated, leading to crime, increased deaths,
and extradition strains among neighboring nations.
There are many sources of information that delegates
can access, including, but not limited to the following:
I. Brunei
http://www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com/economic_updates/Brunei+Darussalam
http://www.asiaobserver.org/all-about-brunei
h t t p : / / d a t a . u n . o r g / C o u n t r y P ro f i l e . a s px ? c r Name=Brunei+Darussalam
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/
N13/542/52/PDF/N1354252.pdf?OpenElement
N14/258/62/PDF/N1425862.pdf?OpenElement
G10/122/98/PDF/G1012298.pdf?OpenElement
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/nationprofiles/Brunei/rbodies.html
II. Sharia Law
2. Will neighboring smaller nations with a http://www.bbc.com/news/world-27307249
Muslim majority begin to attempt to imple- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7234870.stm
ment Sharia Law themselves?
http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034
As stated above, what will be stopping other similar http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wajahat-ali/undernations from copying Brunei? Brunei would certainly standing-sharia-law-_b_844624.html
cherish the opportunity to have a closer proximity to http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/iran.htm
Sharia Law nations. How will this affect the rest of East http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/islamic-judiciAsia, including countries rapidly growing economical- ary
ly (i.e. Vietnam), and countries struggling to maintain http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beorder (i.e. Thailand).
liefs/sharia_1.shtml
http://quran.com/45/18
3. How will Muslim separatist groups (such as
MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) in the III. Stoning
http://www.wluml.org/sites/wluml.org/files/
Philippines) react to such a pro-Islam step?
WLUML%20Submission%20%20on%20the%20
Question%20of%20the%20Death%20Penalty%20
Will MILF find themselves lucky enough to receive aid
HRC%2030%2003%2014.pdf
from Brunei under the trend towards theocracy imhttp://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/content/
plied by Sharia Law? Brunei and the Philippines have
stoning-and-human-rights
vowed to strengthen ties in the last year, but with Bruhttp://www.iranhrdc.org/english/publications/legalnei’s peacekeeping troops not leaving the MILF-occucommentary/1000000059-the-question-of-stoningpied islands, does Brunei have other plans? Will the
to-death-in-the-new-penal-code-of-the-iri.html#.U5lrecently formed ISIS Caliphate in the Levant find favor
uKPl_su8
with Brunei’s actions, and provide military and ecohttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/
nomic support?
jul/09/stoning-death-penalty-iran-editorial
12
IV. Women’s Rights
http://www.globalissues.org/article/166/womens-rights
http://www.unfpa.org/rights/women.htm
http://www.islamswomen.com/articles/do_muslim_
women_have_rights.php
h t t p : / / w w w. u n m u l t i m e d i a . o r g / r a d i o / e n g lish/2014/04/women-in-brunei-darussalam-facethreat-of-stoning-to-death/#.U5lu2Pl_su9
Closing Remarks
It is difficult to see how Brunei will be able to follow
through with plans to implement this Penal Code in
the next two years while, also complying with international laws and standards. As the UN is a group dedicated to limiting human rights violations in the coming years, it seems Brunei is taking a step backwards
from this goal. A group is only as strong as the weakest
link, and if some links start taking steps away from the
V. Death Penalty
h t t p : / / w w w. a m n e s t y. o r g / e n / l i b ra r y / a s s e t / collective goal, that will certainly impede forward proACT50/001/2014/en/652ac5b3-3979-43e2-b1a1- gress.
6c4919e7a518/act500012014en.pdf
h t t p : / / w w w. u n . o r g / a p p s / n e w s / s t o r y. a s - The delegates are expected to conduct substantial research and to follow the development of the problem,
p?NewsID=47552#.U5lumPl_su8
http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/brunei-to-update- as their countries’ positions are likely to change over
penal-code-with-death-by-stoning-penalty-for-same- the course of time. In addition, it is advisable, in case
any questions arise, to contact the Committee Chairs
sex-rela
http://www.trust.org/item/20130927160132- and to ask for assistance and/or clarification.
qt52c/
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.as- All delegates are encouraged to be creative, passionate, and to use any kind of negotiation techniques, as
p?symbol=A/RES/65/206
long as it does not violate the Rules of Procedure of
CUIMUN XX, and the universal diplomatic code. Delays,
VI. MILF in the Philippines
http://www.start.umd.edu/tops/terrorist_organiza- lack of familiarity with the topic, and disrespectful actions will not be tolerated. The Chair reserves the right
tion_profile.asp?id=3631
h t t p : / / w w w . p h i l s t a r . c o m / h e a d - to ask delegates whose position papers are deemed to
lines/2014/06/30/1340618/milf-lobbies-con- be incomplete or of insufficient quality to rewrite and
resubmit their work.
gress-bangsamoro
http://www.voanews.com/content/philippines-govtThe SOCHUM Chair board wishes you the best of luck
milf-rebels-sign-historic-peace-deal/1880267.html
h t t p : / / w w w. b u s i n e s s i n s i d e r. c o m / r - p h i l - with your preparation, and we look forward to seeing
i p p i n e s - a s s u r e s - m u s l i m - r e b e l s - o f - a u - you in November!
t o n o m y - b y - j a n u a r y - 2 0 1 4 - 2 7
VII. ISIS in the Levant
http://time.com/2938317/isis-militants-declare-islamist-caliphate/
h t t p : / / w w w. t h e d a i l y b e a s t . c o m / a r t i cles/2014/06/29/isis-s-newest-recruit-is-10-yearsold.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/opinion/sunday/isis-storms-the-barricades-justices-unite-and-republicans-sing.html?_r=0
13
Endnotes
Useful Links:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/in-brunei-sultan-must-allow-debate-on-new-penalcode-icj
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/sultan-brunei-threatens-citizens-online-criticism-sharia-law-plan-article-1.1702115
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/brunei-sultan-hits-back-rare-criticism-over-sharia-113442265.html
http://brudirect.com/national/national/national-local/15927-fine-imprisonment-for-negative-comments-remarks-against-syariah-law
http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2014/03/05/sultan-of-brunei-threatens-critics-of-sharia-law/
http://www.brudirect.com/national/national/national-headlines/16148-wolf-among-the-flock-imamswarned-against-extreme-jihad-elements
http://www.brudirect.com/national/national/national-headlines/16094-non-muslims-can-wear-religioussymbols-women-are-still-allowed-to-drive
http://www.bt.com.bn/2014/02/14/propagating-religion-other-islam-crime-under-syariah-law
http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/faq_stoning
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/176&referer=http://www.un.org/en/
ga/67/resolutions.shtml&Lang=E
http://www.agc.gov.bn/agc1/images/LAWS/Gazette_PDF/2013/EN/syariah%20penal%20code%20order2013.pdf
http://icj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Brunei-Open-letter-on-2013-PenalCode.pdf
http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/58652/gurkhas-should-no-longer-protect-the-sultan-of-brunei
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/02/25/forbes-ranks-brunei-fifth-richest-nation.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/bruneis-sharia-law-will-be-rewarded-by-obamasfast-track-trade-deal_b_5277637.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24624166
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/05/06/clive-davis-oscar-party-dump-hotel-over-sultan-owners-sharia-law-in-brunei/
http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/brunei-imposes-sharia-law/
h t t p : / / w w w. a l j a z e e ra . c o m / n e ws / a s i a - p a c i f i c / 2 0 1 4 / 0 4 / b r u n e i - a d o p t s - p h a s e - o n e - i s l a m i c law-201443051454609650.html
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/05/10/sharia-law-becomes-effective-in-brunei-law-proscribing-stoning-todeath-of-gays-adulterers-and-apostates-will-follow/
http://affairstoday.co.uk/brunei-adoption-sharia-law/
http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2014/05/09/sultan-of-brunei-sharia-law-beverly-hills-hotel-kecia-ali
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1510874/brunei-turns-back-clock-sharialaw?page=all
http://news.asiaone.com/news/asia/brunei-joins-china-navy-exercise-first-time
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/egim45egde/5-brunei/
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/626/47/PDF/N1262647.pdf?OpenElement
14
List of References
Constitution of Brunei: Syariah Penal Code Order, 2013 available here: http://www.agc.gov.bn/agc1/images/
LAWS/Gazette_PDF/2013/EN/syariah%20penal%20code%20order2013.pdf
Black, Crispin. “Gurkhas should no longer protect the Sultan of Brunei.” The Week. 23 May 2014. Web. http://
www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/58652/gurkhas-should-no-longer-protect-the-sultan-of-brunei#ixzz36oYH09aX
Broadcasting Act for Brunei available here: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/
unpan006033.pdf
Brown, Stephen Rex. “Sultan of Brunei threatens his citizens following online criticism of Sharia law plan.” New
York Daily News. 26 Feb. 2014. Web. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/sultan-brunei-threatens-citizens-online-criticism-sharia-law-plan-article-1.1702115
“Brunei adopts ‘phase one’ of Islamic law.” Aljazeera. 30 April 2014. Web. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/
asia-pacific/2014/04/brunei-adopts-phase-one-islamic-law-201443051454609650.html
“Brunei Darussalam: Revoke new Penal Code allowing stoning, whipping and amputation.” Amnesty International. 30. April 2014. Web. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/brunei-darussalam-penal-code-2014-04-30
“Brunei Sultan Hits Back at Rare Criticism Over Sharia.” Yahoo News Singapore. 26 Feb. 2014. Web. https://
sg.news.yahoo.com/brunei-sultan-hits-back-rare-criticism-over-sharia-113442265.html
“Brunei turns back the clock with sharia law.” South China Morning Post. 13 May 2014. Web. http://www.scmp.
com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1510874/brunei-turns-back-clock-sharia-law?page=all
“Country Profile: Brunei.” Commercial Trust Ltd.. Web. http://cmltrust.com/assets/media/Country%20Profile%20-%20BRUNEI%20v12.01.pdf
“Death Sentences and Executions 2013.” Amnesty International. 2014. Web. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/001/2014/en/652ac5b3-3979-43e2-b1a1-6c4919e7a518/act500012014en.pdf
“Freedom of Expression in the Constitutions of Southeast Asian Countries.” Southeast Asian Press Alliance.
Web. http://www.seapa.org/wp-content/uploads/Freedom-of-Expression-in-the-Constitutions-of-SoutheastAsian-Countries.pdf
“Freedom of the Press 2013: Brunei.” Freedom House. Web. http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2013/brunei#.U7sDFLG3uet
“Frequently Asked Questions about Stoning.” Violence is Not Our Culture. Web. http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/faq_stoning
Hunt, Luke. “Brunei Imposes Sharia Law.” The Diplomat. 2 May 2014. Web. http://thediplomat.com/2014/05/
brunei-imposes-sharia-law/
Johnson, Toni and Vriens, Lauren. “Islam: Governing Under Sharia.” Council on Foreign Relations. 9 Jan. 2014.
Web. http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034l&Lang=E
15
Johnson, Toni and Vriens, Lauren. “Islam: Governing Under Sharia.” Council on Foreign Relations. 9 Jan. 2014.
Web. http://www.cfr.org/religion/islam-governing-under-sharia/p8034
Kamit, Rabiatul. “Brunei joins China navy exercise for first time.” Asia One. 15 April 2014. Web. http://news.
asiaone.com/news/asia/brunei-joins-china-navy-exercise-first-time
McCabe, David. “Concerns Are Amplified As Russian Anti-LGBT is Signed Into Law.” Human Rights Campaign.
12 July 2013. Web. http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/concerns-are-amplified-as-russian-anti-lgbt-is-signed-into-law
McKay, Holly. “Clive Davis, Oscar party dump hotel over Sultan owner’s Shariah law in Brunei.” Fox News. 6 May
2014. Web. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/05/06/clive-davis-oscar-party-dump-hotel-oversultan-owners-sharia-law-in-brunei/
“Moratorium on the use of the death penalty” United Nations. 20 Dec. 2012. Web. http://www.un.org/en/
ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/176&referer=http://www.un.org/en/ga/67/resolutions.shtml&Lang=E
“Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review.” United Nations Human Rights Council. 19 March
2010. Web. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G10/122/98/PDF/G1012298.pdf?OpenElement
Signorile, Michelangelo. “Brunei’s Sharia Law Will Be Rewarded by Obama’s Fast-Track Trade Deal.” The Huffington Post. 5 July 2014. Web. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/bruneis-sharia-law-willbe-rewarded-by-obamas-fast-track-trade-deal_b_5277637.html
“Somalia: Girl stoned was a child of 13.” Violence is Not Our Culture. 31 Oct. 2008. Web. http://violenceisnotourculture.org/content/somalia-girl-stoned-was-child-13
“Stoning and Human Rights.” Violence is Not Our Culture. Web. http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/content/stoning-and-human-rights
“Stoning: Legal or Practised in 16 Countries and Showing No Signs of Abating.” Women Living Under Muslim
Laws. Web. March 2014. http://www.wluml.org/sites/wluml.org/files/WLUML%20Submission%20%20
on%20the%20Question%20of%20the%20Death%20Penalty%20HRC%2030%2003%2014.pdf
The Quran available at http://quran.com/
Too, Debbie. “Forbes ranks Brunei fifth
richest nation.” The Jakarta Post. 25 Feb. 2012. Web. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/02/25/
forbes-ranks-brunei-fifth-richest-nation.html
“UN concerned at broad application of death penalty in Brunei’s revised penal code.” UN News Centre. Web. 11
April 2014. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47552#.U7sAubG3uet
Zarifi, Sam. “Open Letter to Brunei.” International Commission of Jurists. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. http://icj.wpengine.
netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Brunei-Open-letter-on-2013-Penal-Code.pdf
16
Topic: Internet Freedom: Online Privacy and Hate Speech
“
I do not want to live in a
world where everything
I do and say is recorded. That is not something
I am willing to support
or live under.
- Edward Snowden, former NSA employee
17
”
Topic Area:
Internet Freedom:
Online Privacy & Hate
Speech
“By vastly expanding the capacity of individuals to
enjoy their right to freedom of opinion and expression, which is an “enabler” of other human rights,
the Internet boosts economic, social and political
development, and contributes to the progress of
humankind as a whole.”
- Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression.
Statement of the Problem
i) Online Privacy
Over the past decades, the Internet and other communication
technologies have created unmatchable opportunities for
rapid information sharing, anonymity, and cross-cultural dialogue. It has also opened up paths for pro-democracy groups,
activists, journalists, and individuals around the world to
gain access to knowledge, express ideas, and hold their governments accountable for their policies and actions.
However, new technological tools are vulnerable to exploitation by some governments aiming to crush dissent and deny
human rights. In general, most governments struggle to balance a need to deal with serious issues such as the security
of their citizens, preventing hate speech, and assuring child
safety, against the freedom fundamental to the formation of
the modern web. However, in repressive and authoritarian
societies, these concerns often serve as suitable pretexts to
engage in censorship or surveillance over their citizens, violating the rights and privacy of users, and threatening the free
flow of information and freedom of expression. Moreover, the
constant development in technology has been paralleled by
changes in attitudes towards communications surveillance.
When the practice of official wiretapping first commenced
in the United States of America, it was conducted solely on
a restricted basis. It was viewed as such a serious threat to 18
privacy that its use was limited to detecting and prosecuting only the most serious crimes. Over time, however, some states have expanded their powers to conduct
surveillance, lowering the threshold and increasing
the justifications for such surveillance (A.HRC.23.40).
In June 2013, the so-called ‘Snowden Affair’ shook the
world when Edward Joseph Snowden, a former CIA analyst and infrastructure analyst for the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States, disclosed to several media outlets thousands of classified documents
that he acquired while working as a NSA contractor.
Materials provided by Mr. Snowden to the media allege
the US has been conducting widespread surveillance
on its citizens and other nations on an “ongoing daily
basis” (“Edward Snowden: Leaks that exposed US spy
programme” par. 2). The report was followed by revelations in both the Washington Post and The Guardian
that both the NSA and the British GCHQ had tapped directly into the servers of nine internet firms including
Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo to track online
communication in a surveillance program known as
Prism. The BBC calls Snowden’s release “one of the
worst information leaks in the US history” (“Edward
Snowden: Timeline” par. 1). The affair has spurred a
heated international debate on the government’s right
to tap into its citizens’ private on-line lives. It also
definitively broke the illusion that the Internet is an
anonymous and free space.
ii) Internet Freedom
versus Hate Speech
“Should people have the right to propagate hate speech
via the Internet?”
Many people’s immediate answer would likely be “no.”
However, the issue is more complex than a simple ‘yes’
or ‘no’ answer. Freedom of speech and expression is
the cornerstone of any democracy, and therefore, any
restrictions to it must be an imperative exception. Yet
hate speech can cause dreadful consequences, and violate the rights of those being attacked, such as their
right to security.
rect incitement of ethnic violence via state-run media
during wars in the former Yugoslavia or the Rwandan
genocide. The international community does recognise the need to prevent hate speech. However, it is
vital that hate speech laws are proportionate in order
to protect freedom of expression. Inevitably, these two
requirements – to prohibit all racist hateful speech
and to respect the right to freedom of expression – are
considered by many to be in direct contradiction with
one another.
History and Discussion
of the Problem
i) Online Privacy
Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
offers general protection for a person’s private and
family life, home, and correspondence from arbitrary
interference by the State. Before the ‘Snowden Affair,’
the Human Rights Council of the United Nations published a report by the Special Rapporteur Frank La
Rue “on the promotion and protection of the right to
freedom of opinion and expression” in April 2013. In
this report, the UN’s concern regarding the extent of
some countries’ state surveillance was clear (Nyst par.
3). It called for states to update their understandings
and regulation of communications surveillance and
modify their practices in order to ensure that individuals’ human rights are respected and protected. It also
pressed on the transparency about the use and scope
of communication surveillance techniques and powers
exercised by the governments (A.HRC.23.40).
Throughout history, the concept of ‘hate speech’ has
been highly problematic, from the ramifications of the However, after the ‘Snowden affair,’ there has been
Holocaust during World War Two, through to the di- concrete evidence that the United States, the United,
19
Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have
been exercising a rigorous domestic as well as
trans-national state surveillance program, that could
constitute a breach with Article 8. In addition, the US
and the UK did not supposedly only spy on their own
citizens: claims emerged that the NSA had also spied
on European Union offices in the US and Europe. The
German government summoned the US ambassador on October 2013, after German media reported
that the NSA had eavesdropped on Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone. The allegations were raised
at the subsequent European Union summit, with Ms.
Merkel demanding a full explanation and warning that
trust between Germany and the United States could
be undermined. France’s President Francois Hollande,
meanwhile, also expressed alarm at reports that millions of French calls had been monitored by the US
(Ball par. 27).
Moreover, some countries in Latin America were also
angered by revelations that the NSA had been running
a continent-wide surveillance program in Central and
South America. The United States agents allegedly cooperated with Brazilian telecom firms to spy on oil and
energy firms such as the Brazilian oil firm Petrobas, the
foreign visitors to Brazil and major players in Mexico’s
drug wars. Even emails and phone calls of the Presidents of Mexico and Brazil had supposedly been intercepted. Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, and Chile together
demanded answers from the United States. Brazilian
President Dilma Rousseff consequently cancelled her
scheduled state visit to the US since the scandal hit
(“Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff calls off US trip”
par. 13). The Guardian later reported that the NSA had
monitored phones of 35 world leaders (Ball par. 1).
In response to the pressing tensions, the Third Committee - Social, Humanitarian and Cultural - of the
General Assembly approved a draft resolution titled
“The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age” in November
2013 (A /68/456/Add.2). Through this resolution, the
General Assembly established, for the first time, that
“human rights should prevail irrespective of the medium and, therefore, need to be protected both offline
and online” (A /RES/68/167 operative clause 3). The
draft, approved without a vote, would have the General Assembly call upon Member States to review their
procedures, practices, and legislation on the surveillance of communications, and their interception and
collection of personal data, while still upholding the
right to privacy in accordance with international law.
The resolution also requested the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Navi Pillay, to submit a report on the protection and promotion of the right to privacy in the context of domestic
and extraterritorial surveillance and/or interception
of digital communications, and the collection of personal data. Ms. Pillay emphasized the right to privacy
in her speech, using the case of the United States and
Edward Snowden for relevance (Siddique par. 5). She
also recalled Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which state that no
one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with
one’s privacy, family, home or correspondence, and
that everyone has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference or attacks. “People need to
be confident that their private communications are
not being unduly scrutinized by the State,” she said
during her speech (“General Assembly backs right to
privacy in digital age” par. 12).
ii) Internet Freedom
versus Hate Speech
Generally speaking, the right to freedom of expression, online or offline, includes the freedom to voice
unpopular ideas and statements, which can “shock, offend or disturb” (“Hate Speech” par. 2). Nevertheless,
a number of human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), not only permit states to prohibit hate speech
but actually encourage them to do so. Article 20(2) of
the ICCPR says:
“Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred
that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”
There is little debate on whether restrictions on hate
speech are to be justified. Nevertheless, Article 20(2)
has proven highly controversial and is variously criticised as being overly restrictive of free speech or as
not going far enough in the categories of hatred that it
covers.
Another treaty which prohibits hate speech is Article
20
4 of the International Convention on the Elimination
of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which
goes substantially further than Article 20(2) of the ICCPR, and requires states’ parties to declare an offence
punishable by law all diffusion of ideas based on racial
superiority, hatred and discrimination.
hate speech, being considered close to political speech,
falls under the protection of the Constitution for most
of the time (Laanpere 7).
Nevertheless, in most other countries, hate speech
does not receive the same constitutional protection
as it does in the United States. In Germany, it is illegal
In addition, there also exist various regional human to promote Nazi ideology or to deny the reality of the
rights treaties – the European Convention on Human Holocaust. In Denmark, France, Britain, Germany and
Rights (ECHR), the American Convention on Human Canada citizens have been prosecuted for crimes inRights (ACHR), and the African Charter on Human and volving hate speech on the Internet (Laanpere 7).
Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) – which all guarantee the
right to freedom of expression, but only the ACHR spe- Surprisingly, even members of the UN Committee on
cifically bans hate speech.
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which supervises the implementation of the CERD, have trouThe international community remains relatively di- ble agreeing on the meaning of Article 4. One of the
vided on the issue. Several states, including Australia, reasons why these treaties evoke so much disagreeAustria, Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, the United ment and controversy is because there has not been
Kingdom, and the United States, have entered reserva- a real internationally agreed definition of ‘online hate
tions to Article 4 of the CERD, and declared that they speech.’ The often used definition is the one outlined
will interpret it in their own way. The United States’ in the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers’
approach is, for example, strongly influenced by the Recommendation 97(20):
First Amendment of the Federal Constitution where
21
Photo by Flickr User Chrisfp
“The term ‘hate speech’ shall be understood as covering all forms of expression which spread, incite,
promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination
and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin.”
However, many social media sites provide their own
understanding of hate speech. Facebook, for example,
defines hate speech as follows: “Content that attacks
people based on their actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease is not allowed.” They also
add a significant note: “We do, however, allow clear
attempts at humor or satire that might otherwise be
considered a possible threat or attack. This includes
content that many people may find to be in bad taste”
(“What does Facebook consider to be hate speech?”
par. 1). Therefore, coming up with a thoughtful and
universal definition of ‘hate speech’ should definitely
be one of the key focuses for the Third Committee at
the CUIMUN XX Conference.
Another point worth discussing is the difficulty of upholding the different national legal systems when it
comes to online hate speech. The Internet is a global
medium and does not answer to any country’s law. If
some extremist content were to be illegal and subject
to removal in an European country, it cannot always be
removed, because the host servers are often located in
US, where there are no legal grounds for its removal.
As a result, there is some flexibility and inconsistency
as to what is legally considered hate speech and what
is not. Such controversy became apparent in France’s
case against Yahoo! in 2000. The case concerned the
company’s online auction of Nazi memorabilia. The
French court ordered Yahoo! Inc. to make it impossible
for French Web surfers to view Nazi-related auctions
or face a fine. As a result, Yahoo! France conformed and
blocked the auctions. Yahoo! then agreed to remove
the items from all of its servers (Berrong 6). Despite
the success in that case, experts note the ease with
which anyone could relocate hateful content prosecuted in one country by re-posting it to other Web sites
hosted on servers in other countries.
Proposed Solutions
There are several major solutions that should be taken into account when discussing the topic of Internet
Privacy and On-line Hate Speech. It is expected from
delegates to thoroughly investigate their country’s
position, and thereafter comply with those solutions,
which are in accordance with his or her country’s
standing.
Firstly, a common legislation and a set of policies and
laws regulating the extent and nature of national surveillance should be agreed upon by the international
body. States should be completely transparent about
the use and scope of surveillance techniques and powers. Citizens should be fully aware of when, where, and
how they are being monitored. Individuals should have
a legal right to be notified that they have been subjected to communications surveillance, or that their communications data has been accessed by the State.
Secondly, the United Nations can found an independent commission of international policy makers and
politicians, to annually carry out investigations into
the way governments collect and use Internet data.
Thirdly, illegal surveillance by public or private actors
should be criminalized. Legislation should specify that
State surveillance of communications should only occur under exceptional circumstances and exclusively
under the supervision of an independent judicial authority. Caution must be articulated in law relating to
the nature, scope and duration of the possible measures, the grounds required for ordering them, the authorities competent to authorize, carry out and supervise them, and the kind of remedy provided by the
national law.
Fourthly, there is a significant need to advance international understanding and agreement on the protection of the right to privacy in light of technological
advancements. This topic should be thoroughly discussed at the upcoming UN General Assembly. The Human Rights Committee should consider issuing a new
General Comment on the right to privacy, to replace
General Comment No. 16 (1988).
Fifthly, the Human Rights Committee should compose
a common and universal definition of ‘hate speech,’
and submit it to the General Assembly for the member
states to discuss and agree upon.
22
Key Actors and Positions
III. Germany
Germany has traditionally taken a resolute stance on
It might be beneficial to look at a few key countries data privacy .This strict approach partly originates
from around the world to get an understanding of the from its historical experience during the Third Reich
specific positions and needs of various stakeholders.
and communist East Germany, when data collection
was misused by the Nazi and GDR regimes to suppress
Internet Privacy:
opposition and persecute individuals. Germany takes
internet and data privacy very seriously. Having some
I. The United States
of Europe’s strictest privacy regulations, American InUnder a provision of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence ternet hegemons such as Facebook and Google had to
Surveillance Act known as Section 702, the National modify their services to meet Germany’s strict data
Security Agency uses court orders and taps on fib- protection laws (Watjen par. 1). er-optic lines to target the data of American citizens
and foreigners living abroad when their emails, web For example, in 2010 Google maps was forced to blur
chats, text messages, and other communications trav- out images at street level, after complaints by residents
erse U.S. telecommunications systems. Section 702, whose houses were shown. People were given the opwhich was added to the act in 2008, includes the so- portunity to opt out of Street View in order to comcalled PRISM program, under which the NSA collects ply with German privacy standards. Google has since
foreign intelligence from Google, Facebook, Microsoft, stopped updating Google Street View in Germany.
Apple and nearly every other major American technology company. The American government believes that Furthermore, Germany has been one of the leading
the NSA’s data collection and surveillance program has defenders of setting up an autonomous European Inbeen “an effective tool” for the country in disrupting a ternet infrastructure, independent of the US servers.
series of terrorist plots and achieving other insights. Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said, “We must
Hence, the US government defends state surveillance make our own networks safer. Why should an e-mail
as an indispensable method of assuring security and from Munich to Berlin run through the USA?” (Birnpeace for its citizens.
baum par. 17). There have been proposals to make
German e-mails and internet transmitted within GerII. The United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zea- man borders, not through the US. The proposals aim
land
to boost the security of Germany’s domestic commuTogether with the United States, the UK, Australia, nications by preventing them from getting outside the
Canada, and New Zealand make up the Five Eyes al- country, which has far stricter privacy regulations than
liance, based on a series of bilateral agreements over the United States.
more than a decade that became known as the UKUSA agreement. The purpose of the alliance is to share IV. Brazil
intelligence, but primarily signals intelligence, SIGINT. In April, 2014, Brazilian President Dilma Rouseff
In addition to facilitating collaboration, the agreement signed into law the Marco Civil Da Internet, considsuggests that all intercepted material would be shared ered as the Internet “Magna Charta.” It obliges Internet
between Five Eyes States by default. The intelligence businesses – ranging from private social media sites to
agencies involved in the alliance are the United States online marketplaces – to follow certain privacy rules,
National Security Agency (NSA), the United Kingdom’s and also mandates how they store and share users’ inGovernment Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), formation. Most importantly, the law explicitly applies
Canada’s Communications Security Establishment to any company anywhere that has at least one BrazilCanada (CSEC), the Australian Signals Directorate ian user, has servers located in Brazil, or operates an
(ASD), and New Zealand’s Government Communica- office there (“Brazil: New Internet Rules”, and Sugartions Security Bureau (GCSB). The Five Eyes have been man par. 1). Similar to Germany, Brazil’s dark history
facing a lot of international criticism (see “Under- has also played a vital role in its strict stance towards
standing the Five Eyes” in Eyes Wide Open for more state surveillance. The horrors of military dictatorship
information).
between 1964 to 1985 is still ingrained in the collec-
23
tive Brazilian memory, and there is a legitimate fear
that certain information can be held against individuals at a certain point when the rules change on what is
a ‘criminal act’ (Raemdonck par. 11).
Hate Speech:
I. Poland
Poland is one of the countries where hate speech is
unfortunately a quite frequent phenomenon in public
space. Even though Articles 256 and 257 of the Polish
Criminal Code officially criminalizes public expression
that insults a person or a group on account of national,
ethnic, racial, religious affiliation or the lack of a religious affiliation, in practice, Poland’s legal framework
has not been a sufficient and effective tool for preventing and combating hate speech. Many hate speech cases are not taken to courts, or proceedings are not initiated because according to the prosecutor there is no
mark of an offence. The big concern is also the fact that
hate speech is expressed even by politicians and other
public figures, which undoubtedly must have influence
on the quality of a public debate. The Polish deputy
Zbigniew Nowak, for example, put some negative caricatures of Jewish people on his blog. Some right-wing
politicians also used in their blogs the terms “Jewish
barbarian” and “German boorishness” (“Hate Speech
in Poland” 3).
Questions a Resolution
must
Answer
This conference will aim to resolve questions sur-
rounding the acceptable extent to which governments
may interfere in its citizens’ privacy online. Suggested
questions to address during the committee sessions
are:
Is state surveillance just? To what extent? Where is
the line between assuring citizens’ security and violating one’s privacy?
What can be done to improve the state surveillance
system? Should there be an international organization
to oversee the state’s surveillance?
Should citizens have a legal right to be notified that
they have been subjected to communications surveillance or that their communications data has been accessed by the State?
Should the provision of communications data to the
State be monitored by an independent authority, such
as a court or oversight mechanism?
How transparent should states be transparent about
the use and scope of communications surveillance
techniques and powers?
What role and obligations do private networks have
in developing and supplying surveillance technologies
and data to governments?
In addition, freedom of expression on the Internet
will also be thoroughly discussed, with a particular
emphasis on the issue of hate speech and its legitimacy
or illegality within the ‘freedom of speech’ framework.
24
Suggestions for Further
Research
There are many sources of information that delegates
can access, including, but not limited to the following:
I. Human Rights and the Internet
http://www.hrw.org
http://www.un.org
http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/alexandra-kulikova/‘balkanisation’-of-russia’s-internet
http://www.justice.gov
https://www.privacyinternational.org
http://www.securitymanagement.com
25
Closing Remarks
List of References
We hope this guide was useful in familiarizing you A/68/456/Add.2
http://www.un.org/ga/search/
with the topics for conference, and in providing per- view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/167
spectives on what will be expected during Committee
sessions.
A.HRC.23.40
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/
HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A.
However, we would like to emphasize that the informa- HRC.23.40_EN.pdf
tion presented in this guide is far from intensive and
all-inclusive. The suggestions for further research are A /RES/68/167 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_
also not absolute or complete. This guide is meant to doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/167
provide a starting point that you can use as a basis for
further, more detailed, and country-specific research. Ball, James. “NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders
after US official handed over contacts.” The Guardian.
We urge you to dig deeper for informative and helpful 25 Oct. 2013. Web. http://www.theguardian.com/
sources, and to find unique and compelling solutions world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leadersto the problems that have been presented. You are also calls
strongly encouraged to research other countries’ positions regarding the topics discussed. Furthermore, Berrong, Stephanie. “Internet Hate: A Tough Probcoming up with additional problems that may not have lem to Combat.” Security Management. Web. http://
been presented is always plausible. Creativity, hard- www.securitymanagement.com/article/interwork and intellectual curiosity will be highly appreci- net-hate-tough-problem-combat-005259
ated.
Birnbaum, Michael. “Germany looks at keeping
We wish you all the best in learning more about the its Internet, e-mail traffic inside its borders.” The
topic, and hope that you will find the complex (yet Washington Post. 1 Nov. 2013. Web. http://www.
intriguing) nature of the issues as interesting and washingtonpost.com/world/europe/germanythought-provoking as we did. Please do not hesitate to looks-at-keeping-its-internet-e-mail-traffic-insidereach out if you would like to discuss any parts of this its-borders/2013/10/31/981104fe-424f-11e3-a751study guide. We look forward to meeting you all and to f032898f2dbc_story.html
hearing your insightful debate and discussion on internet freedom, the right to privacy, and hate speech “Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff calls off US trip.”
in November!
BBC. 17 Sept. 2013. Web. http://www.bbc.co.uk/
news/world-latin-america-24133161
“Edward Snowden: Leaks that exposed US spy programme.” BBC. 17 Jan. 2014. Web. http://www.bbc.
co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23123964
“Edward Snowden: Timeline.” BBC. 20 Aug. 2013.
Web.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23768248
“Hate Speech in Poland” AEDH. Web. http://www.
aedh.eu/plugins/fckeditor/userfiles/file/Discriminations%20et%20droits%20des%20minorit%C3%A9s/Hate%20speech.pdf
26
“What does Facebook consider to be hate speech?” Facebook. Web. https://www.facebook.com/
help/135402139904490/
“General Assembly backs right to privacy in digital age” UN News Centre. 19 Dec. 2013. Web. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=46780#.U7wxPLG3uet
“Hate Speech.” Article 19. Web. http://www.article19.org/pages/en/hate-speech-more.html
Laanpere, Liina. “Online Hate Speech: Hate or Crime?” ELSA. Web. http://files.elsa.org/AA/Online_Hate_Speech_
Essay_Competition_runner_up.pdf
Nyst, Carl. “UN report: The link between State surveillance and freedom of expression.” Privacy International.
4 Jun. 2013. Web. https://www.privacyinternational.org/blog/un-report-the-link-between-state-surveillanceand-freedom-of-expression
Raemdonck, Nathalie van. “Online Mass Surveillance: Protecting Privacy and Human Rights on the Internet? Is
Brazil taking the Lead?” Global Research. 29 April 2014. Web. http://www.globalresearch.ca/online-mass-surveillance-protecting-privacy-and-human-rights-on-the-internet-is-brazil-taking-the-lead/5379621
Siddique, Haroon. “Internet privacy as important as human rights, says UN’s Navi Pillay.” The Guardian. 26 Dec.
2013. Web. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/26/un-navi-pillay-internet-privacy
Soares, Eduardo. “Brazil: New Internet Rules.” Library of Congress. 29 April 2014. Web. http://www.loc.gov/
lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403949_text
Sugarman, Eli. “How Brazil and the EU Are Breaking the Internet.” Forbes. 19 May 2014. Web. http://www.
forbes.com/sites/elisugarman/2014/05/19/how-brazil-and-the-eu-are-breaking-the-internet/
“Understanding the Five Eyes.” Privacy International. Web. https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/
eyes-wide-open/understanding-the-five-eyes
Watjen, Christian. “Germany Stands Firm on Internet Privacy.” The Epoch Times. 4 Aug 2011. Web. http://www.
theepochtimes.com/n2/technology/germany-stands-firm-on-internet-privacy-59985.html
27
Study Guide Written by Nelly Ovcharrova, Ha Ngoc Quyen, and Christopher Everett.
Edited and designed by Christopher Everett for Cambridge International MUN XX

cuimun xx

Transcription

Similar documents

Trip to Brunei (Working in RIPAS Hospital)

brunei british relationship

File - isbruneienglishdepartment

pri·va·cy - Dictionary.com

Teaching English in Laos Diana Ang

Télépopmusik Ambushed

benefits - Anthony Tours and Travel Agency Sdn Bhd

PIPEDA 101 PowerPoint (Done by Communications)