Uwazi

Members of the We Volunteer network arrived at Uruphong Intersection at about 9.30pm and started to remove the barricades, which were reportedly laid out by the authorities on Nov. 25 to deter demonstrations in the area.

Their cleanup operation was only announced just an hour before the gathering. Piyarat said several pedestrians were already injured by the razor wires.

A company of police officers soon arrived and surrounded the volunteers. A brief confrontation ensued, and police eventually arrested 19 people at the scene. They were taken to Phayathai Police Station where they were charged with illegal assembly and resisting arrests.

Police spokesman Kissana Phathanacharoen said the arrests were made after the protesters refused to comply with instructions from the law enforcement.

“They have no power to uninstall police’s equipment,” Col. Kissana said. “We had asked them to disperse, but they didn’t follow orders.”

Piyarat said police told him they did not try to remove the razor wires by themselves because the equipment actually belonged to the army.

He said his group will continue to remove other crowd control obstacles abandoned by the authorities across Bangkok; the activist did not disclose details about their next target.

“We will notify local police next time,” Piyarat said.

Khaosod

Representatives from the 24 June Democracy group went to the United Nations (UN) office in Bangkok today (10 December) to petition the UN Human Rights Council to pressure the Thai government to repeal Section 112, Thailand’s lèse majesté law.

The petition states that the recent pro-democracy protests have been met with state persecution and crackdowns, despite peaceful protest being a right under the Thai constitution and international human rights principles. Many protesters are facing legal charges, with activists now facing charges under Section 112, which has not been used for the past two years.

During the past two weeks, since student activist Parit “Penguin” Chiwarak received a summons for a charge under Section 112 on 24 November, at least 23 people involved with recent protests have been charged with royal defamation.

The petition notes that Section 112 “does not have a clear extent of enforcement,” and that those who have been charged under this law have often been denied bail, which is a restriction of rights and liberties, as well as of freedom of expression in relation to the monarchy.

The petition calls on the UN Human Rights Council to pressure the Thai government to cease persecution against people participating in the pro-democracy protests and to repeal Section 112.

Sinphat Khaiyanan, one of the representatives, said that the group’s aim was to call for the UN or the UNHRC to pressure the Thai government about the legal charges filed against protest leaders, students and members of the public, and to repeal Section 112, which goes against human rights principles, as criticism of various political institutions should be permitted according to the principles of rights and freedoms.

Somyot Pruksakasemsuk, another representative, said that Section 112 is an outdated law which restricts people’s rights and freedom of expression, which is one of the fundamental freedoms, and has been used against the political opposition. He said that since the head of state receives income from taxpayers and is in this position according to the constitution, criticism of the head of state should be permitted in order to resolve the public’s questions about the monarchy. If Section 112 is repealed, the head of state will be able to come to an understanding with the people, which would be beneficial to the monarchy itself and to Thai politics.

Somyot said that the group would be following the process after the petition is submitted, and that there will be rallies both locally and internationally. He said that the group will send letters to international civil society organizations, such as to human rights and labour rights organizations, to call for a show of solidarity, and that the group is in the process of organizing a rally in Switzerland during a UN meeting in May 2021.

Somyot said that he is not concerned about attacks on the monarchy if Section 112 is repealed, as there is already a defamation law, which can be used in case of slander. He said that repealing Section 112 would instead lessen concerns, as the Bureau of the Royal Household would then be able to explain and correct false information.

He said that using Section 112 against protesters will lead to confrontation between the monarchy and the people. He asked whether the judicial process, where the courts represent the monarch as judgements are made in his name, will be just, because if people are denied bail or if an arrest warrant is immediately issued, it will be a reflection of injustice, which would not be beneficial to the government and the monarchy.

While representatives of the group went in to submit their petition, a small stage was set up in front on the UN building with protesters taking turn giving speeches.

A monk named Jirasupho gave a speech saying that Section 112 is similar to Section 116 in that, if whatever is said goes against the values of the institutions concerned, whether it is true or not, the action will be deemed illegal, but Section 112 is worse for many reasons, such as the broad interpretation of the law, or how to interpret the terms ‘threaten’ or ‘insult.’ He asks whether speaking about legal cases involving the monarchy without intending for it to be a threat would be wrong, such as Anon Nampa’s raising questions about the death of King Anada Mahidol, or speaking about the incidents on 14 October 1973 or 6 October 1976. He also asks whether Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul’s address to King Vajiralongkorn (at the rally on 19 September) can be interpreted as a threat.

He said that in other countries, cases like the Holocaust have been investigated until the world understands how bad it is and until people understand the Nazi swastika, but in Thailand, we don’t even know who ordered people to be murdered because these laws keep people silent.

Jirasupho said that he wanted to speak out because one of his university lowerclassmen, Ravisara Eksgool, received a summons for reading a statement during the rally in front of the German Embassy. Many people have told him that he is a monk and therefore should not come out to show support for her, but he thinks that if religion is a representation of good, if religion wants to teach people kindness, it should be possible to support one’s friend. He believes that religion should be against unjust laws. Jirasupho said that he is doing this for his friend and for society, and that if he doesn’t do it today, when would be the time. He said that time is up for a law which is in favour of only one group of people, and he would like people to talk about Ravisara in addition to the protest leaders who have been charged with royal defamation.

Following his speech, while he was in the middle of a media interview, two plainclothes police officers came up to Jirasupho and asked for the name of his temple and other personal information. Jirasupho said that people around him then told him that this is intimidation, and many supported him. He said that, personally, he said nothing wrong. He was only speaking according to the information he has and that he is only criticising the law.

Jirasupho said that he is worried, but he will continue to speak out, but while he is still ordained, he would only be joining activities during the next few days, as the issue of Section 112 is urgent and a violation of people’s rights and freedom, and even his friend has been charged with it.

During the rally, plainclothes officers also tried to ask for information about Jirasupho from one of Prachatai’s reporters at the scene, but the reporter refused to give them any information.

Prachatai

The Phrae Democracy Lovers network has reported that police got from the Vice Principal of Nareerat School the names of students involved in a display of banners and card images promoting democracy and the abolition of the lèse majesté law at the school’s sports day on 11 December.

The regular annual sports day at Nareerat School, Phrae Province, went viral on the internet as students were seen raising banners with messages like “Nation, liberty, people” or “Democracy is being exploited by a disgusting person”.

There is also footage of a card image, where students in the stand, each holding a different card, together turned a picture or message into 112, referring to the Section 112 of the Criminal Code which prohibits people from defaming or expressing hostility to the king, queen, heir-apparent and regent.

The stand also chanted “Very good. Very good. Very brave. Very brave. Thank you,” copying King Vajiralongkorn’s words to one of his supporters at a public walkabout on 23 October.

The network told Prachatai that after the incident went viral, Phrae provincial police asked the Vice Principal for information on the students involved. The Vice Principal gave them the names and phone numbers.

According to the network, 2 students alleged of being involved in the rally were called from an unknown phone number.

On 12 December, at a meeting between teachers and students, those involved in the rally were separated out to attend another meeting in the afternoon.

On 11 December evening, Bad Students, a student activist group, tweeted to ask the public to watch what was happening at Nareerat School.

Prachatai

Police have issued summonses for 12 core members of the Khana Ratsadon anti-establishment group, to acknowledge charges of lèse majesté, among others, for their leading roles in protests demanding sweeping reform of the Thai Monarchy.

The police’s decision to invoke the infamous Section 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code comes ahead of a mass protest today, organized by the Khana Ratsadon group and others, expected to take place at the Crown Property Bureau.

The 12 Khana Ratsadon leaders facing charges are:

Parit “Penguin” Chivarak – eight cases pending
Panasaya “Rung” Sitthijirawattanakul – six cases pending
Panupong Jardnok or Mike Rayong – four cases pending
Anon Nampa – four cases pending
Passaravalee “Mind” Thanakitvibulphol – three cases pending
Chanin Wongsri – two cases pending
Chuthatip Sirikhan – one case pending
Tadthep Ruangprapaikitseri – one case pending
Atthaphol Buapat – one case pending
Chukiat Saengwong – one case pending
Sombat Thongyoi – one case pending
Piyarat Chongthep – one case pending

It is reported that police in several districts have sought arrest warrants, but the courts have rejected their requests on the grounds that these protest leaders are public figures and are of fixed abode. The court recommended that the police issue summonses instead.

Parit said, in his Facebook post, that he received the summons, on two charges, at his residence last night, namely lèse majesté and violation of the Computer Crime Act, adding that he is not worried about the charges “because the ceiling has already been broken.”

He also posted a notification of change of venue for today’s protest muster point, from the Democracy Monument to the head office of the Siam Commercial Bank.

In her Facebook post today, Panasaya said police came to find her last night at her university. She told the police to show her the summons and not to come looking for her at night.

The SCB head office is closed today, ahead of the arrival of protesters, as police erect barriers to prevent protesters from getting near the bank on Ratchayothin Road. Additional CCTV cameras were also installed around the bank.

Throughout last night, authorities placed cement and plastic barriers on roads around the Crown Property Bureau. Thousands of police have been deployed around the bureau to maintain law and order.

Thai PBS

The Constitutional Court has sought prosecution against student protest leader Parit "Penguin" Chiwarak on a charge of contempt of court over statements he made on Facebook following the court's ruling on Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha's army house residency this week.

All nine Constitutional Court judges on Wednesday found Gen Prayut not guilty of occupying the army residence after he retired from the armed forces.

The issue was brought to the court by the opposition. They had argued that Gen Prayut committed "conflict of interest" for staying in the residence as premier.

Pol Cpl Montri Daengsri, director of the Constitutional Court's litigation office, filed the charge against Mr Parit with the Technology Crime Suppression Division on Thursday over the Facebook posts.

He said the messages Mr Parit posted were defamatory to the court and had tarnished its reputation.

The house is located at the 1st Infantry Regiment residential area on Phahon Yothin Road in Bangkok.

Pol Cpl Montri said Mr Parit also gave an offensive speech at the anti-government rally at the Lat Phrao intersection after the ruling was delivered by the court.

Mr Parit's speech at the rally was also defamatory in nature and violated the Criminal Code, according to the director.

Police investigators were looking to see what charges would be pressed against Mr Parit, Pol Cpl Montri said.

Also, the litigation office was looking into a stage play allegedly poking fun at the court over its ruling at the rally site.

Pol Maj Gen Piya Tawichai, deputy chief of the Metropolitan Police Bureau, said police were reviewing an allegation of verbal abuse aimed at the court judges by protesters at the rally. The protesters burned the judges' effigies.

Leading protest figure Arnon Nampa has urged all protesters to share responsibility of whatever problems that may arise as a result of recent anti-government demonstrations.

The court in its ruling said Gen Prayut did not violate the constitution by occupying the army house because he did not receive any special benefits.

In Thailand, junior army personnel occupy Ban Sawadikarn, or welfare houses, while senior officers occupy Ban Rubrong, or reception houses.

Tenants of welfare houses are required to pay for their utility bills while those who live in reception houses -- which include retirees -- do not pay for household expenses. The tab is picked up by the army.

The army said Gen Prayut occupies a reception house, so does not have to pay utility bills.

The issue over the premier's army house is not yet over with an MP on Thursday seeking to pursue the matter in parliament.

Ruangkrai Leekitwattana, a former member of the dissolved Thai Raksa Chart Party, on Thursday filed a petition against Gen Prayut with the House standing committee on corruption.

Mr Ruangkrai is asking the committee to probe the premier to see if he has benefited from staying in the house.

He said Gen Prayut should be deemed as a beneficiary of the tenancy because the premier does not pay his own utility bills.

In other news, activists on Thursday rallied at the Cambodian embassy in Bangkok to mark the sixth month anniversary of the disappearance of government critic Wanchalearm Satsaksit who was living in exile in Phnom Penh earlier this year.

They submitted a list of 14,157 people who want Cambodian authorities to ensure a transparent investigation into the matter.

Clad in similar Hawaiian shirts often worn by Mr Wanchalearm, they urged people to use #6MonthsOnWeShallNotForget on social media to discuss the issue further.

Bangkok Post

Police have summoned two teenaged leaders of the “Bad Student” group to answer charges of violating an emergency decree by taking part in an anti-government rally on Oct 15.

The summonses issued on Tuesday called on Benjamaporn “Ploy” Nivas, 15, and Lopnaphat “Min” Wangsit, 17, to report to Lumpini police on Nov 30. Pol Maj Gen Yingyos Thepchamnong, a spokesman for the Royal Thai Police, said the two would be questioned in the presence of their parents and a lawyer.

The Bad Student Facebok page on Friday posted images of the police documents and a message: “Urgent! Ploy Benjamaporn, a Mathayom Suksa 4 student, and Min Lopnaphat, a Mathayom Suksa 6 student, received police summonses for violating the emergency decree. This is intimidation by the state against youths aged below 18. Is the country called the ‘land of compromise’ as said? Should every group move ‘one step back’ as said?”

The last sentence was a reference to a brief remark by His Majesty the King, who recently called Thailand the “land of compromise”, and to a request Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha made for those involved the political conflict to take “one step back”.

Thai media reported that the summons had been issued in connection with the students’ roles in the rally on Oct 15 at the Ratchaprasong intersection in Bangkok. The two made speeches there.

The event took place just after Gen Prayut declared a “serious emergency” in the capital in an attempt to stop protests from taking place. He rescinded the order a week later as it was proving difficult to enforce.

The media quoted Thai Lawyers for Human Rights as saying that Benjamaporn was the fourth person aged under 18 facing a case related to recent political gatherings.

“Even if you arrest protest leaders, there is not enough space in prison because hundreds more will rise up,” Benjamaporn told Reuters in an instant message.

The Bad Student group is planning a protest on Saturday and Benjamaporn said she would still attend.

Bangkok Post

Parit ‘Penguin’ Chiwarak, a student activist who has been advocating monarchy reform, has received a police summons for violating Section 112 of the Criminal Code and the Computer Crime Act. A list from a police source shows charges against 11 more activists are expected to follow.

Parit posted a photo of the summons which he received at his home on 24 November. The issue date is 23 November 2020 and the name of the plaintiff is Sudhep Silpa-ngam. The offence is not specified. The summons orders Parit to hear the charge at the Technology Crime Suppression Division on 1 December 2020.

As of 25 November, Parit has recieved 2 more summons from his speech at the protests on 19-20 September and 14 November. The former protest charge is to be heard at the police station and the latter one is the sedition law violation.

Parit’s Facebook post shows that he is not worried.

“To whoever is the mastermind in enforcing this Section. I want to tell you here that I am not in the least afraid.

“The ceiling has broken. There will be nothing able to cover us anymore.”

According to Matichon, Royal Thai Police Headquarters report that investigation officers in many areas have issued summonses to 12 leading figures of the current pro-democracy protesters for violating Section 112 of the Criminal Code:

Parit ‘Penguin’ Chiwarak
Panussaya ‘Rung’ Sitthijirawattanakul
Panupong ‘Mike’ Jadnok
Anon Nampa
Patsaravalee ‘Mind’ Tanakitvibulpon
Chanin Wongsri
Jutatip ‘Ua’ Sirikhan
Piyarat ‘Toto’ Chongthep
Tattep ‘Ford’ Ruangprapaikitseree
Atthapol ‘Khru Yai’ Buapat
Chukiat Saengwong
Sombat Thongyoi

The reactivation of the lèse majesté law came after Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha announced that every law would be used against the pro-democracy protesters after the protest in front of the Royal Thai Police HQ on 18 November.

According to the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, the lèse majesté law has not been brought to the court since 2018. Lèse majesté charges have been replaced with charges for sedition (Section 116) and under the Computer Crime Act. This comes after new procedures were introduced requiring the lèse majesté charges to receive prior vetting, unlike in the past where effectively anyone could file a complaint.

The lèse majesté law carries prison terms of 3-15 years for those found guilty of defaming, insulting, or threatening the King, the Queen, the Heir to the throne, or the Regent.

The charges have been brought as the protesters planned to protest again on 25 November at the Crown Property Bureau (CPB). The area around the CPB was later reinforced with razor wire and surrounding roads were blocked by shipping containers. Around 6,000 police officers were deployed to secure the area.

Despite a coup denial from Gen Narongpan Jitkaewthae, the Royal Thai Army Commander-in-Chief, there have been reports that military forces are being mobilized in a suspicious way in connection with the CPB protest.

On 24 November, Khaosod English livestream found people sitting around the perimeter of the CPB in private clothes but with military or police haircuts. They refused to be interviewed at all. At 22.00 on the same day, 4 military vehicles were spotted at Mahanakhon intersection, carrying people in private clothes and with police/military haircuts.

The protesters then announced a change of the protest site to the Siam Commercial Bank (SCB) main office at Ratchayothin. SCB's main stakeholder is King Vajiralongkorn. The stocks were transferred from the CPB, the organization that controlled royal assets on behalf of monarchy, to His Majesty’s personal property along with many other assets in 2018 due to the changes enacted in the Crown Property Act.

Prachatai

A well-known music industry executive has filed a lese majeste complaint against Panusaya “Rung” Sithijirawattanakul, a co-leader of the People’s Movement.

Nitipong Hornak, a prolific songwriter, founder and major shareholder of Grammy Entertainment, filed the complaint with the police Technology Crime Suppression Division on Friday afternoon, according to the Facebook page of the centre for legal aid for online bullying victims.

It was not known which incident Mr Nitipong cited in his accusation. But Ms Panusaya was the first person to publicly read out the 10-point manifesto of a Thammasat University group calling for reform of the monarchy at the university in April.

Mr Nitipong’s move came a day after Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha vowed to use all laws to maintain order amid almost daily protests by pro-democracy activists.

The prime minister admitted a day later that Section 112 of the Criminal Code would be no exception. In June, he had said that His Majesty the King had shown mercy and told him not to use the harsh law against people.

Each count of a lese majeste charge — insults, threats or defamation of leading royals — carries a term of 3-15 years in jail.

Other laws have been used in its place over the past few years. They are the Computer Crimes Act, which carries penalties from 5-10 years and/or fines from 20,000 to 100,000 baht, and the national security law (Section 116 of the Criminal Code) for charges such as sedition, which carries jail terms up to seven years.

Critics of Section 112 say it is disproportionate to the alleged crime, and that courts tend to broadly interpret the law. As well, since it carries a harsh penalty, the court traditionally does not allow bail for suspects.

Ms Panusaya and several of her colleagues in the youth-led movement spent several days in jail last month in connection with other charges related to their campaign, before being released on bail.

Bangkok Post

On 26 November 2020, the Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court in Mumbai, rejected human rights defender Stan Swamy’s request for a straw, a sipper bottle and winter clothing. The human rights defender suffers from Parkinson's and therefore is unable to hold a cup and drink from it, hence the need for a straw and sipper bottle. During the hearing, the NIA told the special court that they did not have the requested items to give the defender and asked the court for 20 days to respond to the defender’s request. The judge directed a medical officer to revert back to the requirement of the requested items for the 83 year old human rights defender on 5 December 2020.

FLD

At 2 pm on November 26, political police officer Guo (last name) asked human rights activist Li Qiaochu to meet him in Beijing Haidian District. Instead of engaging in a typical, approximately hour-long session complying with a police officer’s request to meet to address a concern, officials detained Ms. Li overnight. The next day, November 27, however, authorities conditionally released Ms. Li to her parents.

For Ms. Li’s release and for her to avoid imprisonment at that time, police told her parents that they had to sign a guarantee Ms. Li would no longer communicate on the internet. Otherwise, authorities warned, they would imprison her. In addition, upon Ms. Li’s release, police confiscated her computer and cell phone.

Earlier this year, on February 2, police detained human rights defender Xu Zhiyong, On February 16, officials also detained 29-year-old Ms. Li, Mr. Xu’s girlfriend, one of the initiators of the New Citizens’ Movement. Authorities continued to detain Mr. Xu but released Ms. Li on bail soon after her arrest.

After her release, Ms. Li appealed for Mr. Xu‘s release. Her efforts, however, merited ongoing threats of detainment and obligatory meetings with Gua and other officers. In fall/winter 2017, Ms. Li, also a researcher of labor issues, had accompanied volunteers to gather information and share data with heavily affected communities following an incident where the “low-end population” of migrant workers in the Beijing district had been driven out. There, the group assisted workers who had lost their jobs and housing.

In 2018, Ms. Li actively participated in the “MeToo” movement against gender violence, supporting the movement on platforms such as Twitter. She often stood in solidarity with various prisoners of conscience and their families.

In June 2019, doctors diagnosed Ms. Li with depression and advised her that she needed long-term medication. Nevertheless, she continued to participate in activities as usual.

From the start of December 2019, authorities stationed public safety personnel at her house. They have also surveilled her routes to and from work.

In the past, due to Ms. Li’s human rights activism, police regularly harassed her, Now, also due to Ms. Li’s past human rights activism, police continue to monitor her, violating her privacy and civil rights.

Now, in addition to police harassing and monitoring Ms. Li and violating her rights, she lives with the threat officials will imprison her if she communicates online.

ChinaAid

Sunday, November 30, Justice Bureau authorities phoned Beijing Lawyer Wang Yu informing her that the Chinese Government had revoked her license to practice law. Lawyer Wang had defended human rights activist Yu Wensheng, arrested in January 2018, currently imprisoned in Jiangsu, China. Since authorities sieged Mr. Yu, they have not only denied his wife’s visitation rights, they have revoked his rights to communicate with others, and have turned down requests for him to obtain dental treatment. Lawyer Wang has provided support and stood by Ms. Xu Yan, Mr. Yu’s wife, who has continued to fight for her husband’s rights during his detention.

On November 29, the day authorities revoked Lawyer Wang’s license, she and her husband, Lawyer Bao Longjun, joined with several other human rights lawyers, including Xie Yanyi, Wen Donghai, and Cheng Hai, to host a modest event to advocate for Mr. Yu. The support group petitioned the High People’s Court of Jiangsu to open trials on Mr. Yu’s case and allow his wife to visit him in prison.

As the first human rights lawyer arrested in the "709 incident,"* and because Lawyer Wang has helped Ms. Xu fight for Mr. Yu's rights, as well as helped many others defend their rights, she contravened the Chinese Communist Party CCP authorities’ taboo.

China typically resorts to implementing a series of suppressions toward human rights activists for example, lawyers face deliberate obstacles when representing human rights cases. In severe situations, they face the risk of police detaining them. If detained, the lawyer’s legal counsel also faces the risk of detainment for representing dissenting cases. Lawyer Wang’s case depicts this scenario.

In 2015, China’s President Xi Jinping initiated an action plan to weaken nascent human rights movements. CCP authorities apprehended Lawyer Wang in accordance with this plan. Authorities also arrested Lawyer Li Yuhan, Wang’s lawyer, currently serving her sentence in Liaoning, Shengyang. While defending Lawyer Li, Li Boguang, the lawyer who represented her, suddenly died in Jiangsu, Nanjing.

During the process of defending others, the four related lawyers suffered a series of persecutions. In January of 2016, authorities arrested Lawyer Wang, charging her for state subversion. After her imprisonment at a detention center in Tianjin, authorities released Lawyer Wang in July 2016.

As a lawyer’s livelihood depends on practicing law, revoking his or her license to practice law significantly impacts the survival of the individuals’ and his or her families’ survival. The CCP's current practice of revoking licenses of lawyers who defend human rights blatantly deprives them of their right to survive. CCP authorities also revoked the license to practice law for Lawyer Wang’s husband for representing human rights cases.

Human rights lawyer Chen Jiangang, exiled to America, said: “Both the husband and wife, have been deprived of their way out. Xi Jinping is the number one murderer, the chief CCP oppressor of human rights. Xi Jinping’s era does not allow for real lawyers.”

Lawyer Wang did not violate any laws or regulations during her time practicing law. Governing judicial organs forcibly revoked her license to practice law, against her own will. According to article 49 of “Lawyers’ Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the provincial judicial administration can revoke the lawyer’s license only if the circumstances of violation were severe.

For the first trial of a person accused of a crime, due process should define the Justice Bureau’s legitimacy and rationality. Only after confirmation can officials instruct the second deviation. Therefore, the punitive measures authorities imposed on Lawyer Wang violated her constitutional and legal rights, a serious crime.

The CCP perceives the human rights movement as a threat to its regime. Therefore, those like Lawyer Wang, who help wrongly accused and imprisoned rights defenders, as well as their defense lawyers, may also be wrongfully imprisoned. The authorities’ approach aims to put human rights activists in a situation where they’re isolated and without aid. Their ultimate goal? To shake the will of human rights workers.

In her work to help and defend human rights activists, as Lawyer Wang did not violate the law, the CCP’s punishment, revoking her license to practice law lacked justification. *Denotes the large-scale unified arrest in July of 2015 when CCP officials sieged more than 300 Chinese human rights defenders.

ChinaAid

Prosecutors claimed Ressa's tweeting of a Philstar.com story published in 2002 was malicious. The news group, saying it was threatened with legal action, took down the article the same day Ressa tweeted the screenshot.

This is uncharted territory for the new Philippine cybercrime law. Ressa filed a motion to quash on Wednesday, December 2, citing a Supreme Court decision that says aiding and abetting a cyber crime is not a crime in itself. In this context, it refers to tweeting screenshots of a supposedly libelous article.

The complaint was filed in February 2020 in Makati by businessman Wilfredo Keng, whose earlier suit in Manila got Ressa and former researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr convicted of cyber libel in June this year. The conviction is on appeal at the Court of Appeals (CA).

In charging Ressa before a Makati court on November 23, Makati prosecutors said that the journalist's tweeting of screenshots was not a mere act of sharing – an act, which the Supreme Court ruled, could not be described as criminal because it constitutes knee-jerk internet reaction.

Advertisement

"Obviously, the foregoing cannot be considered a knee-jerk reaction on the part of respondent, hence, she should be liable for the consequences of her Twitter post," said the resolution signed by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Mark Anthony Nuguit, and approved by Senior Assistant City Prosecutors Aris Saldua-Manguera and Roberto Lao.

The motion to quash prepared by Ressa's lawyer Ted Te of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), said: "(Ressa) is not the author of the defamatory PhilStar.com article, she cannot be made liable for sharing or RT’ing the content under Section 4(c)(4) (online libel)."

Ressa posted bail on Friday, November 27, before Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 147 Judge Maria Amifaith S. Fider-Reyes, who issued the arrest warrant that same day and set bail at P24,000. This is Ressa's 9th arrest warrant for what she claims are "politically motivated charges" meant to intimidate her. PhilStar takes down its story

The case stemmed from a tweet that Ressa posted on February 16, 2019, three days after the journalist was arrested for the Manila case.

Ressa tweeted screenshots of an August 12, 2002 Philstar.com article linking Keng to an alleged murder. On the same day in February 2019, Philstar.com issued a statement that said it had removed the 2002 news story from its site because, according to the news organization, Keng had raised "the possibility of legal action" against the company.

Advertisement

Ressa had argued to prosecutors that when the Supreme Court upheld the Cybercrime Law, it declared unconstitutional the provision that punishes the aiding and abetting of a cybercrime which, in this context, means sharing a supposedly libelous post.

"Except for the original author of the assailed statement, the rest (those who pressed Like, Comment and Share) are essentially knee-jerk sentiments of readers who may think little or haphazardly of their response to the original posting," the Supreme Court had said.

"Its vagueness raises apprehension on the part of internet users because of its obvious chilling effect on the freedom of expression, especially since the crime of aiding or abetting ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace front in a fuzzy way," the Supreme Court added.

Posting of screenshots of deleted articles and posts have been a habit of gutsy Filipino social media users as a way of protesting revisionism, for example. Not a mere share

In Ressa's case, Makati prosecutors said the journalist's posting of the screenshot "involved a series of physical acts and mental or decision-making processes," citing as example the effort to search for the deleted article, screenshot it, post it on Twitter and make a caption.

"(The Supreme Court) opined that online libel (is not applicable) to others who merely pressed like, comment and share because these are essentially knee-jerk sentiments of readers who may think little or haphazardly of their response to the original posting. In this instant complaint, respondent did not merely press the share button," said the prosecutors.

Advertisement

Ressa's motion to quash argued that the only content that the journalist should be accountable for is the accompanying caption of the screenshots, which was: “Here’s the 2002 article on the ‘private businessman’ who filed the cyberlibel case, which was thrown out by the NBI then revived by the DOJ. #HoldTheLine”

"By any reasonable and unbiased reading, the sentence is not defamatory—read singly, none of the words are; read together, the sentence is not. The sentence is correct, true, and factual," said the motion.

Before filing the complaint, Keng demanded in November 2019 that Ressa delete the tweet and make a public apology "otherwise we shall be constrained to file a complaint for cyber libel against you."

Ressa had said she will never delete the tweet, reasoning, "Imagine if I said, 'Well, this a really, really small thing and maybe I'll just step back just a little bit,' and then I step back a thousand times and a million times, then I've just lost all my rights."

Ressa faces 7 other charges before the Court of Tax Appeals and the Pasig City Regional Trial Court, stemming from the mother case over the company's Philippine Depositary Receipts (PDRs), which the Court of Appeals (CA) has ruled to be already cured.

Rappler

On 26 November 2020, the Linyi Municipal Public Security Bureau in Shandong province once again rejected the request of the lawyer of human rights defender Ding Jiaxi to meet his client. The Public Security Bureau said that, as Ding Jiaxi is facing national security charges, allowing him access to legal counsel would "impede the investigation" or result in the "leaking of State secrets".

FLD

Fears are growing over the health and well-being of rights lawyer Chang Weiping, who is currently in detention on suspicion of "incitement to subvert state power" in the northern Chinese province of Shaanxi, his family says after being allowed to visit him.

Shaanxi authorities allowed the Nov. 25 meeting after Chang's family and lawyers lodged official complaints about his incommunicado detention under "residential surveillance at a designated location (RSDL)" following his description of his torture during an earlier period in detention.

Chang's visit with father Chang Shuanming took place at a police station in Shaanxi's Baoji city, a source close to the family told RFA on Wednesday.

During the 10-minute visit, Chang appeared significantly thinner than before, and spoke slowly, the source said. He was also concerned that his wife might give interviews.

"From his father's description, he was exhausted, ... his eyes were red, and he spoke as if he was reciting something by heart," the source said. "His reactions were also slow, suggesting that he has probably been tortured."

There were also signs that the second detention was taking a psychological toll. As his father left, Chang shouted out to him, saying he no longer wished to live, the source said.

"His father said that when they came to say goodbye, Chang shouted out with all his strength that he didn't want to live any more," the source said.

Family threatened by police

Baoji police had pursued Chang's wife all the way to her place of work in the southern city of Shenzhen to put pressure on her not to speak out about his case, the source said.

"His father is a veteran member of the [ruling Chinese Communist] Party, and [Chang's] wife works in Shenzhen," the source said. "They even went to Shenzhen to find his wife and her employer, to threaten her and stop her speaking up on behalf of her husband."

"They have done everything in their power to threaten the family, making it harder for them to talk to the outside world about their grievances," he said, adding that the visit was also likely allowed in a bid to limit negative publicity.

Sources said two lawyers previously hired to represent Chang have now dropped the case under intense police pressure.

Repeated calls to Chang Shuanming's cell phone rang unanswered on Wednesday.

Tortured in detention

Qi An, a researcher with the London-based rights group Amnesty International, said Chang had already made a video describing his torture at the hands of the authorities during an earlier 10-day period of RSDL in January 2020.

"In the video, he mentions that he was put in a tiger chair," Qi said. "Human rights experts including the United Nations have said that RSDL in itself is a violation of human rights."

"Suspects in RSDL aren't allowed to see family or a lawyer, making it hard to verify whether someone has been tortured," Qi said.

The aim of the torture appears to be to extract a "confession" and guilty plea from suspects, Qi said.

"Many people say after they are released from RSDL that the authorities wanted them to plead guilty or provide some information," Qi said. "Of course, we don't know what information the authorities may want from Chang Weiping, but there is an operation to crack down on any of the rights activists or lawyers who took part in the Xiamen gathering."

Chang was taken away from his home by police in Baoji city in China's northern province of Shaanxi, on Oct. 22, on suspicion of "incitement to subvert state power."

The arrest came six days after he posted a video on YouTube sharing details of his torture.

Chang's January detention came after rights lawyer Ding Jiaxi and activists Zhang Zhongshun and Dai Zhenya were detained following a meeting with New Citizens' Movement founder Xu Zhiyong, who was himself later detained after publishing an open letter calling on CCP general secretary Xi Jinping to step down.

RFA

Rakesh Singh Nirbhek, a reporter working for Rashtriya waroop newspaper and his friend Pintu Sahu were assaulted and suffered fatal burn wounds when his house set on fire by three assailants in the journalist’s house in Kalwari village. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and its Indian affiliates the Indian Journalists Union (IJU) and National Union of Journalists (NUJ-I) condemn this heinous murder and urge the authorities to hold its perpetrators accountable.

On November 27, Singh’s house was burnt down, causing serious burn injuries to him and his friend Pintu Sahu, who died on the spot , while Singh died hours later at King George's Medical University’s Trauma.

Minutes before dying, the journalist said the attack was due to his reporting on corruption by the Kalwari village head Sushila Devi and her son. “This is the price for reporting the truth,” he said in a video recorded by the police at the hospital.

The Balrampur police arrested the son of the village head and two other suspects who were allegedly involved in the crime. They all confessed to the crime and were sent to jail on December 1.

Singh’s reported on the alleged corrupt practices of the village major Sushila Devi over the installation of solar panels and the construction of roads and sewage facilities.

Singh is the second journalist murdered because of his reporting in November alone. Earlier, G. Moses, a reporter for Tamilian TV, was murdered in a western suburb of Kundrathru, following his coverage of illegal land grabbing. Impunity for crimes against journalists in India is rampant.

The IJU president Geetartha Pathak said: “The IJU expresses serious concerns over this murder and frequent attacks, arrests and other forms of media right’s violations in Uttar Pradesh. The IJU urges for exemplary punishment to the murderers of Rakesh Singh Nirbheek.”

The NUJ-I President Ras Bihari said: “We strongly condemn the gruesome murder of journalist Singh, appeal the state government to set up a high-level judicial commission to probe the incident and punish those behind the murder.”

The IFJ General Secretary Anthony Bellanger said: “The horrible murder of Rakesh Singh for his reporting exposes the critical situation of journalists in India. The IFJ urges the Indian authorities to end impunity for crimes against media workers and punish those responsible for this crime regardless of their political affiliation.”

IFJ

Peasant organizations and Anakpawis Partylist denounced the arrest of Amanda Echanis and her one-month old son.

Amanda is the daughter of extrajudicially killed Randall “Ka Randy’ Echanis. She was arrested early morning of December 2, Tuesday, in Baggao, Cagayan.

It was 3:30 a.m. of December 2 when combined forces of police and military raided the house of Isabelo Adviento of Danggayan Dagiti Mannalo ti Cagayan Valley, regional chapter of peasant organization Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas, without search warrant. The raiding team showed a search warrant one hour later.

Amanda’s house is just three houses away from Adviento’s and was also raided. She was then arrested together with her one-month old newborn, Randall Emmanuel. She was charged with illegal possession of firearms and explosives.

Former Anakpawis Partylist Representative Ariel Casilao condemned what he called as planting of evidence against activist, adding that this not at all new and has been a practice by state forces in an attempt to silence dissent.

Adviento was not at home at the time of the raid. His family members were reportedly ordered to go out of the house during the duration of the search.

The police reportedly found an M16 assault rifle, 1 long plastic magazine for M16 rifle, 1 long steel magazine for M16 Rifle, 6 pieces live ammunition for M16 Rifle, 13 pieces live ammunition for M16 rifle, 1 live ammo for M16 rifle.

“She is with her one-month old newborn. Why would she keep high-powered arms and ammunition that everyone would know would be dangerous to herself and her baby,” Casilao said.

Casilao likened Amanda’s case to those of Reina Mae Nasino and Cora Agovida from Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) – Metro Manila and Gabriela respectively.

Casilao said that Echanis, who is a member of Amihan – Cagayan, “is active in campaign for the welfare of small farmers, especially peasant women.”

Adviento, meanwhile, has been active in promoting human rights in the region and handles farmers’ concerns regarding land rights in their community. Of late, he has been busy helping fellow farmers who have been affected by the massive flooding caused by typhoon Ulysses.

“Before the raid, we have been working extra hours to give victims of typhoon here in our province necessary aid,” Adviento said.

It was only late morning that day of the raid when he knew his house was raided, and his family members including his small children kicked out of the house.

His wife said that when she tried to go inside their house to get hot water, she saw unfamiliar plastic bags in their living room. Adviento believes it contains the evidence used against at him.

“It is the very place where my children would play,” he lamented.

Despite the trumped-up charges, Adviento said that he and his colleagues will continue to “serve the people.”

Bulatlat

Activist Ammar Ali Jan on Friday narrowly escaped arrest from Lahore's Charing Cross, where he was attending a student protest.

The activist had left the protest venue along with his friends in a car which was followed by a police van. Jan's vehicle was stopped by law enforcement officials at Gulberg Main Boulevard, from where he was taken to a police check post.

Following negotiations with policemen, Jan and his friends were allowed to leave with the assurance that they would appear before the station house officer of the Civil Lines police station within two hours.

In a statement to Dawn, however, Jan said that his lawyer would appear on his behalf and the activist will approach the court for pre-arrest bail on Monday.

Jan's arrest orders were issued by the Lahore deputy commissioner on Thursday under Section 3 (power to arrest and detain suspected persons) of the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance. According to the order, Jan was a "potential danger to public peace, law and order situation" and must be detained "in order to keep the law and order situation in the city". Under the charge, the activist would remain under arrest for 30 days.

"There is credible information that [Jan], along with his accomplices, will create law and order situation and cause harassment among the general public," the order read. Jan was the only person whose arrest orders were issued.

The Lahore-based academic was attending a protest, which was being held to highlight the issues being faced by students in Pakistan. Every year, students and activists come together to arrange a Student Solidarity March across the country, however, this year a protest was held due to Covid-19.

Dawn

Hundreds of farmers from Punjab and Haryana marched towards Delhi with tractor-trailers on Wednesday to protest against the Centre’s agriculture-related laws, prompting the Haryana Government to deploy their police force in large numbers and invoke Section 144 of the CrPC to prevent assembly of protesters.

Haryana's government under Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar had ordered borders between Punjab and Haryana to be closed in an attempt to force the protesters back---a development that farmers criticised later as an attempt to silence them.

In Haryana's Kurukshetra, farmers tore down police barricades near Shahabad and were heading towards Pipli. Haryana Police used water cannons to unsuccessfully scatter the crowd. In

Karnal, police put up a check point at Oasis Tourist Complex on the National Highway 44. Protesters stopped to set up camp near Karnal's Samanabahu village for the night. They will resume their march to Delhi on Thursday.

Meanwhile, the protest march led to traffic jams on the NH-44, catching out several commuters, including wedding parties with grooms. Harried commuters now accuse authorities of not diverting traffic in advance.

"Today is my wedding and we left for Delhi from Ludhiana at 11 am, and we had to reach in Delhi before 8pm and now we are here in Karnal at 8.30pm. There’s still no clarity of how long this will take to clear,” a groom stuck in the traffic jam said.

Also, the police had taken nearly 100 farmer leaders from the state into "preventive custody".

As per the police estimates, around 2,00,000 farmers from Punjab are set to leave for Delhi as part of their 'Delhi Chalo' agitation from November 26.

Farmer body Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) President Balbir Singh Rajewal said Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar has got sealed the interstate borders for Punjab farmers to prove that "Punjab is not part of India".

"We will peacefully block the routes to Himachal and Jammu and Kashmir. Will start dharna on the roads," he tweeted.

Rajewal questioned Khattar for refusing to give passage to the farmers to go to the national capital.

At a press interaction in Rohtak, Inderjit Singh, a senior leader of All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (AIKSCC), condemned the sealing of the borders and demanded an anser from Deputy Chief Minister Dushyant Chautala for the police action against farmers.

"Dushyant claims himself to be a big well wisher of the farmers but why he is keeping mum when the farmers are being suppressed by the police at the instance of his government,” he said.

Farmers affiliated to 33 organisations are part of the United Farmers Front, an all-India body of over 470 farmer unions that will participate in the indefinite protest in the national capital from November 26.

The protesting farmers have threatened to block all roads to Delhi if they were denied permission to travel towards Delhi.

The Delhi Police asked the farmers not to enter Delhi as they don't have permission to protest in the city.

Haryana Police too have issued a travel advisory, asking commuters to avoid certain national highways along the state border with Punjab and Delhi for three days, starting Wednesday, in the wake of the protest.

Road blockades have been put at several places along the state border as per Chief Minister Khattar's directive to ensure "law and order", the police said.

A state police spokesperson told IANS that elaborate arrangements have been made by the civil and police administration.

The primary objective of these arrangements is to maintain proper law and order to prevent any kind of violence, facilitate functioning of traffic and public transport systems and to ensure public peace and order.

The spokesperson said a large number of protesters are likely to enter Haryana from Punjab through various border entry points for their onward journey towards Delhi.

The main focus points of the protestors originating from within Haryana will be the four major national highways leading towards Delhi, i.e., Ambala to Delhi, Hisar to Delhi, Rewari to Delhi and Palwal to Delhi.

A specific call has been given by protesting organisations for congregation at Shambhu border near Ambala city, Mundhal Chowk in Bhiwani district, Anaj Mandi in Gharaunda town in Karnal district, Tikri border in Bahadurgarh town in Jhajjar district, and the Rajiv Gandhi Education City in Rai in Sonipat district.

The spokesperson said that to ensure appropriate law and order arrangement, it is likely that the traffic diversion or roadblocks may be put up by the police on November 25, 26 and 27.

Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh on Tuesday welcomed the Centre's decision to take forward the talks with various farmer organisation on the farm laws issue in Delhi on December 3.

He said the forthcoming talks would pave the way for early redressal of the concerns of the farmers on the Central agricultural laws.

Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU-Ekta Dakonda) President Buta Singh Burjgill said the 'langar' (free meal service) will go on until the Central government takes back the laws.

"It will be a historic protest in Delhi amid the presence of two lakh farmers. We won't go back from our protest even half an inch." Farmers protesting against the laws have expressed apprehension that these laws would pave the way for the dismantling of the minimum support price system, leaving them at the 'mercy' of big corporate entities.

Tribune India

Several unions have called for protest rally against farm laws on Nov. 26, 27

Around two dozen farmer leaders were taken into preventive custody by the Haryana Police on Tuesday early morning in raids across the State, ahead of the farmers groups’ two-day call for “Dilli Chalo” on November 26 and 27 to protest against the farm laws. The arrests sparked off protests in many parts of the State with various farmers’ and workers’ unions condemning the action as “undemocratic”. Midnight clampdown

In a post-midnight clampdown in several districts, including Jhajjar, Hisar, Sirsa, Karnal and Bhiwani, police teams mounted raids at the houses of farmer leaders and took them in preventive custody. Jhajjar Superintendent of Police Rajesh Duggal told The Hindu that nine farmer leaders were arrested and sent to judicial custody.

Swaraj India national president Yogendra Yadav, in a press conference during the day, claimed that at least 31 farmer leaders were detained in raids across the State in the early hours. He said the farmers were committed to peaceful and disciplined demonstration against the farm laws, but the Haryana government seemed bent on creating anarchy by arresting the movement’s leadership. He said the government was nervous and resorting to crackdown to suppress the “historic movement”.

Mr. Yadav said farmers groups were committed to their call for “Dilli Chalo” and made an appeal to all citizens, citizen groups and political and democratic outfits to raise their voice against the crackdown.

More than 500 farmers groups across the country have given the call to march to Delhi on November 26 and 27 to hold a protest against the farm laws at Jantar Mantar. Mr. Yadav said that farmers from five States – Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand – were scheduled to gather at five points on November 26 morning and march towards Delhi. “Four of these assembly points are in Haryana at Sampla, Panchgaon, Sector 12 Faridabad and Kundli border,” said Mr. Yadav. He added that delegations from 15 more States were expected to join the protest.

Later, angry protesters assembled at Rohtak’s Mansarovar park and took out a protest march to mini secretariat in protest against the arrests of the farmer leaders. Kisan Sabha vice president Inderjit Singh criticised the BJP-JJP alliance government.

Hindu

Police fired tear gas and used water cannons Friday as thousands of farmers from northern India marched to protest new laws that the government says will revolutionize the farm sector but which farmers fear will expose them to exploitation by big corporations.

Scuffles erupted on the outskirts of New Delhi as angry farmers pressed against heavily guarded concrete barricades set up along the city's border to stop the marchers. Waving flags and shouting slogans, some tried to remove the barriers.

Many farmers have traveled on their tractors and motorcycles from the northern farming state of Punjab, vowing to camp in the Indian capital until the government amends the recent laws.

It was the second day that farmers clashed with police. On Thursday security personnel used water cannons on farmers as they traveled through neighboring Haryana state to reach Delhi.

Hours after the farmers demanded to know why they were not being allowed to protest, police announced that they would be allowed to enter the city.

Criticizing the use of what he called "brute force," Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh said the government should initiate "immediate talks to address farmers' concerns on the farm laws and resolve the simmering issue."

The contentious legislation, passed in September, aims to reform decades-old laws under which farmers mostly sell their produce through state-run wholesale markets at prices set by the government and paves the way for them to sell their produce to private companies.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has described the new laws as "historic" and said they will increase farmers' incomes, boost productivity and liberate farmers from dependence on middlemen. Supporters of the legislation say it could draw in private investment and help modernize Indian agriculture.

However, Indian farmers, who have long been protected from the free market, fear that the removal of government controls will leave them with little bargaining power with large corporations and force them to sell their produce at cheaper prices. While they have been demanding better prices for their crops, they worry that the new laws will further depress rural incomes.

Nearly half of India's population depends on agriculture, but it accounts for just 17% of India's gross domestic product. Most of the farmers own small plots of land, have tiny incomes and are often in debt.

Food and farm policy analyst, Devinder Sharma said the scale of the protests shows that farmers are "not in tune" with the government's plans.

"At no stage were the farmers of India consulted about it," Sharma said.

"The result," he said, "is that it is industry and markets who are excited about it, while the farmers are convinced it will be detrimental to them."

The farmers say they will continue their protest until the government rolls back the reforms. Many have come prepared for a long haul with their vehicles stacked with provisions and even cooking gas cylinders.

VoA News

On November 10, 2020, Beijing No. 2 Intermediate Court convicted activist Zhang Baocheng (张宝成) of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” and “promoting terrorism, extremism, and inciting execution of terrorist activities” and handed down a 3.5-year prison sentence; three years for the “picking quarrels” charge and 8 months for the terrorism charge. The sentencing hearing followed an August 18 trial. Zhang appealed against his conviction on November 16. The court convicted Zhang of using the Internet, especially Twitter, to send out or share videos and information that “smear and insult the country’s leadership, oppose the Communist Party, split the state, harm ethnic unity and insult judicial organs.” One type of post cited included Zhang raising awareness of the plight of imprisoned activist Huang Qi’s elderly mother Pu Wenqing. Zhang was convicted of sending 1 video about East Turkestan (Xinjiang) which authorities said touched on “violent terrorism and extremism.” Beijing police initially seized Zhang on May 28, 2019, ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre. He was not granted access to his lawyers until October 2019. Zhang Baocheng is currently being detained at Beijing No. 3 Detention Center and is expected to be released in November 2022.

NCHRD

Activist Zhou Weilin (周维林) went on trial on charges of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” on November 20, 2020 in a closed-door hearing at Feidong County Court in Anhui Province. Guards blocked the entrance to the courthouse and lawyers Liang Xiaojun (梁小军) and Wu Li (吴莉) had to be escorted inside by the trial judge. The court refused to allow Zhou’s supporters inside to observe or testify in his defence. Zhou and his lawyers were allowed to speak during the trial. The hearing ended without a sentence being pronounced. The charges against Zhou are related to his comments on Twitter and for writing articles for the human rights website Rights Defence Network (维权网). Police initially detained Zhou on March 12, 2020 and he has been held at Feidong County Detention Center.

NCHRD

Wan Yiu-sing, an internet radio reporter and his wife were arrested this morning on suspicion of money laundering and financing of secessionist activities. The news was reported by the couple's lawyer and a note on Wan's Facebook page, familiarly called "Giggs". His secretary was also arrested for money laundering.

"Giggs" (in the photo) hosts a program on the D100 channel, in which he often addressed issues related to last year’s pro-democracy demonstrations. In February he also opened a fundraiser to help young people from Hong Kong who go to Taiwan to study.

Police believe this money is used to finance young people who fled Hong Kong because they are involved in secession activities, punishable under the new security law, wanted by Beijing for the territory. The law prohibits and punishes acts and activities of secession, subversion, terrorism and collaboration with foreign forces that endanger national security.

According to the special national security police, those arrested used part of these funds to send them to organizations engaged in secessionist activities.

Requested by various media to give more details, political commissioner Chris Tang said he could not reveal more details, given that the investigation is still ongoing.

Asia News

Democracy activists Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow, and Ivan Lam on Monday pleaded guilty to public order charges in a Hong Kong court hearing, before being held in police custody pending a sentencing hearing scheduled for Dec. 2.

Wong, 24, admitted organizing an illegal assembly, while Chow pleaded guilty to taking part in an illegal assembly, while all three pleaded guilty to inciting people to attend an illegal gathering, charges which carry maximum jail terms of three years.

"Hang in there, everyone, keep going!" Wong told the court, before being taken away by correctional service officers.

Lam raised his hand, palm and fingers splayed to signify the five demands of last year's protest movement, while Chow made no response to the decision to hold the three in custody pending sentencing.

Dozens of supporters chanted "Release Joshua Wong! Release Agnes Chow! Release Ivan Lam" outside the court building, as well as repeating the five demands of the protest movement, which include fully democratic elections and accountability for widespread police violence.

The three were formerly leaders of the political party Demosisto, which disbanded just before the ruling Chinese Communist Party imposed a draconian national security law on Hong Kong on July 1, banning peaceful criticism of the authorities.

Wong had earlier told reporters that he wouldn't be surprised if the three were placed behind bars following the hearing at West Kowloon Magistrate's Court.

He said 23 activists, journalist, and democratic politicians had been arrested as the crackdown on peaceful dissent gathered pace.

Many arrests and raids have come after their targets were denounced in the pro-China media or by Chinese officials.

Defense lawyers called on the court to take into account the youth of the defendants and the fact that Chow, who, unlike Wong and Lam has never served time in jail before, had no prior convictions.

Magistrate Lily Wong said she would rule out a community service sentence for Lam due to his previous convictions.

Expected to be jailed

Joshua Wong, who was out on bail before the hearing, had earlier told reporters the trio had decided to plead guilty to avoid interrogation and investigation.

"But it also means that the three of us could be remanded in custody immediately," he said, calling on Hongkongers to support each other.

"We will want to call on the people of Hong Kong at this difficult time of white terror and persecution under the national security law ... to support each other through this low point in the pro-democracy movement," he said.

Chow said she felt "uneasy" at the thought of going to jail for the first time.

"It's entirely likely that I may be in jail for the first time in my life, and I have a lot of anxiety about what the future will bring," she said.

"But never forget that there are brothers, sisters, and friends who have suffered far worse than us," she said, calling for greater public pressure on China over the 12 Hongkongers currently detained by Chinese police after trying to flee to democratic Taiwan by speedboat.

Lam said he had made mental preparation for being remanded in police custody pending sentencing.

"Our case ... shows that the legitimacy of the Hong Kong police force has been blown to smithereens," Lam said. "Was the siege of police headquarters a crime, or was it necessary to achieve justice and fight for democracy?"

"I believe that the people of Hong Kong know the answer to that already," he said. "We have no regrets, and we will keep up the struggle."

The case against Wong relied on public comments he made on June 21, 2019, ahead of a mass protest over police violence that resulted in the siege of police headquarters in Wanchai, as well as a message on his phone detailing the timing and arrangements for the protest.

On the day in question, crowds of mostly young people wearing black converged on immigration and tax headquarters in Wanchai, sparking temporary shutdowns of the offices, before gathering in their thousands outside police headquarters to call for the release of those already arrested, and to demand an apology for police violence against unarmed protesters the previous week.

Some activists barricaded a vehicle gate in the barbed-wire wall of the fortress-like compound, prevented police vans from getting in or out, and taped up CCTV cameras to avoid being identified. Others blocked nearby highways with makeshift walls, cones, and traffic barriers, taking over several major traffic routes.

Police in uniform lined up inside the glass atrium of their own headquarters, with officers watching warily as the crowd chanted "Release them! Release them!" and "Apologize! Apologize!" on the street outside, where someone had taped a large poster to the building that read "Struggle to the bitter end."

The crowd also chanted: "Retract the designation of rioting! Stop arresting citizens!"

London-based rights group Amnesty International had earlier condemned police violence during protests on June 12 as violating international law, after evaluating video footage of the clashes.

Wong joined the June 21 protest just three days after his release from an earlier jail sentence related to the 2014 Occupy Central pro-democracy movement.

'Poisoned judicial system'

The U.S.-based Hong Kong Hong Kong Democracy Council (HKDC) condemned the decision to remand Wong, Chow, and Lam in custody pending sentencing.

“We condemn Magistrate Lily Wong’s decision today to jail Wong, Chow, and Lam while awaiting sentencing for exercising their rights to protest," the group's managing director Samuel Chu said in a statement.

"Make no mistake, when they pled guilty in court today, it was not a judgment on them, but rather a judgment against a poisoned Hong Kong judiciary system no longer independent or capable of rendering justice," Chu said.

Since the beginning of November, Hong Kong authorities have arrested a public radio show producer, pro-democracy lawmakers, a primary school teacher, owners of small businesses who have expressed support for the protest, [among others], the HKDC said, calling for the trio to be released immediately.

"We cannot remain silent or surrender to the terror," it said.

RFA

Jailed Vietnamese activist Hoang Duc Binh is being refused family visits by prison authorities angered by his insistence on his innocence and refusal to wear prison uniform, Binh’s brother told RFA’s Vietnamese Service on Wednesday.

Binh’s brother Hoang Nguyen went on Tuesday to visit Binh at the An Diem Prison in in central Vietnam’s Quang Nam province, where he is serving a 14-year sentence on charges connected with environmental protests four years ago, Nguyen said.

“Yesterday, I went to see my brother at the An Diem detention camp, but the prison guards would not let me in to see him, saying that he was refusing to wear his prison uniform,” Nguyen said, adding that he had been turned away for the same reason in October after last being able to see Binh in June.

Nguyen said authorities’ refusal to allow the visit was recorded in the prison’s visitors log by an officer named Huynh Quang Dai, who noted that Binh was refusing to wear a prison uniform in violation of “Article 6, Circular 14 promulgated on Feb. 10, 2020 by the Minister of Public Security.”

A longtime labor and environmental activist, Binh was arrested on May 15, 2017, by police officers who dragged him from his car more than a year after protests over the government’s response to a waste spill in Vietnam the year before by a Taiwan-owned Formosa Plastics Group steel plant.

The spill killed an estimated 115 tons of fish and left fishermen jobless in four coastal provinces. Binh was later handed a 14-year prison term in February 2018 for “abusing democratic freedoms” and “obstructing officials in the performance of their duties” under Articles 257 and 258 of Vietnam’s Penal Code.

In July 2018, he was transferred without notice given to his family from his prison in his home province Nghe An to the An Diem Prison in Quang Nam province some 300 miles away. Citing ill health behind bars, he has since petitioned to be moved back to a detention facility closer to home.

Binh, a blogger on environmental issues, had also served as vice president of the Independent Viet Labor Movement and is a member of a soccer group that protests China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Vietnam has increasingly rounded up independent journalists, bloggers, and other dissident voices in recent months as authorities already intolerant of dissent seek to stifle critics in the run-up to the ruling Communist Party congress in January.

RFA

Authorities in Cambodia’s capital Phnom Penh broke up yet another protest by more than a dozen wives and relatives of jailed opposition activists Friday, less than a week ahead of a scheduled court hearing for more than 100 of the party’s members and representatives of nongovernmental organizations.

Friday’s protest marked the third time family members of detained activists with the banned Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) gathered in front of the Royal Palace, calling on King Norodom Sihamoni to grant clemency to their loved ones—most of whom have been jailed on “incitement” charges after expressing views critical of Prime Minister Hun Sen’s leadership.

The “Friday Wives,” as they are increasingly referred to, have held weekly demonstrations in the capital demanding that they be freed.

However, before the protesters could deliver a petition to representatives of the king, around 50 security personnel from Phnom Penh’s Daun Penh district violently dispersed them, pushing them and threatening them with arrest. The authorities also used loudspeakers to denounce local rights groups and the United Nations Human Rights Organization (UNHCR), who they accused—without presenting evidence—of facilitating the protest.

Ouk Chanthy, the wife of CNRP member Yim Sareth, told RFA’s Khmer Service that authorities kicked her in the leg during the confrontation, leaving her unable to walk.

She said it had been eight months since her husband lost his freedom and that she has been protesting in front of the Phnom Penh Municipal Court for his release, insisting that he committed no crime. She added that she has suffered both mentally and physically after being violently dispersed by the authorities during several protests.

Ouk Chanthy said she is very worried about the health of her husband, who suffers from high blood pressure and other ailments.

“I would like to call on national and international organizations, as well as the king, to please help us—we are women!” she said.

“All of us have suffered grave injustice. Since our husbands were incarcerated, the life of each family has deteriorated. Coming out to protest, we never know what we will face. But for the sake of our husbands, for the sake of our families, we must speak out to demand their release.”

Prim Chantha, the wife of CNRP member Kak Komphear, said authorities prohibited her group from shouting on the pretext that it “disturbed the king,” all while the authorities used loudspeakers to disperse people.

“The Phnom Penh Municipality should not have sent district security guards to disperse us violently like this,” she said. “We are women and every day we are like the living dead because they arrested our husbands.”

After being dispersed from the Royal Palace to a stupa in nearby Wat Botum pagoda, the women decided to proceed to the British Embassy to inquire about a past petition calling for London’s intervention. However, the authorities used vehicles and motorbikes to chase them as they walked to the site.

A representative of the embassy told the women that British Ambassador to Cambodia Tina Redshaw was not in her office.

Speaking to RFA, Ny Sokha—a worker with the Cambodian rights group ADHOC—slammed the authorities for their actions on Friday.

“The government, especially state authorities, has failed to guarantee that people enjoy their rights to non-violent protest, in accordance with the principles of human rights,” he said. “We have seen some liberal countries condemn these acts.” Nov. 26 hearing

Friday’s protest comes as the Phnom Penh Municipal Court announced plans to hear cases en masse against more than 100 CNRP members and NGO representatives on Nov. 26.

Political Commentator Meas Nee said the move could indicate that Hun Sen’s government hopes to conclude cases with the opposition and move towards political reconciliation.

Kem Sokha, president of the CNRP, was arrested in September 2017 over an alleged plot to overthrow the government with U.S. help. Cambodia’s Supreme Court banned his party in November that year for its supposed role in the scheme.

The move to dissolve the CNRP marked the beginning of a wider crackdown by Hun Sen on the political opposition, NGOs, and the independent media that paved the way for his ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) to win all 125 seats in the country’s July 2018 general election.

“The move by the court occurs at the same time when there are rumors saying that some CNRP officials who don’t apply for political rehabilitation could be automatically granted such political rights by the government so that they could form a new party,” Meas Nee said.

“But we are still waiting to see whether only subordinate-level CNRP officials could be granted such political rehabilitation, leaving the top leaders of the CNRP to be charged so that the two leaders [Kem Sokha and Acting President Sam Rainsy] are divided.”

Another political commentator, Ly Srey Sros, disagreed, however.

“I see it differently—it may be adding further burdens against CNRP supporters,” she said.

“I don’t see that there will any political reconciliation. I don’t believe that there will be many CNRP members able to attend the hearing on Nov. 26. The court may prolong the cases and move to ruling by convicting all these CNRP members.”

RFA

A Kazakh court has upheld a decision to place a journalist and blogger accused of being involved in the activities of a banned organization in a psychiatric clinic.

The Nur-Sultan court of appeals announced its decision on November 19, meaning that Aigul Otepova will now be transferred from house arrest to a psychiatric clinic as ruled by a court last week. The initial ruling said Otepova must be placed in a psychiatric clinic for one month to check her mental sanity.

The 50-year-old journalist was put under house arrest on September 17 after she posted criticism on Facebook of the authorities' efforts to curb the coronavirus outbreak.

Earlier this week, her pretrial house arrest was extended until December 27.

Authorities have accused her of supporting the Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan (DVK) opposition movement, which has been labeled as an extremist group and banned in the country.

Otepova denies any connection with DVK, saying that she is an independent journalist and blogger who expresses her own views.

Otepova's daughter told RFE/RL that by placing her mother in a psychiatric clinic, the authorities were trying to silence her ahead of the parliamentary elections scheduled for January 10.

Amnesty International said in a statement on November 18 that Otepova was "a prisoner of conscience who is being prosecuted solely for the peaceful expression of her views." The rights group also demanded her immediate release.

"This case is alarmingly reminiscent of the way psychiatry was used in the 1960s and 1970s in the U.S.S.R. to imprison dissidents. The legacy of Soviet psychiatry continues to be felt across the region, and Amnesty International has intervened in a number of instances in Eastern Europe and Central Asia where people who criticize the regime or denounce injustice continue to be arbitrarily subjected to psychiatric diagnosis, forced hospitalization and involuntary treatment in psychiatric hospitals," the statement said.

Human rights groups have criticized the Kazakh government for years for persecuting independent and opposition journalists.

In 2018, a court in the southern city of Shymkent placed journalist and blogger Ardaq Ashim in a psychiatric clinic after she criticized the government in her articles.

After her release, Ashim left for Ukraine, where she currently resides.

RFERL

Two community representatives from Koh Kong province have been placed under judicial supervision as hundreds of community members from Sre Ambel district gathered outside the Koh Kong Court of First Instance to call for the charges against their representatives to be dropped. Both women face up to two years in prison if found guilty.

Phav Nherng and Seng Lin had appeared before an investigating judge on charges of defamation and incitement to disturb social security. The women, who will now have to report monthly to district police, appear when summoned by court authorities and will not be able to move house without the court’s permission, represent almost two hundred families who have had hundreds of hectares of vital farmland seized by the Heng Huy Agriculture Group since 2008 to make way for a sugar plantation.

Both representatives were the target of a complaint launched by former community representative Chhay Vy. Vy’s brother, the late commune chief, was accused by the three women in 2019 of having seized land for himself during the unresolved land dispute. Another woman, Khorn Phun, had also been summoned for questioning over defamation charges. However, judicial supervision is not applicable for this charge.

Ten more community representatives have been put under judicial supervision in connection with the Heng Huy land dispute in the past two weeks alone.

Chhay Vy, a former representative of “Community 175,” a group of villagers in a land dispute with the Heng Huy sugar plantation, accused three residents of incitement and defamation over claims that she was working to sell the community’s land.

After a hearing on Wednesday morning, the Koh Kong Provincial Court placed two of the defendants under court supervision, prohibiting them from changing residences and requiring them to check in with district authorities once a month, according to a monitor at rights group Licadho.

About 200 protesters from six communities gathered outside the court for the hearing.

“She stole the land — I have both witnesses and evidence,” said Pao Nherng, from Sre Ambel district’s Chi Khor Krom commune.

A group of villagers filed a complaint about Vy to Interior Minister Sar Kheng last year.

Vy responded on Wednesday that she had not sold any community land, and demanded that her accusers present concrete evidence.

“If I do not see the evidence of what they have accused me of, I want them to pay me $20,000 and go to jail for five years,” Vy told VOD.

The three defendants in the case are Nherng, Sen Lin and Khon Phon. Nherng and Lin were placed under court supervision.

Licadho’s Koh Kong provincial coordinator, Hour In, said all three were questioned by judges on Wednesday.

“It is a threat to break the spirit of the people from protesting,” In said.

The court issued a statement saying that Wednesday’s case was unrelated to land disputes.

However, a separate case involving the same sugar plantation was heard at the court the previous day on Tuesday.

The case was brought by Heng Huy against 10 land disputants, five of whom were placed under court supervision on Tuesday. The five others were put under court supervision last week.

Dek Hour, one of the defendants, said the 10 were also accused of incitement and defamation.

The dispute between villagers and Heng Huy is long-standing, with villagers saying land encroachment started in 2007. Villagers were also summoned to court last year for incitement and defamation.

LICADHO | VOD Hotnews

A mild-mannered teenage girl with owl glasses, a bob haircut and daisies painted on her fingernails is not your typical school troublemaker.

But in the eyes of Thailand's ultra-conservative school system and the kingdom's justice system, Benjamaporn "Ploy" Nivas has been cast as a rebel for daring to express herself.

"Students should be able to think for themselves and be themselves," Ploy told AFP during a recent protest at Bangkok's Democracy Monument.

The 15-year-old high schooler is at the forefront of Thailand's "Bad Student" movement which is planning a major rally in Bangkok on Saturday. Ahead of the event, officers on Thursday issued her and two male students with a summons to report to a Bangkok police station for questioning.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights say the trio brings the tally of juveniles facing prosecution over protest activities in Thailand to four -- while overall 175 protesters have been charged with sedition or public assembly offences.

Bad Students Facebok page on Friday posted this message:

"Urgent! Ploy Benjamaporn, a Mathayom Suksa 4 student, and Min Lopnaphat, a Mathayom Suksa 6 student, received police summons for violating the emergency decree. This is intimidation by the state against youths aged below 18. Is the country called land of compromise as said? Should every group move one step back as said?"

Two police summons issued on Nov 17 asked Benamaporn "Ploy" Nivas, and Lopnaphat "Min" Wangsit to report to Lumpini police on Nov 30 on charges of violating the emergency decree. Their parents or trusted people and lawyers could accompany the students.

Thai media reported that the summons might be issued for their roles in the rally on Oct 15 at Ratchaprasong intersection. The two students made rally speeches there.

Media quoted the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights Centre as saying that Ploy was the fourth case of people under 18 facing charges relating to political gatherings.

Thai schools have very strict dress standards, with ponytails and ribbons mandated for girls and military-style crew cuts for boys. But after years of having rules drummed into them, Ploy and her fellow high school activists have gone rogue, emboldened by the broader political protest movement currently sweeping Thailand.

The students want cultural change, a curriculum overhaul, equality and a relaxation of rigid rules.

"We are brainwashed... as students we are taught not to ask questions, but to study and memorise facts for exams," she said.

History textbooks are a particular bone of contention in a country which has seen a dozen coups since becoming a democracy in 1932. School books gloss over events such as the massacre of pro-democracy university students in the 1970s, and instead focus on promoting the work of the monarchy.

The campaign has had a mixed reaction from her teachers."If my teachers are on same side with me, the democracy side, they will admire me -- but if they want (the status quo) those teachers hate me," Ploy said.

• Defying dangers -

Youth-led pro-democracy demonstrations have rocked Thailand since July, and have for the most part been peaceful. But at a rally on Tuesday police used water cannons and teargas on activists, and six people suffered gunshot wounds.

Despite the dangers, Ploy insists protesting is her duty. "We cannot afford to be afraid of anything, otherwise we cannot change anything," she said.

Since August, the Bad Student movement has campaigned for the resignation of Education Minister Nataphol Teepsuwan and even staged a mock funeral for him.

There have long been calls to reform the kingdom's schools but progress has been piecemeal, Pumsaran Tongliemnak, an expert at the state-backed Equitable Education Fund, said.

The government needs to shift its focus from granting access to education to improving its quality, he told AFP, particularly for those who cannot afford expensive private schools.

"The gap between the haves and the have-nots is quite high," Pumsaran said.

In international assessments, Thai students score lower than the OECD average in maths and science.They perform particularly badly in reading, and a World Bank report in 2015 noted widespread "functional illiteracy" among students across all types of Thai schools.

The report said problems included chronic teacher shortages, too many under-resourced small schools, and a focus on rote learning.

Corporal punishment is still practised regularly in schools, despite government efforts to ban it.

Teenage girls are the backbone of the Bad Student movement, which Ploy attributes to growing frustrations over the lack of gender equality in Thailand.

"I think that girls and LGBTQ people are suppressed by the patriarchy both at home and at school. This has made me come out to fight for myself and for everyone," she said.

• 'Schools are dictatorships' -

At an early October rally outside a high school in central Bangkok, scores of mostly female students tied white ribbons on the gate. They covered the student identification numbers embroidered on their uniforms with tape and shielded their faces from the media throng.

A young female student leader made an impassioned speech atop a truck outside the school, demanding respect from teachers instead of "preaching about rules".I

It is a sentiment that strikes a chord with Vegas, a 16-year-old transgender student forced to change schools because of discrimination and bullying.

Vegas, who declined to give their full name, said schools train students to fit in with Thailand's hierarchical society, rather than challenge or question it.

"Schools are like small dictatorships, with all their rules."

Bangkok Post

A well-known music industry executive has filed a lese majeste complaint against Panusaya “Rung” Sithijirawattanakul, a co-leader of the People’s Movement.

Nitipong Hornak, a prolific songwriter, founder and major shareholder of Grammy Entertainment, filed the complaint with the police Technology Crime Suppression Division on Friday afternoon, according to the Facebook page of the centre for legal aid for online bullying victims.

It was not known which incident Mr Nitipong cited in his accusation. But Ms Panusaya was the first person to publicly read out the 10-point manifesto of a Thammasat University group calling for reform of the monarchy at the university in April.

Mr Nitipong’s move came a day after Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha vowed to use all laws to maintain order amid almost daily protests by pro-democracy activists.

The prime minister admitted a day later that Section 112 of the Criminal Code would be no exception. In June, he had said that His Majesty the King had shown mercy and told him not to use the harsh law against people.

Each count of a lese majeste charge — insults, threats or defamation of leading royals — carries a term of 3-15 years in jail.

Other laws have been used in its place over the past few years. They are the Computer Crimes Act, which carries penalties from 5-10 years and/or fines from 20,000 to 100,000 baht, and the national security law (Section 116 of the Criminal Code) for charges such as sedition, which carries jail terms up to seven years.

Critics of Section 112 say it is disproportionate to the alleged crime, and that courts tend to broadly interpret the law. As well, since it carries a harsh penalty, the court traditionally does not allow bail for suspects.

Ms Panusaya and several of her colleagues in the youth-led movement spent several days in jail last month in connection with other charges related to their campaign, before being released on bail.

Bangkok Post