Thursday, July 30, 2020

With a new Anti-Terror Act: Philippines take another step towards authoritarianism

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Vanshita Banuana

Article Title

With a new Anti-Terror Act: Philippines take another step towards authoritarianism

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

July 30, 2020

URL

President Duterte addressing the 18th Congress

President Duterte addressing the 18th Congress | Source: Oliver Marquez via Philippine News Agency

On July 3, 2020, President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte signed a new Anti-Terrorism Bill, which was rushed through the houses of Congress without appropriate discussion, and has amassed protests and disapproval within the nation and abroad since its draft was first announced.

The Confederation of Lawyers in Asia and Pacific (COLAP) has raised concerns that anti-terrorism bill of the Philippine government is “violative of human rights and the due process of the law.” It's statement opposing the the bill stated following concerns with the bill:

  1. It punishes suspected individuals for organizations who are proscribed as terrorists and that the very broad and vague definition of terrorism under the bill poses danger to the basic freedoms of the people.
  2. The suspect’s right to due process of law is virtually denied and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court is virtually negated.
  3. It enable the President-backed Anti-Terrorism Council to label any individual or group as a terrorist “without the opportunity of being heard.
  4. Any member or sympathizer of a proscribed organization is punished as a terrorist even if he or she does not actually take arms against the government.
  5. The bill encroaches on one’s privacy as it gives the government access to personal and bank information and freezes bank accounts and assets.
  6. The bill violates the sovereign rights of states and the internationally mandated norm that criminal jurisdiction is confined to the territories of a state, citing its extraterritorial nature.

Hundreds of protestors took to the streets of Manila protesting the bill on 27th July when President Duterte gave his annual State of the Nation address. While it is true that the has nation faced the threat of terrorism in recent years, it is also agreed upon that Duterte’s response has been perhaps equally brutal.

This bill was also criticised by the Christian religious organisations which issued a joint declaration on this law. They stated “We are bothered by the broad and vague definition of terrorism and terrorist. It can include acts of dissent, free speech, right to assemble, right to organize, freedom of belief, among others. By such a broad definition it is open to abuse and misuse.”

An opposition Congress member, Edcel Lagman and two lawyer groups of Philippine approached the Philippine Supreme Court and asked it to strike down the new anti-terrorism law, or parts of it, as they called it unconstitutional for infringing on civil liberties.

The Philipino American Student Association (FASA) also denounced the new anti-terrorism law in its Instagram post which stated, “FASA sa UW denounces Duterte’s signing of the Anti-Terrorism Bill to which its terms do nothing to resolve the true terrorism in our nation and instead conducts an outright assault on the freedom of speech from our people living on the motherland and even Filipinx abroad,”

International Human Right organisation, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Regional Director, Nicholas Bequelin, in response to this law said, “Under Duterte’s presidency, even the mildest government critics can be labelled terrorists. He further stated, “This law’s introduction is the latest example of the country’s ever-worsening human rights record. Once again, this shows why the UN should launch a formal investigation into ongoing widespread and systematic violations in the country.”

Prior to this, Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’ received global scrutiny, especially for the numerous extrajudicial killings that have occurred since he came to power and the effect of this aggressive policy on the poorest citizens of the nation.

Apart from this, he has also repeatedly voiced opinions in favour of martial law and silenced news media that spoke against him. But he seems to be encouraged largely by his own people, among whom Duterte continues to be popular.

Many have called Duterte the ‘revival’ of authoritarianism in the small Southeast Asian country, which has only recently seen some semblance of democracy after years of dictatorship under Ferdinand Marcos (of whom Duterte was a close family friend).

The Philippines is walking a thin line between fascism and democracy, and which side it ends up on depends not only on the actions of its government, but just as much on the actions of its people.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:49 PM

Has Canada’s stand on Israel-Palestine conflict cost it the UNSC Seat

On the 17th of June, 2020, Canada lost its bid for a temporary seat in the UN Security Council, the only UN body which can put binding resolutions on the member countries.. In the competition were Norway and Ireland, which won by 130 and 128 votes respectively where the votes required to secure a seat were 128. Canada, however, fell short by 20 votes.

It is a jolt to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who had declared “Canada is back” to the world stage after the conservative government. He had personally campaigned for the seat but Canada received even fewer votes than what it received in 2010 under the conservative government of Stephen Harper. That is why Bessma Momani, a senior fellow at the Centre of International Governance and Innovation, calls it “embarrassing” and a “bit of a wake-up call.”

There have been many mixed reactions within Canada on the reason for the loss as well as the significance of this loss.

A professor at the Munk School of Global Affairs at U of T, Jance Stein, talks about how Canada in UNSC would have got trapped in the crossfire between US-Canada clashes. Andrew MacDougall, the ex-director of communications with the former PM Harper, says “UNSC hasn’t been relevant to global peace and security for more than 15 years”, implying that UNSC seat is not worth much.

There have been many reasons ascribed to the loss, the first and foremost being Canada’s staunch support of Israel. Canada has voted 116 times against UN resolutions for Palestinian rights, against Israel’s occupation, since 2000. It has also not opposed Israel’s planned annexation of the Jordan valley. “Just Peace Advocates” in association with over a hundred non-governmental organizations sent a signed letter to UN members countries, urging them to consider Canada’s votes against Palestinian refugees and illegal settlements while deciding on their votes for UNSC seat. It also pointed out how Canada considers Israel’s illegal territories as a part of it in trade, which is directly against UNSC Resolution 2334 which calls on member states to distinguish between Israel and its new territories occupied in 1967. As majority of the countries in UN show support for the Palestinian cause of a separate state and the well being of the war-wreckin Palestinian citizens, Canada’s unwavering support for Israel might have contributed to its defeat in winning UNSC seat.

Tamara Lorincz, a member of the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute pointed towards a more fundamental issue with Canadian foriegn policy management. He talked about how Canada hasn’t drafted a foreign policy to explain its stances on important global issues, hasn’t set aside enough funds for overseas development aid, has exported weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia, has snubbed negotiations on a treaty against nuclear weapons and many other shortcomings which make it undeserving of the seat.

This development, however, is beneficial for the Palestinians, since Canada would have supported Israel in the UNSC and opposed all such resolutions which may favour Palestinians and are critical to Israel. This loss may also force Canada to give a serious rethink to its Israel First policy. According to a poll by EKOS Research Associates, three in four Canadians want their government to oppose Israel’s annexation plans and 42% of them wanted sanctions against the country. There is also a campaign in Canada which calls on the Prime Minister “to fundamentally reassess Canadian foreign policy.”

It is too early to predict whether the loss of the UNSC seat will trigger some introspection in the foriegn policy circles of Canada or it will be business as usual.

Read More