CIVICUS speaks about recent restrictions on freedom of expression in Sri Lanka with Darshatha Gamage, Head of Programmes at Hashtag Generation.
Hashtag Generation is a movement led and run by a group of young tech-savvy, socially conscious Sri Lankans advocating for the meaningful civic and political participation of young people, particularly women and those from minority groups. It mobilises social media and new media tools to encourage dialogue on key social issues, advocates for the rights of ethnic, religious and sexual minorities and raises awareness about the importance of cybersecurity and countering disinformation and online hate speech.
What’s the situation of human rights and civic freedoms in Sri Lanka?
The state of human rights in Sri Lanka has long been concerning. Over the past two years, a deep economic crisis and social unrest have brought intensified human right violations. The president is taking extraordinary measures to restrict dissent with the aim of ensuring anti-government protests remain minimal. Activists and protesters have been arrested often for exercising their right to protest. Journalists have been intimidated or arrested for doing their work.
Civic space is being further restricted through a series of new draconian laws and bills. The Bureau of Rehabilitation Act, passed in February 2023, gives the armed forces authority to run ‘rehabilitation centres’ – military-operated detention camps in which political opponents and government critics can be incarcerated.
Online freedom of expression has been particularly affected. People expressing dissent online, including political activists, satirists and comedians, have been arrested under various charges for the content they post. Even laws such as the 2007 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act, modelled after the international covenant of the same name, has been historically misused to curtail freedom of expression through arbitrary arrest and detention.
In September 2023, the government introduced the Online Safety Bill, aimed at giving legal cover to the curtailment of rights to free expression. A newly tabled Anti-Terrorism Bill has also raised concerns due to its broad definition of terrorism that encompasses statements made through electronic and print media that are considered as inciting acts of violence. The bill would grant the president the authority to ban organisations, impose restrictions on movement, declare specific locations as prohibited areas and introduce new procedures related to curfews.
Why did the government push through these additional restrictions?
The government had a clear intention to curtail online expression critical of democratic deficits and entrenched governance issues. Digital spaces were widely used to mobilise communities and express dissent during the peak of the crisis in 2022, and these protests resulted in the resignation of the sitting president.
The new Online Safety Act, passed in January 2024, is aimed at regulating online content. Under this law, jail sentences can be imposed on those posting material deemed illegal and social media companies are held liable for content posted on their platforms. The law created a five-member Online Safety Commission charged with deciding which online speech is false or harmful and when to remove content, limit internet access and prosecute users.
The passage of the Online Safety Act indicated that the government was acutely aware of ongoing discontent and intended to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation to prevent people expressing collective dissent by mobilising.
How has civil society reacted to the Online Safety Act?
Civil society has expressed numerous concerns. It highlighted that the Act wasn’t developed through a consultative process. No technical or human rights experts were consulted, which means the law is not only draconian but also practically unworkable. However, it can and will be selectively enforced by the Online Safety Commission, something civil society has also pointed out with concern.
Civil society expressed major doubts about the vague and overly broad terminology used, the disproportionate punishments imposed and the independence of the proposed Commission.
In several key instances, the Act uses very vague terminology. It includes no criteria to identify what is a false statement and no protocol to follow globally accepted standards to verify whether a statement is true or false. Any statement could be considered false if a proper investigation is not conducted. Further, a statement of opinions, which cannot be fact-checked, can be easily deemed a false statement if it’s an expression of dissent.
As for the proposed Commission, civil society has criticised the fact that its members are to be appointed at the president’s discretion and therefore will likely engage in politically influenced decision-making. They will have sweeping powers to enforce the law and interpret its vague terminology, undermining principles of due process and judicial independence. These provisions are likely to be used to target political opponents and activists, particularly during the upcoming election, to be held in late 2024.
Civil society also noted that the law restricts the right to online anonymity by criminalising some forms of anonymity. It is feared this will undermine essential safety measures adopted by activists, whistleblowers and citizens in general.
Sri Lankan civil society consistently advocated against the bill with parliament and the courts. Various civil society groups, including Hashtag Generation, submitted over 45 petitions to the Supreme Court. These resulted in some amendments but didn’t substantially change the nature of the bill.
There are still ongoing discussions of potential amendments to the Act. However, the government hasn’t approached civil society groups, human rights leaders or technical experts to request their input to improve the Act and hasn’t ensured concerns were properly addressed.
What support does Sri Lankan civil society need from international partners?
International civil society should facilitate dialogue among local partners working on human rights issues and encourage the creation of a unified front. To ensure that rights of Sri Lankans are protected, advocacy needs to be carried out at the global, regional and local levels. It is also important for international civil society organisations to avoid providing support to local organisations that endorse regressive legislation or human right violations. Further, it is important for international partners to develop more inclusive technology-related policies by involving partners and experts from the global south.
Civic space in Sri Lanka is rated ‘repressed’ by the CIVICUS Monitor.
Get in touch with Hashtag Generation through its website and follow @generation_sl on Twitter.
