On the morning of April 15, I headed to a branch of Scotiabank in downtown Montreal to cover a pro-Palestine protest. Activists had chosen the venue due to the Canadian bank’s investments in Israeli defence company Elbit Systems.

I watched as protesters blocked the bank’s ATMs and teller booths and the police were called in.

Police officers showed up in riot gear. When it was announced the activists were going to be arrested, I didn’t expect that I would be included with them.

Despite identifying myself as a journalist numerous times and showing officers my press pass, I was apprehended alongside the 44 activists I was covering. It was inside the bank that I was processed and eventually released after hours of being detained.

I now potentially face criminal charges for doing my job. The mischief charges I face carry a maximum jail sentence of two years and a fine of up to C$5000 (NZ$6000). I could also be restricted from leaving the country.

Canadian police can only suggest charges, so the prosecution has to decide whether or not to charge me. This process alone can take anywhere from a few months to a year.

I am the second journalist to be arrested in Canada while on assignment since the beginning of 2024.

Arrested over homeless raid
In January, journalist Brandi Morin was arrested and charged with obstruction in the province of Alberta while covering a police raid on a homeless encampment where many of the campers were Indigenous. It took two months of pressure for the police to drop the charges against her.

Over the past few years, a pattern of arrests has emerged, with police specifically targeting journalists working freelance or with smaller outlets. Many of these journalists have been covering Indigenous-led protests or blockades.

Often they claim that the media workers they have come after “do not look like journalists”.

The Canadian police continue to use detention to silence and intimidate us despite our right to free speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To specify, under section two of the charter, Canadians’ rights to freedom of thought, belief and expression are protected.

The charter identifies the media as a vital medium for transmitting thoughts and ideas, protecting the right for journalists and the media to speak out.

Furthermore, a 2019 ruling by a Canadian court reasserted the protection of journalists from being included in injunctions in situations where they are fulfilling their professional duties.

The court decision was made in the case of journalist Justin Brake, who was arrested in 2016 while documenting protests led by Indigenous land defenders at the Muskrat Falls hydro project site in Newfoundland and Labrador. Brake faced criminal charges of mischief and disobeying a court order for following protesters onto the site, as well as civil contempt proceedings.

Victory for free press
Despite Brake’s victory in the court case, journalists have still been included in injunctions.

In 2021, another high-profile arrest of two Canadian journalists occurred in western Canada. Amber Bracken and Michael Toledano were documenting Indigenous land defenders protecting Wet’suwet’en territory near Houston, British Columbia, from the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline when they were arrested.

They were held in detention by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) for three days until they were released.

In an interview, Toledano said he and Bracken were put in holding cells with the lights on 24 hours a day, minimally fed and denied access to both toothbrushes and soap.

“We were given punitive jail treatment,” Toledano explained. They faced charges of civil contempt which were dropped a month later.

Even though I knew about these cases, had analysed numerous press freedom violations in Canada over the last few years, and had researched the different ways in which journalists can experience harassment or intimidation, nothing prepared me for the experience.

Since I was arrested, I have not had the same sense of security I used to have. The stress, feeling like I have eyes on me at all times and waiting to see whether charges will be laid, has taken a mental toll on me.

Exhausting distraction
This is not only exhausting but it distracts me from the very important and essential work I do as a journalist.

I have also, however, received a lot of support. It has been genuinely heartwarming that Canadian and international journalists rallied behind me following my arrest.

Journalists’ solidarity in such cases is crucial. If just one journalist is arrested, it means that none of us are safe, and the freedom of the press isn’t secure.

I know that I did nothing wrong and the charges against me are unjust. Being arrested won’t deter me from covering blockades, Indigenous-led protests or other demonstrations. However, I am concerned about how my arrest may discourage other journalists from reporting on these topics or working for independent outlets.

I have been covering pro-Palestine activism in Montreal for eight years, and more intensely over the last eight months due to the war in Gaza. For years I have been one the few journalists at these protests, and often, the only one covering these actions.

The public must see what’s happening at these actions, whether they are pro-Palestine demonstrations opposing Canada’s role in Palestine or Indigenous land defenders opposing construction on their territory.

Regardless of its judgment on the matter, the Canadian public has the right to know what fellow citizens are protesting for and if they face police abuses.

Held to account
The presence of a journalist can sometimes be the only guarantee that police and institutions are held to account if there are excesses.

However, there is a clear lack of political will among officials to protect journalists and make sure they can do their work undisturbed.

Montreal Mayor Valerie Plante did not denounce my arrest or urge police to drop my charges. Instead, when asked for a comment on my arrest, her office stated that press freedoms are important and that they will allow police to carry out their investigation.

Just one city councillor wrote to the mayor’s office urging for my arrest to be denounced. Local politicians have also been largely mute on detentions of other journalists, too, with few exceptions.

The comment from the mayor’s office reflects the attitude of most politicians in Canada, who otherwise readily declare their respect for freedom of expression.

On May 3, World Press Freedom Day, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau put out a statement saying that “journalists are the bedrock of our democracy”.

Yet he never took a stance to defend Morin, Brake, Bracken, Toledano and many others who were arrested while on assignment. He, like many other politicians, falls short on words and action.

Until concrete steps are taken to prevent law enforcement officers from intimidating or silencing journalists through arrest, press freedom will continue to be in danger in Canada.

Journalists should be protected and their chartered rights should not be disregarded when certain subjects are covered. If journalists continue to be bullied out of doing their work, then the public is at risk of being kept in the dark about important events and developments.

Savanna Craig is a reporter, writer and video journalist covering social movements, policing and Western imperialism in the Middle East. Republished from Al Jazeera under Creative Commons.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Five weeks on from Christmas Eve, I think most of us are still a bit stunned at what has happened in Fiji.

A new government came to power in dramatic circumstances.

It took not one but two Sodelpa management board meetings to change it, with razor-thin margins.

The same drama extended into Parliament.

There was definitely a bump in the road when the military openly expressed concern about the speed of change.

But that was navigated smoothly.

One other thing stood on a razor-thin margin.

Nobody in Fiji should forget it.

‘Rule of law’
A little thing called “rule of law”.

In a Fiji Times column last week, I tried to capture the idea of this.

First, the idea that the law is more important than everyone, including the government.

But second, the idea that the law is more than just rules and regulations which restrict us.

Rule of law means also that the government is bound to respect ordinary people’s rights and freedoms.

That rule of law was seriously at risk under the FijiFirst government.

Things had gotten to the point where, using bullying and fear, unafraid of the courts or any other institution which might restrain it, the FijiFirst government just did what it wanted.

In its last year of power, the only restraint on FijiFirst was the fact that an election was coming.

Turned on opponents
Had it won that election, FijiFirst would have turned its guns on the only opponents it had left — the opposition political parties, the independent news media and the few non-government organisations that continued to criticise it.

Fiji would have fallen firmly into that growing group of countries now called “democratic dictatorships” — places which have elections and the other trappings of democracy, but which in truth severely restrict the democratic rights and freedoms of their people.

Four key officials holding important constitutional positions — the Chief Justice, the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Corrections and the Supervisor of Elections — have been suspended inside of four weeks.

That tells us one of two things.

Either the new government is particularly vengeful.

Or there are complaints against these officials that date back to the FijiFirst party’s time in power and which are only now coming to light.

After all, they’ve hardly had time to offend us under the new government.

And if these are in fact complaints about things which happened long ago, we must ask — why were they not actioned under the FijiFirst government?

No one dared complain
Or was fear of the government so pervasive that no one dared to complain against these officials — and the complaints are only being made now?

We need to know about these complaints.

Yes, each of these officials is innocent until proven otherwise.

But they are public officials, occupying some of the most powerful and critical positions in the country.

The decisions they make concern our most basic rights and freedoms — whether or not we spend a night in a cell, whether (and when) we will get a ruling on our employment dispute, or whether we are able to vote.

So we, the public, have a right to know what they are accused of.

What has changed?

The overwhelming sentiment for most of us — at least those around me — is a new sense of freedom.

Doesn’t change things
For many of us, that does not really change things from day to day.

Not everyone has the compelling urge to air their opinions on everything (in newspaper columns or elsewhere).

But it is simply the fact that if you want to rant about something on Facebook, you’re not worrying about what the government will think.

Most of us, day to day, are not worrying about whether we will be unfairly held for 48 hours in a jail cell.

Yet only two years ago in the covid crisis, the police were doing that to hundreds of people.

We are not worrying about whether we will be arrested for saying something which will “cause public alarm”.

Yet, every time an NGO or opposition political party leader issued a public statement in the last 10 years, this was a constant worry.

But much of the real damage done was at the next level down — the level where ordinary people like us want to get things done.

This week I met a small group of distinguished doctors.

Climate of fear
I heard with some amazement about the climate of fear which predominated in the Ministry of Health.

Criticism was not permitted.

In November last year, the permanent Secretary for Health publicly told politicians to “leave the Health Ministry alone”.

Nobody, he said, should talk about it.

Nobody should “undermine” it — because it was on the cusp of great things.

One senior medical specialist who famously criticised the state of our hospitals in The Fiji Times was immediately banned from entering them.

This was hardly a hardship — he was only volunteering his skills for free.

But what about all the patients who he was looking after?

He recounted to me, with some wonder the bureaucratic memo-writing process that is now being followed to bring him back.

Cash and volunteers
The International Women’s Association has cash and volunteers ready to improve women’s and children’s health at CWM Hospital.

We are talking about basic things, like hot water and decrepit bathrooms.

How do you run hospital wards without hot water?

IWA’s mistake was to make these deficiencies public on social media.

So the Health Ministry stopped talking to IWA.

Only with the change of government is IWA allowed to openly communicate with the Ministry of Health about what it wants to do — instead of whispers to officials on their gmail accounts.

For years, I have marvelled at the stupidity of the edicts issued from Ministry of Education headquarters.

Schools may not fund-raise without permission.

Schools may not invite speakers to their school assemblies without permission.

Schools may not run extracurricular classes for students without their permission.

‘In name of equality’
The policy seems to be “in the name of equality, we must all be equally dumbed down”.

As the Education Ministry pursued the government’s mad obsession with our “secular state”, schools owned by religious bodies cannot choose their own school heads, even if they pay for them and save the government money.

Education and health are critical issues for all of us.

The government can’t deliver everything.

Governments by nature are unwieldy, bureaucratic and slow (sometimes for good reason, because they have to carefully manage public funds and follow other laws).

So people have to get involved.

Get involved

We also have to get involved on a wide swathe of other issues such as poverty, domestic violence, drug abuse, crime and economic opportunities.

Criticism not welcome
These are all things which, for the past 15 years, we were told, the government had under control — like “never before”.

Our input — and certainly our criticism — were not welcome.

Let’s be clear about our new government.

We might be glad that it’s there.

And we should never take for granted the rights and freedoms it has restored to us and the refreshing new attitude it brings after 15 years.

But soon the honeymoon will end, the shine will come off and we will all have to get down to the work (which never ends) of solving our deep social and economic problems.

The expectations on the new government are huge.

Everybody wants every problem to be solved and every complaint to be answered.

We want every crook who has received an unfair benefit to be (as we now always seem to say) “taken to task”.

Same huge debt
The new government has the same huge debt, the same shortage of cash and the same lack of resources the old government did.

It can move some money around and change some priorities — but it can never solve every problem.

But a government that is prepared to tolerate criticism has at least one advantage over one that is not.

It can hear from real people about where the real problems are.

That’s why freedom of expression is not just a nice thing to have.

It’s actually important to tell us what is going on.

This government, like the old one, will gradually become more complacent and unresponsive as it becomes burdened with the ordinary business of administration.

And that is why every democracy — at least every real one — prizes freedom.

Freedom to march
Freedom for people to criticise, to march in the street, to take the government to court, without being punished for it.

These are some of the tools we use to hold the government to account, to remind the politicians that it is about us, not them, and to embarrass the politicians into action.

But just as important is the responsibility on us not just to talk — but also to act.

Our new freedom also means freedom to get involved.

What are the things that are important to us?

Is it health?

Education?

Child poverty?

Prison reform?

Our local environment?

So what will we do?

Don’t take it for granted
We don’t need to be part of some official committee or NGO to fight for the things that are important to us.

We don’t need the government’s permission to hold a public forum to talk about problems and solutions.

After 15 years we need to be able to say to our leaders: “We’re in charge here. This is what we want. You work for us.”

They won’t always listen — but that’s what freedom is.

It was a close-run thing on Christmas Eve — but freedom is what we got.

So let’s not take it for granted.

Let’s use it.

Richard Naidu is a Suva lawyer who is fairly free with his opinions. The views in this article are not necessarily the views of The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s Sheriff Security at the Waigani Supreme and National Court have stepped up their surveillance of the court premises following this week’s lawlessness in the city.

All court users including staff and visitors will be strictly monitored, says a statement.

All hazardous and dangerous weapons like knives, pepper spray, mace, razor blades, and illegal materials will be monitored and those found in possession will be ordered to leave the court premises.

All visitors and staff will go through the normal screening process at the entrance of the court premises.

Under Section 3 of the Sheriffs’ Act, the sheriff’s primary role is to execute court orders and provide security at the court’s premises, serving documents including complaints and summonses for a fee, effecting executions, making affidavits and returns and escorting persons to court under a warrant of apprehension/by a writ of habeas corpus.

The Sheriff division is empowered by the Sheriffs’ Act.

It is one of three divisions under the judicial system and its head is the Registrar of the National and Supreme Courts.

Sheriff appointed
The Sheriff is appointed by the Head of the State and both he and his officers are responsible for enforcing judicial orders.

The current situation in the national capital of Port Moresby is a concern and the Sheriff Security officers will now be strictly enforcing the laws, rules and regulations of the organisation for the safety of judicial officers staff and infrastructure of the organisation.

Because the courthouse is accessible and in a centralised location, it is vulnerable to the acts of random violence.

There will be strict court security procedures to not only protect the safety of the people and property within and around the premises of the court, but also to protect the integrity of the judicial process.

The Sheriff Security forces will be collaborating with law enforcement offices, emergency agencies and governing bodies to protect court premises and the judicial processes.

Sheriff Security forces are recognised as an integral part of the Sheriff’s Office mission to protect citizens and officers of the court. The judicial security staff is committed to ensuring the safety of everybody who conducts the business of the court.

Court security is an essential part of the administration of justice.

Saddled with duty
The law enforcement personnel are saddled with the duty of providing security measures within the judicial premises.

The roles of court employees are complimentary to and supportive of the role of judicial officers.

The value and importance of Sheriff Security forces is a must for the organisation. Sheriff Security forces are the sentinels in the organisation.

They are the enforcers of policies and laws inside the organisation.

They are the key elements of peacekeeping inside the premises of the organisation.

They prevent threat and other crimes from happening inside the organisation.

The Sheriff Security officers are trained on how to work and interact with the public who enter the court premises.

At the same time, the Sheriff Security officers are also trained to understand the operations of the laws, rules and regulations of the organisation.

Republished with the permission of PNG Post-Courier.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea’s National Court has sent a strong message and warning to those accused of sorcery-related violence when it jailed six people for 40 years each for killing a father and his son in Northern province three years ago.

Acting Judge Camillus Sambua jailed Cameron Jovu, Mike Jofo, Clenty Orotu, Branden Asiko, Andrew Sariko and Jesse Akuma, all from Ambene village in Kokoda, last Thursday for the murder of Bartholomew Umbu and his son Siko.

The six killers had accused Umbo and Siku of practising sorcery.

Defence lawyer Emmanuel Yavisa from the Public Solicitor’s Office submitted that his clients be jailed 20 to 25 years because sorcery was a mitigating factor.

However, state lawyer Solomon Kuku argued that sorcery was not a mitigating factor as it was based on assumptions and not facts.

Kuku submitted that a term of 30 years to life imprisonment should be imposed as the killings were gruesome with disregard for human life.

Judge Samua then jailed all the six 40 years each.

‘Life a gift from God’
“Life is a gift from God,” he said.

“It should be kept sacred as it is very precious.

“The act by the six accused [was] barbaric with no regard to life,” he added.

Cameron Jovu will serve 40 years concurrently for two counts of murder.

Mike Jofo, Clenty Orotu, Smith Asiko and Brendan Asiko, were jailed for one count of murder, while Jesse Akuma and Andrew Sariko, for two counts of murder.

A total of 18 people were accused of being involved in the sorcery-related killing.

Eleven were acquitted on Tuesday.

Those acquitted were Emmanuel Koviro, Humphrey Konene, Bobby Jovu, Timothy Jofo, Howard Pou, Zebedee Akuma, Frank Johnson, Loide Koiko Sawa, Smith Ariko, Tadiu Roko and Robert Jovu.

Clarissa Moi is a reporter for The National. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz