Josh Paul’s Post

In my humble opinion, the issues you have raised about the U.S. relationship with the ICC and international law touch on significant concerns about global justice and accountability. The principle that "everyone is equal before the law" is foundational to a just society, yet there are instances where geopolitical power dynamics seem to undermine this ideal. The "Hague Invasion Act" (American Service-Members' Protection Act) is an example of the tension between national sovereignty and international accountability. Critics argue that such legislation reflects a reluctance to submit to the same standards the U.S. often advocates for others. This creates a perception of double standards, which can erode trust in international institutions and weaken the global rule of law. Acknowledging systemic challenges is a first step toward change. While some might see the situation as irreparable without drastic measures, others believe reform and dialogue can lead to progress. A commitment to transparency, accountability, and collaboration—both domestically and internationally—could pave the way for a more equitable system of justice.

Hypocrisy at this level is astounding. Thank you Josh Paul for standing firm in noting this institutional lack of will or loss of moral compass in defending human rights when glaringly and flagrantly affronted. Almost two decades ago, there were Africans and foreign nationals highlighting the ways in which the ICC targeted African nations in that day. The responses of merit noted that the ICC did not exclusively consider African nations as subjects for investigation. In this era of human record, we notice collaborated efforts to distinguish Israel’s political and military leadership as separate from international judgment and above the rules of international law and the rules of war even in specific instances. To call that out and to hold leadership accountable is essential to long-term processes to prioritize justice and to secure peace. When we see explicit separation of Israel’s war campaign, we must examine the cultural bias that undergirds this philosophical premise or political position.

The United States Department of State 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Ukraine. A. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, INCLUDING FOR MEMBERS OF THE PRESS AND OTHER MEDIA The government banned, blocked, or sanctioned media outlets and individual journalists deemed a threat to national security or who expressed positions authorities believed undermined the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Some speakers who were critical of the government were also blacklisted from government-directed news programming. Investigative journalists critical of the government were sometimes targeted by negative social media campaigns, sometimes via government-friendly channels. Other practices continued to affect media freedom, including self-censorship. B. FREEDOMS OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Mass gatherings were restricted due to the imposition of martial law. Even prior to the introduction of martial law in 2022, authorities had wide discretion under a Soviet-era directive to grant or refuse permission for assemblies on grounds of protecting public order and safety. Organizers were required to inform authorities in advance of demonstrations. Freedom of Association Attacks against civil society were prevalent and often were not sufficiently investigated. International and domestic human rights NGOs were concerned regarding the lack of accountability for these attacks, which they believed created a climate of impunity. Human Rights NGOs documented 22 cases of violence against civil society representatives in the first nine months of the year, but comprehensive data were unavailable, as many NGOs shifted to documenting conflict-related abuses once the war began. D. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND THE RIGHT TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY The constitution and civil code provided citizens with rights to freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation. The government, however, restricted these rights, particularly in the eastern part of the country near the zone of conflict. Under martial law, men ages 18 to 60 were prohibited from leaving the country.

Really important decision

🚨 🚨 Today, the European Commission unsurprisingly decided to refer Hungary  to the Court of Justice of the European Union because it considers its national law on the 'Defence of Sovereignty' to be in breach of EU law. Short summary of the case: 1. On 12 December 2023 the Hungarian National Assembly adopted the Defence of Sovereignty Law empowering a new Office to carry out investigations including relating to ‘any activity that is foreign-funded and that may influence the outcome of elections, the will of voters or supports such activities'. According to its Preamble, the Law has been adopted in response to increasing unlawful attacks against the sovereignty of Hungary by foreign organisations and individuals seeking to assert their own interests in Hungary in opposition to Hungarian interests and rules. 2.  The law entrusts the Office with a very broad discretion concerning investigations, notably on access to information, empowering the Office to intervene in an intrusive manner in investigations. The law requires extensive publicity about the individual investigations and their findings. 3. This will according to the Commission have negative consequences for the concerned entities including a stigmatising effect. This is further aggravated by the fact that the Office will send an annual public report to the parliamentary standing committee on national security and the Government for their response on how they will address its findings. The broad powers of the Office will affect a wide range of persons and entities, including civil society organisations, media outlets and journalists in a disproportionate manner. 4. In February 2024, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Hungary raising its concerns. Finding that the response provided by Hungary to its letter of formal notice was unsatisfactory, in May 2024, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion reiterating the grievances concerning the violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Internal Market Fundamental Freedoms, and EU Data protection legislation. 5. After carefully assessing the reply of the Hungarian authorities, the Commission maintains most of the grievances identified, which have still not been addressed. Those grievances concern several fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: the right to respect for private and family life, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom of association, the right to legal professional privilege, as well as the presumption of innocence. he Commission also considers that the law violates several fundamental freedoms of the internal market, the e-Commerce Directive, the Services Directive, as well as EU Data protection legislation. My assessment is that the EU Commission is marshalling a quite compelling case and is likely to win the case. #eulaw #ruleoflaw #hungary #eupolicy

#NZtoday Free Speech Union reports: Declining trust in our society's key institutions undermines their credibility. Kiwis are clearly calling for a return to first principles, and the reality is, protecting free speech is essential if we are to keep public confidence in our key institutions. When approximately only one in three Kiwis trusts politicians or journalists, you would think this ought to be a wake-up call for our key institutions. Dean, I'm writing to you today about three damning pieces of research that have emerged in the past couple of weeks. To me (and I think you'll get the same impression, too), they illustrate again that without open discourse and the right to speak our mind, we will forfeit the way of life we've come to take for granted. The 2023 New Zealand Election Study (NZES), the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer, and now a report from StatsNZ, too, in summary, show that politicians and journalists, have reached a new low in the public standing. This is a problem - democracy doesn't fare well when trust is at a deficit. And frankly, that's impossible without the basic freedom you and I are working to preserve. It's clear, we need free speech to enable the transparency and accountability that will restore the public's trust. While the Bill of Rights Act guarantees “the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions”, attempts to erode the legal and cultural protections for our fundamental civil liberties, such as free speech, continues apace. Forfeiting our lawful freedoms for the promise of “safety” is a recipe for disaster. Attempts to introduce hate speech laws, the registering of “non-hate crime incidents” by NZ Police, and the weaponisation of human rights law are all evidence of this trend. The Stats NZ results also highlighted an increase in the public’s concerns about crime. How will this improve while Police have a focus on banning gang patches and instructing their officers to identify ‘hate’ speech? The danger of “thought suppression” should be abundantly clear in light of the work FSU is doing. Unsurprisingly, public confidence and trust are two of the first casualties when a culture of censorship is promoted. The public is tired of being told that politicians, bureaucrats, academics, and the media know best on behalf of everyone else. When controversial discussions and debates labelled as “dangerous” are prevented from taking place, members of the public often doubt their own judgment at first. But bitter experience means many of us eventually wise up. Is it any wonder, then, that Kiwis are growing frustrated and disillusioned with the elitist response they’re receiving from so many politicians, journalists, academics, and judges?

Europe’s pincer movement to combat SLAPPs | Law Gazette: https://lnkd.in/e_27KQP6 I was recently honoured to present at a conference on the crucial topic of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). My presentation focused on European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) case-law and how it provides critical guidance in protecting freedom of expression against abusive lawsuits. I am thrilled to see my presentation referenced in this article by The Law Gazette, which discusses Europe's multi-pronged approach to combating SLAPPs. As highlighted in the article, the Council of Europe’s recommendation on countering SLAPPs complements the EU’s anti-SLAPP directive, showcasing a united effort to safeguard freedom of expression across the continent. SLAPPs are not just a legal issue—they strike at the heart of democracy by silencing voices and stifling debate. This makes it all the more rewarding to contribute to a larger conversation on protecting public participation. 💡 It’s time to amplify these discussions and implement these frameworks effectively. Every step we take brings us closer to a Europe where individuals can speak truth without fear of legal intimidation. #HumanRights #FreedomOfExpression #SLAPPs #ECHR #CouncilofEurope #Democracy

🛑 Fresh Fuel to the Fire: How will Turkey’s looming ‘foreign agent’ law impact civil society and free expression?   The Turkish Parliament’s General Assembly is expected to vote on a draft law targeting those suspected of “espionage” or acting as “foreign agents,” purportedly to safeguard national security. What are the implications for freedom of expression?   The bill’s intentionally vague language could allow the State to brand anyone as serving “foreign interests.” Could a journalist referencing an international human rights report in a critical piece about the State be labelled a “foreign agent”? Could an NGO receiving international funding be rendered suspect?   Similar laws in Russia, Nicaragua, Kyrgyzstan and Georgia have been used to silence dissent. In Turkey, where freedom of expression is already constrained, this law adds yet another tool for the suppression of critical voices. Solidarity from civil society and global allies is essential now more than ever.   📢 Read the full article by Veysel Ok, leading media freedom lawyer and co-Director of our Turkish partner the Media and Law Studies Association, here: https://lnkd.in/gFPKVMiP

On June 6 2024 International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) submitted a Communication to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), drawing the Court’s attention to the criminal nature of hate speech in Russian media that has fueled international crimes in Ukraine, and seeking to compel the Prosecutor’s Office to apply for arrest warrants. For this Communication, FIDH has analysed over 2,000 video segments with statements made by the alleged perpetrators between 24 February 2022 and 24 February 2024. To this end, FIDH and its filing partners – Center for Civil Liberties and Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, have collaborated with the Ukraine War Archive and the University of Essex Digital Verification Unit. The 110-page Communication has identified over 300 statements that constitute hate speech amounting to the crime against humanity. Ukraine War Archive is honored to be a part of this Communication. For this project, our team created a special tool Lenses, which helped to analyse 6,800 hours of propaganda broadcasts. Lenses work with an AI that helps to make a text transcription of the video, and then, a researcher can find via keywords (e.g., "neo-Nazi regime of Kyiv") the necessary propagandists' lines, without watching the whole video, from beginning to end. The Lenses tool significantly saved the time and moral resources of researchers and human rights defenders. More details about Communication you can find in the article: https://lnkd.in/er6_WEHQ

Please join us on Capitol Hill or online for this Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission Congressional Hearing: Human Rights in Turkey Today Tuesday, April 16, 2024 10:00 – 11:30 a.m. 2200 Rayburn House Ofc. Bldg. Panel: * Enes Kanter Freedom, human rights activist, former NBA basketball player * Abdulhamit Bilici – former Editor in Chief, Zaman * Nadine Maenza, President, IRF Secretariat former Chair, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) The U.S. State Department’s 2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices noted in Turkey an alarming gravity and scale of human rights abuses. These included: “arbitrary killings; suspicious deaths of persons in custody; forced disappearances; torture; arbitrary arrest and continued detention of tens of thousands of persons, including opposition politicians and former members of parliament, lawyers, journalists, human rights activists, and an employee of the U.S. Mission, for purported ties to “terrorist” groups or peaceful legitimate speech; political prisoners, including elected officials; transnational reprisal against individuals located outside the country, including kidnappings and transfers of alleged members of the Gulen movement without adequate fair trial guarantees or other legal protections; significant problems with judicial independence; support for Syrian opposition groups that perpetrated serious abuses in conflict, including the unlawful recruitment and use of child soldiers; severe restrictions on freedom of expression and press freedom, including violence and threats of violence against journalists, closure of media outlets, and arrests or criminal prosecution of journalists and others for criticizing government policies or officials, censorship, site blocking, and criminal libel laws; serious restrictions on internet freedom; severe restriction of freedoms of peaceful assembly and association.” Witnesses will discuss the government of Turkey’s human rights abuses, the U.S. response, and offer recommendations for Congress. https://lnkd.in/eXS9ACVP