20. September 2016 – Update #2 zu RAN 01/16
Andy Hall (Quelle: PEN International)
Der britische Aktivist Andy Hall, der sich für die Rechte von Migranten einsetzt, wurde wegen angeblicher “krimineller Diffamierung” und “Computerverbrechen” in Thailand verurteilt. Die Verurteilung steht im Zusammenhang mit einem von Finnwatch im Jahr 2013 veröffentlichten Artikel. Hall wurde am 20. September zu einer dreijährigen Haftstrafe (davon 2 Jahre auf Bewährung) und einer Geldstrafe von 150.000 Baht (ca. 3850€) verurteilt. Der internationale PEN geht davon aus, dass die Anklage gegen Hall unmittelbar mit seiner friedlichen und legitimen Arbeit als Anwalt für Migrantenrechte zusammenhängt und fordert daher, dass die Verurteilung und die Strafe umgehend aufgehoben werden.
Unternehmen Sie etwas!
Schreiben Sie Protestbriefe:
- Fordern Sie die thaliändischen Behörden dazu auf, die Verurteilung von Andy Hall aufzuheben.
- Wiederholen Sie die Sorge, dass der Vorwurf von “krimineller Diffamierung” und “Computerkriminalität” dazu genutzt wird, kritische Stimmen zum Verstummen zu bringen.
- Drängen Sie die thailändischen Behörden dazu, das Strafgesetzbuch anzupassen, sodass es mit den internationalen Verpflichtungen Thailands zum Schutz von freier Meinungsäußerung im Einklang steht. Insbesondere muss der Tatbestand der kriminellen Diffamierung gestrichen werden.
Schreiben Sie an:
S.E. den Botschafter von Thailand
Herrn Dr. Dhiravat Bhumichitr
Königlich Thailändische Botschaft
Lepsiusstrasse 64-66
12163 Berlin
general [at] thaiembassy [dot] de
Öffentlichkeit erzeugen!
Wir möchten PEN-Mitglieder dazu ermutigen, Artikel oder Stellungnahmen in überregionalen, lokalen oder sozialen Medien zu veröffentlichen und auf das Schicksal von Andy Hall und die Situation der Meinungsfreiheit in Thailand aufmerksam zu machen.
Hintergrund (bereitgestellt vom internationalen PEN)
British rights activist and blogger, Andy Hall, was charged with criminal defamation, as well as offences under the Computer Crimes Act, in 2013 after publishing a report on alleged abuses of migrant workers committed by the Natural Fruit Company Limited, a fruit processing company in Thailand.
The report, published in late 2012, by the Finnish NGO Finnwatch, in connection to a report published in 2013 entitled, Cheap has a high price: Responsibility problems relating to international private label products and food production in Thailand, focuses on production practices of juices and fruit sold in Finland, and was reportedly based on interviews with employees, many of them undocumented migrants from Myanmar, who suffered labour rights abuses, from poor working conditions to child labour. Natural Fruit has denied the allegations.
Andy Hall was the lead researcher of the report, while working as Associate Researcher at Mahidol University in Thailand, and was responsible for coordinating the field research and conducting interviews with migrant workers from Myanmar, with the help of a team of others.
In its prosecution documents, Natural Fruit cites the presence of Hall’s name alongside others on the front page of an English Executive Summary of the report as evidence of Hall’s ownership and responsibility for the report as well as alleging that he was involved in the dissemination of the report on Finnwatch’s website –allegations denied by Finnwatch, who have asserted that they are the authors of the report and that Hall has no access to their website. Finnwatch have condemned National Fruit’s choice to prosecute a private individual instead of the organisation that authored and bears responsibility for the report.
Charges were first filed against Hall in February 2013. On 18 September 2015, an appeals court dismissed one case of defamation filed against him by the Natural Fruit Company, ruling that neither the Natural Fruit Company nor state prosecutors had grounds to sue for defamation in Thailand. Natural Fruit are reported to be appealing the ruling at the Supreme Court.
At a bail hearing held on 13 January 2016, a Bangkok court imposed a travel ban upon him and confiscated Hall’s passport. He was formally indicted on 18 January 2016 on charges of criminal defamation and violations of the Computer Crimes Act relating to the Finnwatch report.
Hall’s trial began on 19 May 2016, where the court heard testimony of prosecution witnesses for three days. Testimony of the defence was heard in June and July. On 20 September 2016, the Bangkok South Criminal Court convicted Hall of criminal defamation and violating the Computer Crimes Act. He was initially sentenced to four-year prison term, suspended for two years, and a fine of 200,000 Baht; however, as he had cooperated with proceedings, his sentence was reduced to a three-year prison term, suspended for two years, and a fine of 150,000 Baht (approx. US$4,300). According to Hall’s Twitter feed, the court also revoked his travel ban and returned his passport. Hall is expected to appeal the ruling and apply for bail.
Two cases of civil defamation remain pending against Hall, with damages of over US$13 million being sought. As these two cases are intrinsically linked to the criminal cases, rulings are dependent on their outcomes. The cases have been put on hold until all corresponding criminal cases have been concluded.
In May 2014, Thailand underwent its 12th successful military coup d’état since 1932 following almost seven months of escalating political violence. The coup imposed martial law and a curfew, dissolved the Senate – the only remaining national government body with elected members – and granted wide-ranging executive and legislative powers to its military leaders. In the wake of the coup, tight control of the media was imposed; many television and radio stations were shut down and journalists and academics arrested. Martial law was finally revoked in March 2015.
UN human rights mechanisms including the UN, OSCE and Organisation of American States (OAS) Special Mandates on freedom of expression have repeatedly clarified that criminal defamation and insult laws, such as those imposed in Thailand, are incompatible with international standards on free expression and have recommended that defamation and insult be fully decriminalised and replaced, where necessary, with appropriate civil defamation laws