Social Media is only a Tool

2018-04-05

In an interview with
the Daily Mirror Ambika Satkunanathan, one of the Commissioners at the
Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka said that social media is only a tool that
is used to incite hatred or violence and that it isn’t the cause of hatred or
violence. She said that when impunity isn’t addressed perpetrators are
emboldened as a result of which they continue to commit such offences.
Therefore, she stressed that in order to prevent the recurrence of such acts
perpetrators should be held accountable.
Excerpts:

 Not only those who participate in such violence, but also those who
instigate violence and provide organizational strength have to be made
accountable
 Violence appears to have been instigated by external elements in an
organized manner causing communal division, death and destruction of
property
 It’s possible without impinging on anyone’s right to privacy to map and
even predict violence that is about to happen
 Reason for the rise or prevalence of religious or communal violence is the
failure and inability to address existing intolerance and the lack of respect
for diversity and pluralism within society
 Take a multipronged approach to deal with issues of communal, ethnic or
religious intolerance or violence
 So the purpose particularly in post-war countries is to assist people who
have been affected by the war to rebuild their lives

Q We speak of reconciliation in the post-war context, but now there has been a
rise in communal violence. What is the reason behind this?

I think the reason for the rise or prevalence of religious or communal violence is
the failure and inability to address existing intolerance and the lack of respect for
diversity and pluralism within society, i.e. the intolerance of difference. In the
post-war context it is also important to address the root causes of the conflict. So
issues of inequality, discrimination and marginalization have to be dealt with.
During the month of May in 2017 the HRCSL wrote to his Excellency the President
and we pointed to the rise in religious intolerance and attacks on certain religious
groups and called for action. In particular, we called for the perpetrators to be
arrested and brought to justice. When you don’t address issues of impunity those
who perpetrate such acts of violence will be emboldened and think that they can
continue to commit such offences and get away with it.The failure to address
impunity erodes respect for the rule of law. The failure to address impunity in
cases of religious or communal violence also creates the belief that intolerance is
acceptable and that inciting religious or communal violence is acceptable which
leads to the erosion of the social fabric. Religious or communal hatred and
violence should not become normalized; we should be angered and outraged by
them. But outrage alone is not enough. We need action. Therefore, you have to
take a multipronged approach to deal with issues of communal, ethnic or religious
intolerance or violence.

Q After the letter to the President in May last year was action taken against the
perpetrators?
We have found that adequate action has not been taken to address these issues.
Q What are the findings of HRC’s investigations when it comes to the recent
incidents of communal violence?

The investigations are still continuing and our Kandy office is inquiring into the
matter and gathering information. Hence, it isn’t possible to state the outcome at
the moment, but as we said in our letters to the President and the Prime Minister,
according to preliminary investigations carried out by the Commission, the
violence appears to have been instigated by external elements in an organized
manner causing communal division, death and destruction of property. The
Commission takes this issue very seriously.

Q Do you think the Government is taking adequate action to identify who is

responsible for the recent incidents of communal violence and make them
accountable?

We have noted that many arrests have been made following these incidents, but
we have to wait and see what action would be taken following that. We stated in
our letters that not only those who participate in such violence, but also those
who instigate violence and provide organizational strength have to be made
accountable. Hence, we have to wait and see if that would be the case and
whether there are prosecutions.
Q Many have pointed fingers at law enforcement authorities for being
inefficient. Has the HRC addressed this issue?

These are all issues that we’ll be looking into during our investigation into the
violence. We hope to have it completed soon because it’s an issue of national
importance.

Q In the aftermath of the violence we saw efforts of solidarity being made by

the Sinhalese and the Muslim communities. What should be done to prevent a
recurrence of such violence?
Many things can be done. We need to acknowledge that intolerance and
prejudice exist within our societies and they need to be addressed. Where we find
communal harmony and good inter-ethnic relations we need to foster them. At
the local level or the community level where there was positive action or where
the communities banded together you found that the links between the different
communities was quite strong, which led them to come together during a crisis.
That definitely needs to be fostered and supported. And most importantly in
order to prevent a recurrence we need to have accountability. It means you need
to stem impunity and ensure there is respect for the rule of law. That is a key part
of preventing recurrence.

Q Spreading hatred and racism on social media is a longstanding issue. What

existing laws can be used to bring those who spread racism and hatred on social
media before justice?

Right now we have the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Act, which applies to incitement of religious and racial violence. But where social
media is concerned, I think it is also something that we need to understand
better. We need research and dialogue on the issue and we need to consult
experts. I think there is also a fear about social media, which sometimes happens
with new technology, and it is thought that by clamping down on the medium you
can stop certain acts. But social media is only a tool that is used to incite hatred or
violence, it is not the cause of hatred or violence. While we think of how to
manage the tool we must also address the root causes. Our policy and decision
making must be evidenced based and data driven. We must make informed
decisions based on evidence. As the HRC said in its letter to the Chairman of the
TRC it is also important to ensure that a balance is struck and it does not impinge
upon freedom of expression and the right to information and that it adheres to
the Constitution and to our international human rights obligations.

Q What kind of a social media policy can Sri Lanka adopt?

At present, a particular policy or framework cannot be recommended because

any recommendation made has to be informed and supported by data or
evidence. Currently, there is inadequate awareness of the manner in which social
media platforms function and ways in which they can be accessed- for instance,
as we know, even if you ban certain apps or social media platforms, you could use
VPN- proxy servers- to access these apps or sites. Hence, it is important to obtain
the advice of experts.

This is an area we really need to consider, learn and research more about and
ensure that any policy is evidenced based and data driven. I’ve talked to a few
experts and what I have learned is that I need to learn more. For example, I have
learned that it is possible without impinging on anyone’s right to privacy to map
and to even predict violence that is about to unfold, based on the data available
in the public domain. You can track who is saying what, how consistently they’re
saying it etc. Hence, it is possible to have some sort of an early warning system.
We must however always ensure that we take considered and well-informed
decisions. Most importantly, as I said social media is just a tool. We must not get
lost in talking about the tool and forget about the core issues and problems, and
the root causes of this violence.

Q In terms of transitional justice, the Government has been lagging behind the
full implementation of the UN resolution. What are the implications of this
delay?

Where transitional justice mechanisms are concerned the Commission has

expressed its disappointment about the delays in establishing them. We are
however pleased that the Office of Missing Persons has been established. In any
context, the failure to address the grievances, loss and pain of and violations
suffered by persons, would have an adverse impact on not only those affected,
but on the society as a whole and on inter-community relations in particular when
it concerns different ethnic/religious groups.

Q The Government has decided to establish a reparation office. What is the

purpose of a reparation office?

I can’t say anything specific about the Government’s proposed plans because the
Commission is not aware of them. In Sri Lanka, we often equate compensation
with reparation, whereas compensation is a part of reparation. Reparation has
many elements, namely, restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction
and guarantees of non-repetition. So it’s not only about providing redress for a
harm suffered, i.e. compensation for a destroyed house, but also recognizing the
right to reparation and recognizing victims as equal citizens. Reparation
programmes can include material, symbolic, individual and collective measures
etc. So the purpose particularly in post-war countries is to assist people who have
been affected by the war to rebuild their lives and return to a position in which
they were before they experienced the violence, violations etc. In establishing a
reparations programme it’s important to do so in a consultative manner with the
participation of civil society and of affected persons.

Q Is a new legislation required for the Office on Missing Persons (OMP)?

We currently have an institution called the Rehabilitation of Persons, Properties

and Industries Authority (REPPIA) that has been providing compensation to
people; including those affected by the armed conflict. But its remit is rather
narrow and it doesn’t adopt a holistic view of reparation. Hence, in order to
formulate a holistic reparations programme that adopts a broad definition of
reparation in line with international standards you would need to have a new
legislation.

Q The OMP is operationalized now with the appointment of its members. How
would the HRC assist the OMP?
Over the years the HRC has received a large number of complaints from families
of the disappeared. We will liaise with the OMP to share information that we
have with it and also provide any sort of assistance that it requires.

Q A team of legal experts from Sri Lanka is to challenge the procedure adopted
by the UNHRC to pass the resolution on Sri Lanka. What are the views of the
HRC in relation to this?

This doesn’t particularly fall within our mandate. Our mandate applies only within
the borders of Sri Lanka; we are also mandated to ensure that Sri Lanka adheres
to its international legal obligations.
Q Isn’t this UN resolution an international legal obligation as well?

Yes it is. But Sri Lankan citizens also have the right to engage in UN procedures
and its mechanisms. As far as we are concerned we look into allegations of
violations against the State within the borders of Sri Lanka and we are also
mandated to ensure that Sri Lanka adheres to its international legal obligations.
Any resolution that is accepted or conventions that are ratified by Sri Lanka are
within our mandate. But the intervention you mentioned is about citizens who
are engaging directly with the UN system and they have every right to do so.

Q Activists have urged for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA)
and in fact there were reports on a proposed counter terrorism Act. With regard
to the repeal of the PTA what is the current situation?

As you know the Commission has repeatedly called for the repeal of the PTA as it
allows for prolonged detention without judicial review and the admissibility of
confessions made to a police officer of a certain rank etc. We have reiterated
numerous times that any new legislation should be in line with international
human rights standards and Sri Lanka’s international obligations. The Commission
isn’t aware of the current status of the process to draft new law.

Q It was reported that the HRC hasn’t received a reply to an RTI request made
requesting a copy of the report on the Welikada prison riots within the time
stipulated in the law. What do you think of the efficiency in which public
authorities respond to RTI requests?

The RTI legislation is a very positive thing and it seems it has caught the public’s
imagination because people are using the law to obtain information and also to
bring about greater transparency.

What we find is that the State structures are still unprepared to implement it
effectively. This is due to many reasons. I think there is a lack of awareness of the
law and the obligations it places on public officials and the lack of human
resources in particular to implement it efficiently and effectively within the legally
stipulated timeline. In Sri Lanka we aren’t particularly partial to proactive
disclosure and I think there is still a reluctance to share information freely. We still
see that reluctance even though we have the RTI Law, which points to the fact
that legislation alone is inadequate to bring about social change. A change of
work culture and mindset is also required. Proactive disclosure means to disclose
everything possible unless you cannot for very serious reasons. If you look at the
HRC, we have listed information we can share and that which we can’t disclose.
However, even with regard to information we can’t disclose, we have stated that
if we believe it is in the public interest then we will disclose such information. We
are still unprepared and ill equipped to implement the law, which is a very
positive law. It can be a tool, a weapon to bring about greater transparency,
greater accountability and combat corruption.

Q In your view is the HRC truly independent?

Absolutely. We have not had any political interference from anyone telling us
what to do or what not to do, or try to influence our decisions in certain cases etc.
Therefore, we can say we believe that we are truly independent.

Q Do you think that the HRC should be vested with more power so that its
decisions are binding?

That’s a question that is asked from us very regularly. We’ve discussed this within
the Commission and we don’t believe that to be the case for many reasons.
Firstly, if we are to issue enforceable orders we would become a quasi-judicial
body. The whole point of establishing the HRC was to establish an alternative
mechanism for people to seek redress because court procedures are expensive,
time consuming etc. If we judicialize the HRC processes as well, then we make it
more difficult for the complainants. Secondly, in Sri Lanka there have been
instances when judicial orders, which are binding, are sometimes not adhered to.
Giving an order does not guarantee that it will be implemented. It all comes back
to respecting the rule of law, and how the citizens and public servants feel about
the HRC and its role in the society.

Globally, in most countries human rights commissions don’t have the power to
issue enforceable orders. They issue recommendations. In many countries these
recommendations are taken very seriously and implemented. Therefore, the
question we need to ask ourselves is why is it not happening in our country? So
the problem lies with us. Would the HRC issuing an order be taken as a solution?
We don’t think so because as I stated above, regrettably, there have been
instances when even court orders aren’t adhered to. So how do we solve this
problem? It’s about lack of respect for the rule of law and lack of respect for the
mandate and the role of the HRC. We believe that currently we do have quite
adequate powers because we can summon people and documents and we can
visit places of detention unannounced. At the end of the day it’s not about the
Commission per se, it’s about how the community and State structures react and
engage in our work. Does a penalty have to always exist in order for people to
respect a finding or a recommendation of the Commission? If so what does it say
about our society?

Pix by WarunaWanniarachchi
Posted by Thavam