အေၾကာငးအရာကန႔သတခကဆငရာ ေယဘယစညးမဥးမား Beginners’ guide to content restriction

ARTICLE 19 ARTICLE 19 Free Word Centre Downtown Yangon 60 Farringdon Road Myanmar London E: myanmar@article19.org EC1R 3GA Tw: @article19asia United Kingdom

T: +44 20 7324 2500 F: +44 20 7490 0566 E: info@article19.org W: www.article19.org Tw: @article19org Fb: facebook.com/article19org

ISBN: 978-1-906586-87-4

© ARTICLE 19, 2014

This work is provided under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-ShareAlike 2.5 licence. You are free to copy, distribute and display this work and to make derivative works, provided you:

1) give credit to ARTICLE 19; 2) do not use this work for commercial purposes; 3) distribute any works derived from this publication under a licence identical to this one.

To access the full legal text of this licence, please visit: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/legalcode.

ARTICLE 19 would appreciate receiving a copy of any materials in which information from this report is used.

This booklet was produced courtesy of funding from the British government.

ျမနမာျပည ျပျပငေျပာငးလေရးဆငရာ လပငနးစဥအျဖစ ၂၀၁၂ တြင အေျခခအဆင ႏငငတကာ လ႔အခြငအေရး ဥပေဒ လမးညႊနစာအပက ထတေ၀ခသည။ ဤလမးညႊန စာအပတြင လြတလပ စြာထတေဖာေျပာဆငခြငက ေလးစားရန၊ ကာကြယေစာငေရာကရနႏင ျမငတငရန အစးရ မား လပေဆာငရမညအရာ၊ မလပေဆာငသငသညအရာမား က ရငးျပထားသည။

ARTICLE 19 launched this beginners’ guide as part of our work on reform in Myanmar. It is part of a series of such guides which are available at www.article19.org

လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငႏငပတသတေသာ နငငတကာစႏႈနးမား 5 International standards on the right to free expression

အေၾကာငးအရာကန႕သတခကဆငရာေယဘယစညးမဥးမား 13 General rules on content restrictions

အေၾကာငးအရာကန႔သတထနးခပမႈ၏ သးျခားအမႈမား 18 Specific cases of content restriction

အသေရဖကျခငး 19 Defamation

အမးသားလျခေရးကာကြယေရး၊လထျငမ၀ပပျပားေရးႏငလထလျခ စတခေရး 33 Protection of national security, public order, public safety

အမနးတရားျဖစရနလႈ႕ေဆာျခငး 40 Incitement to hatred

ဘာသာေရးကေစာကားေသာ(ဘရားသခငကဆဆေသာစကား)ကထနးခ ပသညဥပေဒ 53 Blasphemy laws

သတငးမား 58 False news

ျပညသ႕နတ 62 Public morals

ကယပငလြတလပခြင 67 Privacy

2

3

This background paper is designed for freedom of expression advocates in Myanmar. It covers the questions frequently asked by people involved in media freedom and free speech campaigns. These questions include:

• What are the international freedom of expression standards?• How should print, broadcast and online media be regulated so that freedom of

expression be safeguarded?• How should courts balance between freedom of expression and other rights and

interests when deciding cases relating to media and journalists?• What are the international standards relating to organizing and holding protests? ဤေနာကခစာတမးသည ျမနမာျပညတြင သေဘာတေထာကခေသာ လြတလပစြာ ေရးသားထတေဖာ ေျပာဆခြငအတြက ျပစထားျခငးျဖစသည။ မဒယာလြတလပခြငႏင လြတလပေသာ စကားကနမ ပနး မား တြင လမား ထပခါထပခါေမးေလရေသာ ေမးခြနးမားကျခငထားသည။ ေမးခြနးမားမာ -

• နငငတကာ လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြင စနႈနးမားမာ အဘယနညး။• လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငက လျခစတခရေစရန မညသ႔ ပႏပထတေဝ ၊ ထတလႊငျပး

အြနလငးမဒယာက႑ကလညး မညသ႔ မညပ စညးကမးထနးခပရမညနညး ။ • မဒယာ၊ ဂာနယလစတ႔ႏင ဆကစပေနေသာ အမႈကစၥမားက ဆးျဖတၾကးနာရာတြင

တရားရးမားက လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြင ႏင အျခားေသာ အခြငအေရး၊ အကးစးပြားမားၾကား မညသ႕ ခနဆညႏႈငးေပးသငသနညး။

• စေဝးျခငး ၊ ဆႏၵျပျခငးမား ႏငစပလဥး၍ နငငတကာစႏႈနးမားမာ အဘယနညး ။

As a member of the international community, Myanmar has an obligation to respect and protect the right to freedom of expression and media freedom. This background paper is intended as an accessible and reliable resource of the international standards relating to media regulation, access to information, the rights to assembly and to expression. It

gives an overview of the exact meaning of the rights under international law and of recommendations of international bodies. This background paper is designed to be reader friendly as it is written in simple, non-legal language, with numerous examples and in questions-and-answers format.

နဒါနး Introduction

4

The content of the background paper reflects issues which the authorities in Myanmar are currently reforming or need to reform to democratize media and protect human rights. These issues were identified by civil society activists and media professionals who participated in the ‘Agenda For Change’ project in Myanmar. The elaborations and recommendations in the background paper aim at empowering civil society actors and ensuring their participation in the reforms of the national legislation relating to media and human rights.

နငငတကာအသငးအဝငး၏ အဖြ႔ဝငတစချဖစေသာ ျမနမာနငငအေနျဖင လြတလပစြာ ထတေဖာ ေျပာဆခြင ႏင မဒယာလြတလပခြငက ေလးစားကာကြယရန တာဝနရေပသည။ ဤေနာကခ စာ တမးက မဒယာစညးကမးထနးခပေရး၊ သတငးရရျဖန႔ျဖးပငခြင ၊ စေဝးခြင ၊ ထတေဖာ ေျပာဆ ခြင တ႔ႏင စပလဥးျပး နငငတကာစႏႈနး၏ လကခနငဖြယ ယၾကညေလာကဖြယ အရငးျမစတစခ အျဖစ ရညရြယထားပါသည။ နငငတကာဥပေဒေအာကရ အခြငအေရးမား၏ တကေသာ အ ဓပၸါယဖြငဆခကႏင နငငတကာအဖြ႔မား၏ ေထာကခခကမားအား ျခငသးသပထားေသာ အျမင ကလညး ေဖာျပထားသည။ ဤေနာကခစာတမးသည ေျမာကမားစြာေသာ ဥပမာတ႔ျဖင တရား ဥ ပေဒအသးႏႈနးမားမဟတဘ ရးရငး စြာေရးသားထားသညအျပင အေမးအေျဖပစျဖင ေဖာ ျပ ထားသျဖင စာဖတသအတြက ဖတရလြယေအာင ျပစထားျခငးျဖစပါသည။

စာတမး၏မာတကာမာ ျမနမာနငငရအာဏာပငမားမ လကရျပနလညျပျပငလကရေသာ (သ႔မ ဟတ) မဒယာအား ဒမကေရစနညးလမးမားျဖင ညႏႈငးမတဆကရနႏင လ႕အခြငအေရးက ကာ ကြယရနအတြက ျပနလညျပျပငရနလအပေနေသာ ကစၥရပမားႏင ထငဟပေရးသား ေဖာ ျပ ထားသည။ ဤကစၥရပမားကလညး လ႔အဖြ႕အစညးမ တကၾကြလႈပရားသမားႏင ျမနမာနငငရ “ Agenda For Change ” စမကနးတြင ပးေပါငးပါဝငခေသာ မဒယာဝါရငပဂၢလမားအားျဖင ေလ လာဆနးစစသတမတထားျခငးျဖစေလသည။ စာတမးပါ ထပမျဖညစြကခကမား ႏင ေထာကခ ခကမားသည လ႕အဖြ႕စညး၏ဇာတေကာငမားက စြမးအားျမငတငရနႏင မဒယာ ၊ လ႔အခြင အ ေရးတ႔ႏင ပတသတေသာ နငငေတာဥပေဒျပေရးျပနလညတညေဆာကျခငးမားတြင ၄ငး ဇာတ ေကာငတ႔၏ ပးေပါငးပါဝငမႈက အာမခခကေပးနငရန ရညရြယသည။

5

What do we mean by the human right to freedom of expression?The human right to freedom of expression means a number of things:

1. As one of the human rights, the right to freedom of expression is recognised international law. The international agreements recognising human rights are intended to protect individuals from their governments;

2. The fact that one has a human right means that governments are obliged to respect the right. International law lists not only specific human rights but also corresponding obligations for governments to every human over whom they exercise jurisdiction;

3. Human rights allow individuals to make a claim in courts against their governments when state bodies like police officers or ministers violate them and get a remedy. Moreover, international law establishes the principle that any violation of these rights is not an internal affair, but of legitimate concern to the international community as a whole. As a result, individuals can complain of violations of their human rights before international bodies and courts.

ကၽြနပတ႔ဆလေသာ လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆျခငးဆငရာ လ႔အခြငအေရးမာ အဘယနညး။ လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆျခငးဆငရာ လ႔အခြငအေရးသည အေၾကာငးအရာမားစြာက ဆလ သည။

၁ ။ လ႔အခြငအေရးမားထမ တစခအျဖစ လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငက နငငတကာ ဥပေဒ ျပ၍ အသအမတျပထားၾကသည။ လ႕အခြငအေရးက အသအမတျပထားေသာ နငငတကာ သ ေဘာတညမႈမားသည လတစဥးခငးစက ၄ငးတ႔၏အစးရထမ ကာကြယေပးနငရန ရညရြယထား သည။

၂ ။ လတစဥးစ၌ လ႕အခြငအေရးရရသညဆေသာအခကမာ အစးရအား လ႔အခြငအေရးက ေလး စားသမႈျပရန တာဝနေပးထားခရျခငးက ဆလသည။ နငငတကာဥပေဒသည အစးရမစ၍ အစး ရ၏တရား စရငျခငးခေနရေသာ လတငးအတြက လ႔အခြငအေရးခညး သးျခားမဟတဘ လ႔အ ခြငအေရးႏငတြဖကေနေသာ တာဝနဝတရားမားကပါ ထညသြငးထားေလသည

၃ ။ လ႔အခြငအေရးသည လတစဥးခငးစအား ရအရာရမား (သ႔မဟတ) ဝနၾကးမားကသ႕ေသာ ၄ငးတ႔၏ နငငေတာဌာနမားမ အၾကမးဖကနစနာေစေသာအခါ တရားရးမားတြင ယဥျပင အေရး ဆနငေစရန ႏင အမားျပငဆငခကရရနငရန ခြငျပေပးထားသည။ ထ႔အျပင ဤအခြငအေရးမား က ခးေဖာကမႈမနသမသည နငငတြငးအေရးကစၥမဟတဘ

လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငႏငပတသတေသာ နငငတကာစႏႈနးမားInternational standards on the right to free expression

6

နငငတကာလ႔အဖြ႕စညးတစခလး ႏငသကဆငေသာ တရားဝငပတသတမႈျဖစသညဟ နငငတကာဥပေဒက စညးမဥးမ ခမတ ထားသည ။ ရလဒအေနျဖင တစဥးခငးစက နငငတကာအဖြ႕အစညးမားႏင တရားရးမား ေရ႕ ေမာကတြင ၄ငးတ႔၏ လ႔အခြငအေရးခးေဖာကခရမႈက တငၾကားနငသည။

Which are the international agreements relating to the right to freedom of expression?The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by international and regional human rights agreements between the states. The most significant international agreements recognizing the right to freedom of expression are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR]. Both international law instruments have been developed under the UN system in 1949 and 1966.

Article 19 of the UDHR states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 19 of the ICCPR states:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The existence of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provide by law and are necessary:

a. For respect of the rights or reputations of others; b. For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

The right to freedom of expression is guaranteed by the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration. It is a regional human rights agreement developed by the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights and adopted unanimously by ASEAN members (including Myanmar) in November 2012.

Article 23 of the Declaration states:

Every person has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information, whether orally, in writing or through any other medium of that person’s choice.

7

လြတလပစြာထတေျပာဆခြငႏင သကဆငေသာ နငငတကာသေဘာတညမႈမားမာ အဘယ နညး။ လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငက နငငတကာႏင ေဒသတြငးရ နငငမားၾကား ခပဆထား ေသာ လ႔အခြငအေရးသေဘာတညမႈမားအားျဖင အာမခခကေပးထားသည။ လြတလပစြာ ထတ ေဖာေျပာဆခြငက အသမတျပထားေသာ အထငရားဆး နငငတကာသေဘာတညခကမားမာ ကမၻာလးဆငရာ လ႔အခြငအေရးေၾကညာခက (UDHR) ႏင နငငသားႏင နငငေရး အခြင အေရး မား ဆငရာ နငငတကာသေဘာတညမႈ (ICCPR) တ႔ပငျဖစသည။ ၁၉၄၉ ခႏစႏင ၁၉၆၆ ခႏစ တ႔တြင ၄ငးနငငတကာဥပေဒလပေဆာငခက ႏစရပလးသည ကလသမဂၢ လပေဆာငမႈစနစ ေအာက၌ ဖြ႕ျဖးလာခၾကသည။

UDHR ၏ အပဒ ၁၉ တြင ေဖာျပထားသညမာ -

လတငးတြင ၾကားေနေႏာငယကမႈမရဘ အယအဆက လြတလပစြာ ဆပကငထားပငခြင အျပင မညသညမဒယာႏင နယေျမကမဆအကန႕အသတမရ ေကာျဖတလက သတငးအခကအလက ႏင အေတြးအေခၚမားအား လြတလပစြာ ရာေဖြခြင ၊ လကခပငခြင ႏင တဆငျဖန႔ျဖးပငခြငရျခငး စေသာ အခြငအေရးမားပါဝငသည လြတလပစြာထငျမငယဆပငခြငႏင ထတေဖာေျပာဆခြင ရ သည။

ICCPR ၏ အပဒ ၁၉ တြင ေဖာျပထားသညမာ -

1. လတငးတြင ၾကားျဖတေႏာငယကျခငးမခရဘ မမအယအဆက လြတလပစြာ ဆပကင ထားပငခြငရရမည။

2. လတငးတြင လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြင ရရမည။ ၄ငးအခြငအေရးတြင သတငး အ ခကအလကႏင မညသည အေတြးအေခၚအယအဆကမဆ နယနမတ သတမတျခငး မ ရဘ ႏႈတျဖငျဖစေစ၊ ေရးသား၍ (သ႔မဟတ) ပႏပ၍ျဖစေစ ၊ အနပညာပစျဖငျဖစေစ ၊ ၄ငးစတၾကက မဒယာမနသမမတဆငျဖစေစ ရာေဖြ ၊ လကခ ၊ တဆငျဖန႔ျဖးပငခြင လညး ပါဝငရမည။

3. ဤအပဒရ စာပဒ (၂)တြင ေထာကပေပးထားေသာ အခြငအေရးမားတညရေနရျခငးသည ၄ငး၏ အထးတာဝနႏငဝတရားမားက ဆကလကေဆာငရြကရနျဖစသည။ ထ႔ေၾကာင တစတရာေသာ ခယျခယကန႔သတထားမႈမား ျဖစေကာငးျဖစနငသည ဆ ေသာလညး ၄ငးကန႔သတမႈမားသည ဥပေဒအရျပဌာနးထားျခငး နင လအပခက ေၾကာငသာ ျဖစသငေပသည။

a) အျခားသမား၏ ဂဏသကၡာႏင အခြငအေရးက ေလးစားရန။ b) နငငေတာလျခေရးႏင တညျငမေအးခမးေရး (သ႔မဟတ) ျပညသ႕ ကနးမာေရး ႏင လ႕ကငဝတ က ကာကြယေစာငေရာကရန။

လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငအား အာဆယလ႔အခြငအေရးေၾကညာခက (ASEAN Human Rights Declaration) က အာမခခကေပးထားသည။ ၄ငးသည လ႔အခြငအေရးဆငရာ အာဆယ နငငတကာအစးရေကာမရင၏လပေဆာငမႈျဖင ဖြ႔ျဖးတးတကလာခေသာ ေဒသတြငး လ႔အခြင အေရးသေဘာတညမႈျဖစျပး ၂၀၁၂ခႏစ၊ နဝငဘာလတြင ျမနမာနငငအပါဝင အာဆယအဖြ႕ဝင နငငမားမ အျပညအဝလကခကငသးခၾကေလသည။

8

ေၾကညာခက အပဒ ၂၃ တြငေဖာျပထားသညမာ -

လတငး၌ အယအဆကလြတလပစြာဆပကငထားပငခြင၊ သတငး အ ခကအလကႏင မညသည အေတြးအေခၚအယအဆကမဆ နယနမတ သတမတျခငး မ ရဘ ႏႈတျဖငျဖစေစ၊ စာေရး သား ၍ျဖစေစ၊ ၄ငးစတၾကက မညသညမဒယာမတဆငျဖစေစ ရာေဖြ ၊ လကခ ၊ တဆင ျဖန႔ျဖးပငခြင စသညတ႔အပါအဝင လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆ ယဆပငခြင ရရမညျဖစသည။

Is Myanmar obliged to respect the right to freedom of expression?Yes. Myanmar is obliged to respect all human rights including the right to freedom of expression. Although Myanmar has still to sign the ICCPR today the right to freedom of expression has gained the force of a binding custom within international law.

Myanmar has made an international pledge to respect the right to freedom of expression since as a member state to the ASEAN it should adhere to its Human Rights Declaration. The right to freedom of expression is also guaranteed by Articles 354 and 365 of the current Constitution of Myanmar.

ျမနမာနငငသည လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငက ေလးစားလကနာရန တာဝနရပါသလား ။ မနပါသည။ ျမနမာနငငသည လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငအပါဝင လ႕အခြငအေရးအားလး က ေလးစားလကနာရန

တာဝနရပါသည။ ယေန႔ျမနမာနငငသည ICCPR က လကမတေရးထးဖ႔ ရန တာဝနရေနဆျဖစေသာလညး လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငမာမ နငငတကာဥပေဒ ေဘာငအတြငး၌ အခြငအေရးႏင အေလအထ ပးတြရာတြင အရနအဟနရလာျပ ျဖစသည။

ျမနမာနငငသည အာဆယအဖြ႕ဝငနငငအေနျဖင အာဆယ၏ လ႔အခြငအေရးေၾကညာခကႏင အည ျပမေစာငထနးသငသညဆေသာေၾကာင လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငက ေလးစား လကနာ ရန နငငတကာႏင ေလးနကေသာ ကတကဝတျပလပချပးျဖစသည။

Is it necessary for Myanmar to sign the ICCPR?Yes. By signing the ICCPR Myanmar will not only confirm its pledge to respect and ensure human rights. It will also be obliged to report to the UN how it fulfils its obligation. At the same time the signing of the ICCPR by Myanmar will empower national and international organisations to monitor the human rights situation in the country and insist on observance of the international standards established by various UN human rights bodies.

ျမနမာနငငသည ICCPR က လကမတထးရန လအပပါသလား ။ဟတက။ ျမနမာနငငသည ICCPR က လကမတထးျခငးျဖင လ႔အခြငအေရးက ေလးစား လက နာရနႏင အာမခရန ယငးကတကဝတကအတညျပလကရသာမကပါ။ ကလသမဂၢသ႔ ျမနမာနင ငအေနျဖင ၄ငး၏တာဝနမားက မညသ႕ျဖညစြမးေဆာငရြကေနေၾကာငး အစရငခတငျပျပးလညး

9

ျဖစလမမည။ တခနတညးမာပင ျမနမာနငငမ ICCPR က လကမတထးျခငးသည ျပညတြငး ျပညပအဖြ႕အစညးမားက နငငတြငး လ႔အခြငအေရးအေျခေနအား ဆနးစစခပကငရန လပပင ခြငေပးလကရာကျပး ကလသမဂၢလ႕အခြငအေရးအဖြ႔စညးမားမ ခမတေဖာေဆာငထားသည အ မးမးေသာ နငငတကာစႏႈနးမားအား ကငသးရန အတညျပလကျခငးလညး ျဖစလမမည။

Which authorities clarify the scope of the right to freedom of expression?The following international bodies have powers to provide answers to clarify the interpretation of the international human rights agreements and give answers to many of the concrete questions encountered by those who wish to invoke the right, or those who are required to apply it.

Within the UN system, the Human Rights Council has powers to assess the human rights situation in all 193 UN Member States (including Myanmar). Appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression identifies new trends and attempts to clarify the scope and meaning of the right to freedom of expression. The UN Human Rights Council has also appointed the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar who monitors the current situation of human rights in Myanmar. The UN Human Rights Committee is responsible for overseeing

compliance with the ICCPR. Finally, UNESCO also sponsors declarations and other international standard setting documents on freedom of expression.

At regional level, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights has a mandate to promote human rights and uphold international human rights standards as prescribed by international human rights treaties and the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration.

Special regional human rights bodies have been established in Europe (the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)), Africa (African Court for Human and Peoples’ Rights, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights), Americas (the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights).

There are also regional special mandates for freedom of expression – the Organization of American States Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of Expression in Africa, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. Every year since 1999, the regional and UN special mandates issue joint declaration on freedom of expression.

မညသညအာဏာပငမားက လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြင ဖြ႔ျဖးရာဖြ႕ျဖးေၾကာငးက ရငးလငး

10

တငျပနငသနညး ။ နငငတကာလ႔အခြငအေရးသေဘာတညခကမား၏ ရငးလငးခကက အလြယတကနားလည ေစ ရနအလ႔ငာ အေျဖမားေထာကပေပးဖ႔ရနႏင အေၾကာငးျပခကအျဖစ အခြငအေရးက အသးျပ လေသာ (သ႔မဟတ) အသးျပရနမျဖစမေနလအပေနေသာ သမားမ မႏစျမ႕ဖြယ ေမးလာေသာ ထထညခငမာသည ေမးခြနးမားစြာအား ျပနလညေျဖၾကားဖ႔ရန ေအာကေဖာျပပါ နငင တကာ အဖြ႔စညးမား၌ အာဏာရေလသည။

ကလသမဂၢေဆာငရြကမႈစနစအေတာအတြငး (ျမနမာနငငအပါအဝင) ကလသမဂၢအဖြ႕ဝင ၁၉၃ နငငလးရ လ႔အခြငအေရးဆငရာ အေျခအေနတ႔က အကျဖတသးသပရန လ႔အခြငအေရး ေကာင စ၌ အခြငအာဏာရေလသည။ လြတလပစြာထငျမငပငခြငႏင ထတေဖာေျပာဆပငခြငတ႔အား တးျမငျခငးႏင ကာကြယျခငး၌ ကလသမဂၢလ႕အခြငအေရးေကာငစမ ခန႔အပထားေသာ ကလ သမဂၢအထးအစရငခတငျပသက လြတလပစြာထတေဖာ ေျပာဆခြင၏ အဓပၸါယႏင ဆင ပြား ေဖာျပခကအား အလြယ တက ရငးလငးသသာေစရန အေျပာငးလအသစႏင ၾကးပမးခက မား က သတမတေဖာေဆာငေပးသည။ ကလသမဂၢ လ႔အခြငအေရးေကာငစက ျမနမာနငငတြငး လကရ လ႔အခြငအေရးအေျခအေန က ေစာငၾကညစစေဆးေသာ ကလသမဂၢ အထးအစရငခ တငျပသ အထးကယစာလယလညး တာဝနခန႔အပျပးျဖစသည။ ကလသမဂၢ လ႕အခြငအေရးေကာမတသည ICCPR ၏ စညးကမးက လကနာျခငးရ၊ မရ ၾကညၾကပရာတြင တာဝနရသည။ ေနာကဆးတြင UNESCO အဖြ႕ၾကးမလညး

လြတလပစြာ ထတေဖာ ေျပာဆျခငးဆငရာ ေၾကညာခကမား ႏင အျခားေသာ နငငတကာစ တရားဝင အေထာကထားမတတမးမားက ေထာကပေပးေလသည။

ေဒသတြငးအဆင၌ လ႔အခြငအေရးဆငရာ အာဆယနငငမားအစးရ ေကာမရငသည နငငတကာ လ႔အခြငအေရးစာခပမားႏင အာဆယလ႔အခြငအေရးေၾကညာခကတ႔မ ေထာကခထားသကသ႔ လ႔အခြငအေရးက တးျမငရနႏင နငငတကာလ႔အခြငအေရးစမားက လကခအတညျပရန ေထာကခသမားမေပးအပသည အာဏာက ပငဆငထားသည။

ေဒသတြငးလ႔အခြငအေရးဆငရာ အထးအဖြ႕မားက ဥေရာပ (ဥေရာပလ႔အခြငအေရးတရားရး၊ ဥ ေရာပေကာငစ၊ ဥေရာပတြငး လျခေရးႏင ပးေပါငးေဆာငရြကေရးအဖြ႔အစညး OSEC) ၌လညး ေကာငး၊ အာဖရက (လသားႏင ျပညသ႔ အခြငအေရးမားဆငရာ အာဖရကနတရားရး၊ လသားႏင ျပညသ႔ အခြငအေရးမားဆငရာ အာဖရကနေကာမရင) ၌လညးေကာငး၊ အေမရကနနငင (လ႔အ ခြငအေရးဆငရာ အေမရကနႏင နငငတကာ ေကာငမရင၊ လ႔အခြငအေရးဆငရာ အေမရကနႏင နငငတကာ တရားရး ) ၌လညးေကာငး အသးသးတညေထာငဖြ႕စညးခၾကသည။

လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆျခငးအတြက ေဒသတြငး အထးခန႔အပအာဏာမားလညးရရာ _

လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆျခငးဆငရာ အေမရကန အထးအစရငခတငျပသအဖြ႔အစညး၊ အာဖရကရ လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆျခငးဆငရာအထးအစရငခသ ၊ မဒယာလြတလပျခငး ဆငရာ OSEC ကယစားလယ စသညတ႔ျဖစၾကသည။

11

၁၉၉၉ခႏစမစ၍ ႏစစဥ ေဒသတြငးႏင ကလသမဂၢ အထးကယစားလယမားမ လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆျခငးဆငရာ ပးေပါငးေၾက ညာခကက တရားဝငထတျပနေလရၾကသည။

What are the key aspects of the right to freedom of expression?According to Article 19 of ICCPR the right to freedom of expression has five main aspects:

1.) “Everyone shall have the right…”: This formulation means that the right belongs to both individuals and legal persons (like newspaper companies, for example). No distinction should be made on the basis of citizenship (states must guarantee the right of freedom of expression not only of their citizens but of foreign citizens and stateless persons on their territory.). No distinctions should be also made on the basis of gender, religion, political or other opinion, property or any other status.

2.) “…to seek, receive and impart…”: The right includes the opportunity to tell others what one thinks or knows and to seek and receive information from others, for example by obtaining and reading newspapers, listening to broadcasts, surfing the internet, participating in public debates.

3.) “…information and ideas of any kind…”: The right to freedom of expression applies not only to information and ideas generally considered to be useful or correct but to any kind of fact or opinion which can be communicated, including controversial, false

or even shocking materials.

4.) “…regardless of frontiers…”: the right to freedom of expression is not limited by national boundaries; States must allow their citizens to seek, receive and impart information to and from other countries.

5.) “…either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art of through any media…”: Citizens should be permitted to express themselves through any traditional and social media, works of art and public meetings.

လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြင၏ အဓကအခကမားမာ အဘယနညး ။ICCPR ၏ အပဒ ၁၉ အရ လြတလပစြာထတေဖာခြငတြင အဓကအခက (၅) ခကရသည။

၁။“ လတငးတြင အခြငအေရးရရမည … ” _ ဤေဖာျပခက၏အဓပၸါယမာ လတစဥး ခငး စ ေရာ ၊ တရားဥပေဒႏငသကဆငေသာပဂၢလမားကပါ ( ဥပမာ- သတငးစာကမၸဏမား ) အခြငအေရးက ပငဆငသည ဟဆလသည ။ နငငသားျဖစမႈ၏ အေျခခအခကမား၌ မည သည ထငရားေသာျခားနားခကတစတရာမ မရေစရ ။ ( နငငမားက လြတလပစြာ ထတ ေဖာေျပာဆခြငသည ၄ငးတ႔၏နငငသားမားအတြကသာမဟတဘ နငငျခားသားမားႏင ၄ငးတ႔ပငနကအတြငးေနထငလကရေသာ နငငမ လမားအတြကပါ အာမခခက ေပးရ မညျဖစသည။ ) ထ႔ျပင လငကြျပားမႈ၊ ဘာသာေရး၊ နငငေရး (သ႕မဟတ) အျခားေသာ အျမငအယအဆ၊ ပငဆငမႈ (သ႔မဟတ) အဆငအတနးသတမတခကတ႔၏ အေျခခအ ခကမား၌လညး သသသာသာျခားနားျခငးမရေ

12

စရ။

၂။“ ရာေဖြရန ၊ လကခရရရန ႏင တဆငျပနလညျဖန႔ေဝရန … ” _ ဤအခြငအေရးတြင လ တစဥးတစေယာကက ၄ငး သရေတြးထငထားသမ အျခားသမားသ႔ ေျပာျပရနႏင အျခား သမားထမ သတငးအခကအလကမား ရာေဖြ လကခရန အခြငအလမးလညး ပါဝင သည ။ (ဥပမာ- သတငးစာမားဖတျခငးႏင သတငးစာမ သတငးရရျခငးအားျဖင ၊ အသ ထတလႊငမႈက နားေထာငျခငးအားျဖင ၊ အငတာနကအသးျပျခငးအားျဖင ၊ လထေဆြး ေႏြးပြမားတြင ပါဝငျခငးအားျဖင သတငးအခကအလကရရျခငး)

၃။“ မညသည သတငးအခကအလကႏင အယအဆမးမဆ … ” _ ေယဘယအားျဖင အသးဝငသည (သ႔မဟတ) မနကနသညဟ သတမတခထားရေသာ သတငးအခက အ လကႏင အယအဆမားသာမကဘ၊ အျငငးပြားစရာမား ၊ မားယြငးမႈ (သ႔မဟတ) ထတ လန႔စရာ သတငးအခကအလကမား အပါအဝင ဆကသြယ၍ရေသာ မညသည အခက အလက အယအဆတြငမဆ လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြင သကေရာကလကရ သည။

၄။“ နယနမတသတမတခကမရဘ … ” _ လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငသည နငင ေတာနယနမတေဘာငမားအားျဖင ကန႔သတခရျခငးမရပါ ။ နငငမားသည ၄ငးတ႔၏ နင ငသားမားက အျခားနငငမားဆမ (သ႔မဟတ) အျခားနငငမားဆသ႔ သတငးအခက အ လကမား ရာေဖြ၊ လကခ ျပး တဆင ျပနလညျဖန႔ေဝနငရန ခြငျပေပးထားရမည။

၅။“ မညသညမဒယာမတဆင ႏႈတျဖငျဖစေစ၊ စာျဖင (သ႔မဟတ) ပႏပေဖာျပျခငး ျဖင ျဖစ ေစ ၊

အနပညာပစျဖငျဖစေစ … ” _ နငငသားတ႔သည မညသ႔ေသာ အစဥအလာမဒယာ (သ႕မဟတ) လမႈကြနယကမဒယာမား ၊ အနပညာလကရာမားႏင လထေတြ႕ ဆပြမား မမဆ ၄ငးတ႔ကယတင တဆငေဖာျပရန ခြငျပထားျခငးခရမည။

13

Can the right to freedom of expression be restricted?Yes. Article 19 paragraph 3 of the ICCPR allows for expression to be restricted. It provides that the existence of the right carries with it special duties and responsibilities. The right is subject to certain restrictions.

လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငက ကန႔သတ၍ရနငပါသလား။ မနပါသည။ ICCPR ၏ အပဒ ၁၉ ၊ စာပဒ (၃)က လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆျခငးက ကန႔သတရန ခြငျပထားပါသည။ အခြငအေရးဆသည ၄ငး၏ အထးတာဝနႏင ဝတရားမားကပါ တဆကတညး ေဆာငရြကေၾကာငး ၄ငးစာပဒမ ေဖာျပထားသည။ အခြငအေရးက ကန႔သတခ ရနငသည။

Who can restrict expression?Normally expression is restricted by state bodies. It can be the legislator (by adopting a law on defamation, for example) or by a media regulator (by not revoking a broadcast licence) or by a police officer (by seizing the leaflets which are being distributed by a protester).

International human rights law provides protection of expression against actions of state bodies. In General Comment 34 the UNHRC set out that “[a]ll branches of the State (executive, legislative and judicial) and

other public or governmental authorities, at whatever level – national, regional or local – are in a position to engage the responsibility of the State party”.

ထတေဖာေျပာဆျခငးက မညသက ထနးခပနငသနညး။ပမနအားျဖင ထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငက နငငေတာအဖြ႔အစညးမားမ ထနးခပၾကသည။ ယငးအဖြ႕ သည ဥပေဒျပသ (ဥပမာ- အသေရဖကျခငးဆငရာ ဥပေဒက လကခကငသးျခငးအားျဖင) ၊ သ႔ မဟတ မဒယာစညးကမးထနးသမးေရး (အသလႊငလငစငေတာငးခရျခငးက ပယဖကျခငးမရ ဘ) ၊ သ႔မဟတ ရအရာရတစဥး (ကန႕ကြကဆႏၵပြတြငပါဝငသမ ျဖန႕ေဝေသာ ပႏပစာရြကမား အား သမးဆညးျခငးအားျဖင) ျဖစနငသည။

နငငတကာလ႔အခြငအေရးဥပေဒက နငငအဖြ႕စညးမား၏လပေဆာငခကမားက ဆန႔ကငသည ထတေဖာေျပာဆမႈအား အကာအကြယျပရန ေထာကပထားသည။ အေထြေထြသးသပခက ၃၄ တြင UNHCR မ ထတျပနထားသညမာ _“ နငငေတာက႑မား (တညေဆာကေရး၊ ဥပေဒျပေရး ၊ တရားစရငေရး ) ႏင အျခား လထ(သ႔မဟတ) အစးရ အာဏာပငမားသည နငငေတာအဆင ျဖစေစ၊ ေဒသတြငးအဆငျဖစေစ (မညသညအဆင၌မဆ) နငငေတာပါတ၏ တာဝနဝတရားမား က ခတဆကေပးရန တာဝနရေလသည ”

Are there criteria for restriction of expression?

အေၾကာငးအရာကန႕သတခကဆငရာေယဘယစညးမဥးမားGeneral rules on content restrictions

14

Yes. Article 19 paragraph 3 of the ICCPR provides that the right to freedom of expression may be subject to certain restrictions but “these shall only be such as are provide by law and are necessary:

a. For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

b. For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.”

It means that all limitations on free speech must meet three requirements:

1. The restrictions must be set out in law. Normally freedom of expression is restricted through laws specially designed for protection of reputation (defamation laws) or national security (for example, terrorism laws) or public morals (for example, laws against obscenity or pornography);

2. The restriction should pursue only one of the following interests: to ensure respect of the rights or reputation of others or to protect of national security, public order, public health or public morals.

Restrictions on the right to freedom of expression for the protection on other grounds is not permissible under international law. For example, desire to shield institutions such as the army or the administration or religion from criticism can never justify limitations on free speech. Likewise the UN Human Rights Committee has expressed concern regarding laws

on such matters as lack of respect for authority, protection of the reputation of monarch or heads of state, disrespect for flags and symbols.

3. Any restriction on the right to freedom of expression be necessary for the protection of the rights of others or the other legitimate interests. It means that legislators and the law enforcement bodies should always balance between the right to freedom of expression and other rights and interests and consider if the restriction of the first is necessary. The great majority of cases of violations of the right of freedom of expression are a result of the failure of legislators or law enforcement bodies to consider the question of necessity.

Furthermore, international courts have set out few qualitative requirements that the public authority must demonstrate to justify that a restriction on the right to freedom of expression is necessary. The state must demonstrate that:

1. The restriction is in response to a pressing social need, not merely convenience or usefulness. For example, there is no pressing social need for the prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings for defamation of a state official if there is no complaint by the official.

2. If there exists an alternative measure which would accomplish the same goal in a way less intrusive to the right to freedom of expression, the chosen measure is not in fact “necessary”. For example,

15

shutting down a newspaper for defamation is excessive, a retraction, or perhaps a combination of a retraction and a warning or a modest fine, would adequately protect the defamed person’s reputation.

3. The impact of restriction must be proportionate, meaning that the harm to freedom of expression caused by the restriction must not outweigh its benefits to the interest it is directed at. For example imprisonment for defamation has been found by international courts to be a disproportionate restriction of freedom of expression.

When the restriction does not apply to one of these requirements it is not necessary.

ထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငက ကန႔သတရာတြင စသတမတခကမား ရပါသလား ။ဟတက။ ICCPR ၏ အပဒ ၁၉ ၊ စာပဒ (၃) တြင ေထာကပေဖာျပထားသညမာ လြတ လပ စြာ ထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငသည ကန႔သတထနးခပခရနငသညဆေသာလညး “ ၄ငးကန႔သတခက မားသည ဥပေဒေၾကာငးအရ ႏင လအပခကအရသာ ျဖစရမည ” ဟ၍ျဖစသည။

a) အျခားသမား၏ ဂဏသကၡာႏင အခြငအေရးက ေလးစားရနအတြက။

b) နငငေတာလျခေရးႏင တညျငမေအးခမးေရး (သ႔မဟတ) ျပညသ႕ ကနးမာေရး ႏင လ႕ကငဝတ က ကာကြယေစာငေရာကရနအတြက။

လြပလပစြာေျပာဆျခငးအေပၚရ

ကန႔သတမႈမားအားလးသည လအပခက (၃)ချဖင ကကညရ မညဟ ဆလသည။

၁။ကန႔သတမႈမားက ဥပေဒေဘာငအတြငး ခမတရမည။ ပမနအားျဖင လြတလပစြာ ထတ ေဖာေျပာဆျခငးက လ႔ဂဏသကၡာအားကာကြယရန အတြက အထးေဖာေဆာင သတ မတထားေသာ ဥပေဒမား (အသေရဖကျခငးဆငရာ ဥပေဒ)၊ သ႔မဟတ နငငေတာ လ ျခ ေရး (ဥပမာ- နငငေရးတြင အၾကမးဖကျခငးဆငရာ ဥပေဒ)၊ သ႔မဟတ လ႔ကငဝတစႏႈနး ( ဥပမာ- စကဆပဖြယေကာငးသည စကား၊အျပအမ သ႔မဟတ လငစတထၾကြေစရန ႏႈး ေဆာသည ေဖာျပခကမားဆငရာ ဥပေဒမား)စသည တ႔မ တဆင ထနးခပကန႕ သတ ၾကသည။

၂။ ကန႔သတမႈက ေအာကပါ အကးမားမ တစခအတြကသာ ၾကးပမးသငသည။ _ အျခားသမား၏ အခြငအေရးႏင ဂဏသကၡာက ေလးစားရန (သ႔မဟတ) နငငေတာ လ ျခေရး၊ ျငမဝပပျပားေရး၊ လထကနးမာေရး (သ႔မဟတ) လ႔ကငဝတစႏႈနးမားက အကာ အကြယျပအာမခခကေပးနငရန ။

အျခားေသာအေၾကာငးျခငးရာမားအေပၚတြင အေျခချပး လြတလပစြာထတေဖာ ေျပာ ဆ ခြငက ကန႔သတျခငးမာ နငငတကာဥပေဒအရ လကခနငဖြယမရေခ။ ဥပမာ- စစတပ ၊ အပခပေရးပငး သ႔မဟတဘာသာေရးက ေဝဖနျခငးကသ႔ ခငမာသည ဓေလထးစမား အား ကာကြယလသညဆႏၵမာ လြတလပေသာအသက ထနးခပကန႔သတျခငးရန အ ေၾကာငးျပခကေကာငးဘယေသာအခါမျဖစလမမညမဟတပါ။ ထကသ႔ပင လပပငခြင အာဏာအားမေလးမစားလပျခငး၊ နငငအၾကးအ က (သ႔မဟတ)ဘရင၏ ဂဏသကၡာ အား ကာကြယမႈမရျခငး ၊ အလန႕ သေကၤတမားအား မရမေသျပမျခငးဆင

16

ရာ ဥပေဒ မားႏင ပတသတျပး ကလသမဂၢ လ႕အခြငအေရးေကာမတမ ၄ငး၏ စးရမမႈအား ေဖာျပခ႔ ျပး ျဖစသည။

၃။အျခားသမား၏အခြငအေရးမားအား ကာကြယျခငးအတြက (သ႔မဟတ) ဥပေဒက ခြငျပ ထားေသာအျခားအကးေကးဇးမားအတြက လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆျခငးအား ကန႔ သတသည မညသညကန႔သတခကမဆ လအပပါသည။ ဥပေဒျပသမားႏင တရားဥပ ေဒအားလကနာရန တြနးအားေပးေစခငးသညအဖြ႔မားသည လြတလပစြာထတေဖာ ေျပာ ဆခြငႏင အျခားအခြငအေရးအကးစးပြားမားအၾကား အျမပင ဘကညည ေဆာငရြက သငျပး ပထမကန႔သတခကမာ လအပမႈရရ႕လားဟ ေလးေလးနကနကစဥးစား သငေပ သည။ လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငအား ခးေဖာကသည အမႈအမားစမာ ဥပေဒ ျပ သမားႏင ဥပေဒလကနာရနတြနးအားေပးသညအဖြ႔မားမ လအပခက ေမးခြနးမားက အာရစကဖ႔ရန ပကကြကချခငး၏ ေနာကဆကတြျဖစေလသည။

ထ႔ျပင နငငတကာတရားရးမားမ အေရအတြကဆငရာ လအပခကမားက ထတျပနခ ျပး ျဖစ သည။ ယငးမာ လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငကကန႕သတရနလအပေၾကာငး လထဝနထမး အာဏာပငမားမ ကးေၾကာငးမနကနေအာင တတကကျပသရမညျဖစသည။ နငငေတာက အ ခငအမာျပသရနမာ _

၁။ ကန႔သတျခငးသည လမႈအေျခခလအပခက၏ဖအားကတ႕ျပနမႈပငျဖစသည။ အဆငေျပ ရ၊အသးကရသကသကမသာမဟတေပ။ ဥပမာ- အစးရအရာရတစဥး၏ အသေရဖကမႈက အကယ၍သာ တငတနးမညသမရလင တရားသၾကးမ အေရးယေဆာငရြကမညမဟတပါ။

၂။လြတလပစြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငက

မသမသာနညးလမးျဖင တညေသာလရငးကပ ေရာကရျပညစေစမည တျခားေရြးခယစရာ ေဆာငရြကခကတစခခရလင ေရြးခယထား ျပးသား ေဆာငရြကခကသည အမနတကယ လအပခကမဟတပါ ။ ဥပမာ- အသေရ ဖကျခငးေၾကာင သတငးစာတစခကရပစလကျခငးသည လအပတာထကပေသာ အေရး ယမႈျဖစျပး ကန႕သတတားဆးျခငး၊ သ႔မဟတ ကန႕သတတားဆးျခငးႏင သတေပးခက ေပါငးစပအျပစေပးမႈျဖစေကာငးျဖစနငျပး သ႔မဟတပါကလညး အကန႔သတျဖင ဒဏ ေၾကးေငြေပးေဆာငခငးျခငးတ႔သည အသေရဖကခရေသာ လပဂၢ လ၏ ဂဏသကၡာ အ တြက လကခ၍ရေသာအကာကြယေပးျခငး ျဖစေပလမမည။

၃။ကန႕သတတားဆးျခငးသညအခးအစားကရမည။ဆလသညမာကန႕သတျခငးေၾကာင လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငးအေပၚတြငျဖစလာမညေဘးအႏရာယသည ရရလာ မညအကးတရားထကမပေစရ၊ဥပမာ။ အသေရးဖကမႈ က ႏငငတ ရားရးမားမ ျပစဒဏခမတျခငးသည အခးအစားမတမႈမရသညကေတြ႕ရသည။.

ကန႔သတထနးခပမႈသည မညသညအခနတြင မရမျဖစမဟတေသာ လအပခကမားႏင မသကဆငဘ ရေနသနညး ။

When should the content be restricted?Because of the risk of abuse by state bodies of their powers, as a matter of principle any suppression of expression should be made after publication. In some countries (for example, USA and Argentina) any prior restraint to freedom of expression is forbidden by the constitution. ARTCILE

17

19 notes that systems of prior restraint whereby publications must be submitted to censors for clearance before being distributed have for some time now been unknown among democracies.

Prior restraints can be acceptable under international law only as a highly exceptional measure, taken only when a publication threatens grave harm, such as loss of life or serious harm to health, safety or the environment. An article deemed defamatory, blasphemous, obscene or overly critical of the government would rarely if ever meet this threshold. Any decisions for prior restraint should be triggered by complaints and taken by court. They should be subject to appeal too.

မညသညအခနမာ အေၾကာငးအရာက ကန႔သတသငသလ။ စညးမဥးမအရ အာဏာရေသာ နငငေတာအဆငအဖြ႔စညးမားအားျဖငျပလပေသာ ထခကနစနာေစမႈသည အႏ ရာယရေသာအေျခေနက ျဖစေပၚေစေသာေၾကာင ထတေဖာေျပာဆျခငးက ထတေဝျပးမသာ အဆးသတႏမႏငးမႈ ျပလပသငသည။ အခ႕နငငမား (ဥပမာ- အေမရကနႏင အာဂငတးနား) တြင အေျခခဥပေဒအရ လြတလပစြာထတေဖာ ေျပာ ဆခြငက ၾကတငကန႕သတထနးခပမႈဟသမအား တားျမစထားေလသည။ Article 19 မ ေဖာျပသညမာ ထတေဝျခငးက ကန႔သတေသာ အၾက ထနးခပမႈစနစမားသည ရငးလငး ဖယထတမႈျပရနအတြက ထတေဝျခငးမျပရမမာဘ ဆငဆာစနစ၏ အေရးယျခငးက ခရျပး ထစ နစက ယေန႔ဒမကေရစနငငမားတြင

အသအမတမျပေတာေပ။

နငငတကာဥပေဒေအာကတြင ထတေဝျခငးသည အသကဆးရႈးျခငး သ႔မဟတ ကနးမာေရး၊ လ ျခမႈ ႏင ပတဝနးကငက ျပငးျပငးထနထနထခကေစသျဖင အႏ ရာယၾကးေသာ ထခကနာ ကငေစမႈအျဖစျခမးေျခာကေနသညအခါမသာ အၾကကန႔သတထနးခပျခငးက လကခလ႔ရေလ သည။ အပဒတစခက သးသပထားသညမာ အစးရအား အေသေရဖကျခငး၊ ကနဆျခငး ၊ အျပစရာျခငးတ႕က ျပလပမသာ အၾကကန႕သတထနးခပမႈက ၾကေတြ႕ရမညျဖစသည။ မေကမနပတငတနးခကက ၾကတငကန႔သတထနးခပျခငးက ရတတရတျဖစေပၚေစျပး တရားရးမ ျပလပရမညျဖစသည။ စြခကတငခရေသာ သမားကလညး အယခဝငသငသည။

18

အေၾကာငးအရာကန႔သတထနးခပမႈ၏ သးျခားအမႈမားSpecific cases of content restriction

19

What is defamation?Defamation is the communication of a false statement of fact which damages reputation of a person.

This definition contains four elements. In order to be defamatory, a statement must:

• be false (see the section on the defence of the truth, below);

• be of a factual nature (see the section on the defence of opinion);

• cause damage; and

• this damage must be to the reputation of the person concerned, which in turn means that the statement in question must have been read, heard.

Example of defamation scenario: a newspaper publishes an article whose author alleges that a teacher at the local primary school gives alcohol to children. The allegation is defamatory because it is factual and damages the reputation of the teacher. If the court establishes that the statement is false it can find the article’s author guilty of defamation.

အသေရဖကျခငးဟသညမာ အဘယနညး ။ အသေရဖကျခငးသည လတစဥးတစေယာက၏ ဂဏသကၡာက ထခကပကျပားေစသည

မားယြငးေသာ ေဖာျပခကအား တစဥးႏငတစဥး ဆကသြယေျပာဆျခငး ျဖစသည။

ဤအဓပၸါယဖြငဆခကတြင အခကေလးခကပါဝငသည။ အသေရဖကမႈတစခ ျဖစေစရန ေဖာျပခကသည

• မားယြငးရမည (ေအာကတြငေဖာျပထားေသာ အမနတရား၏ကာကြယမႈ အပငးတြင ၾကညပါ)

• ျဖစရပမတေပၚတြင အေျချပထားေသာ သဘာဝျဖစရမည (အယအဆအားကာကြယျခငး အပငးတြင ၾကညပါ)

• ထခကပကစးရေစမညျဖစျပး

• ယငးထခကပကစးေစျခငးသည လပဂၢ လတစဥး၏ ဂဏသကၡာႏင ဆကစပမႈရရမည။ အျပနအလနအဓပၸါယမာ ေမးခြနးပါ ေဖာျပခကအား ဖတဖး၊ ၾကားဖးျပး ျဖစရမည။

အသေရဖကျခငးဆငရာ ၾကတငေတြးဆထားမႈ ဥပမာမား _ သတငးစာတစေစာငမ သတငး တစပဒထတေဝသည။ယငးသတငးစာစာေရးသမ ေဒသတြငးမလတနးေကာငးမ ဆရာ တစဥး သည ကေလးမားအား အရကတကသညဟ စြပစြထားသည။ ထသတငးသည အမနတခ႕က အ ေျချပေရးသားထားျခငးျဖစျပး ေကာငးဆရာ၏ ဂဏသကၡာအား ထခကနစနာေစေသာေၾကာင ၄ငးစြတစြခကသည အသေရဖကမႈပငျဖစသည။ တရားရးမ ယငးေဖာျပခကသည မားယြငး ေၾကာငး သတငးထတျပနမညဆပါက

အသေရဖကျခငး Defamation

20

သတငးေရးဆရာ၌ အသေရဖကသည အျပစက ရာေဖြနင မညျဖစသည။

How is defamation regulated?States protect reputation through defamation laws which provide for sanctions for those who unlawfully defame other persons. Broadly speaking, the term ‘defamation law’ is used to refer to any law related to the protection of individuals’ reputation or feelings. All countries have defamation laws, although a range of terms are used to describe these, including libel, slander, insult, ‘desacato’ and so on.

In many countries, defamation is both a civil wrong and a criminal offence. The distinction between civil and criminal defamation laws reflects the wider division between civil and criminal law which exists in all legal systems. Criminal law generally deals with acts which are deemed to harm the general public interest, such as assault or robbery. Although such acts may take place between two individuals, they are considered to pose a risk to everyone in society, since everyone is at risk of being attacked or robbed if such actions are not sanctioned. If found guilty, the suspect can be required to make reparation to the community by paying a fine to the State, be punished through a prison term or have some other penalty imposed.

Civil law, on the other hand, is concerned with private disputes between individuals or organisations. It covers such matters as contracts, property ownership, labour

relations and family disputes, all of which are considered to be issues between the individuals involved. The purpose of the civil law is not to punish on behalf of society, but to restore the wronged party to their rightful situation. Civil courts can award compensation, but cannot impose fines or prison sentences.

အသေရဖကျခငးကမညသ႕ထနးခပမညနညး။ အျခားသအေပၚ တရားမဝင အသေရဖကသည လမားအား ျခမးေျခာကအျပစေပးရန ေထာက ပ ေပးထားသည အသေရဖကျခငးဆငရာဥပေဒမားမတဆင လ႔ဂဏသကၡာအား နငငေတာမ အ ကာအကြယေပးထားသည။ ကယျပန႔စြာေျပာရမညဆလင အသေရဖကျခငးဆငရာဥပေဒ၏ အ ဓပၸါယမာ လတစဥးတစေယာကခငး၏ ဂဏသကၡာႏင ခစားခကမားအား ကာကြယမႈျပျခငးႏင ဆကစပလကရေသာ မညသညဥပေဒကမဆ ေဖာျပညႊနးဆေလရသည။ မဟတမမန သကၡာက သည အေရးအသား ၊ သကၡာကေအာင မဟတမမနလပၾကေျပာဆျခငး ၊ ေစာကားျခငးစသညတ႔ အပါအဝင စကားလး အဓပၸါယ၏ ကြျပားျခားနားခကမားက ခြျခားသတမတေလရေသာလညး နငငတငး၌မ အသေရဖကျခငးဆငရာဥပေဒသတမတခကမားရၾကေလသည။

တငးျပညအေတာမားမားမာ အသေရဖကျခငးသည လမႈေရးဆငရာမားယြငးမႈႏင ရာဇဝတမႈ ဆငရာ ဥပေဒႏငမညေသာလပရပ ႏစမးလးပငျဖစသည။ တရားမမႈဆငရာ အသေရဖကျခငး ဥပေဒ ႏင ရာဇဝတမႈဆငရာ အသေရဖကျခငးဥပေဒတ႔ၾကား ကြာျခားခကမာ ဥပေဒအေျချပ စ နစမားတြငတညရေနေသာ

21

တရားမမႈႏင ရာဇဝတမႈဥပေဒတ႔ၾကား ပမကယျပန႔သည သေဘာ ထားကြျပားခကက ထငဟပလကရသည။ ရာဇဝတမႈဥပေဒသည ေယဘယအားျဖင ရတတရတ တကခကမႈႏင ဓားျပမႈကသ႔ အေထြေထြေသာျပညသ႔အကးစးပြားက ထခကေစသညဟ သးသပ ျခငးခထားရေသာ အျပမႈမားႏင ဆကႏြယပတသတေနသည။ ထကသ႔ေသာ အျပအမမားသည လႏစဥးၾကားတြင ျဖစပြားေကာငးျဖစပြားနငေသာလညး ထအျပအမမားအားပတဆ႔မထားလင လတငးသည တကခကခရျခငး (သ႔မဟတ) ဓားျပတကခရျခငးဆသည အႏရာယအေနထားက ၾကေတြ႔နငေခရေသာေၾကာင ၄ငးအျပအမတ႔သည လ႔အဖြ႕စညးတြငးရ လတငးက အႏ ရာယရေသာ အေျခေနအျဖစ သတမတျခငးခရသည။ အျပစရေၾကာငး ေတြ႔ရလင အျပစကး လြနသညဟ သသယရခရသသည နငငေတာသ႔ ဒဏေငြေပးေဆာငျခငးျဖင လထက ထခက ပကစးေစျခငးအ တြက အေလာေပးရနလအပျပး ေထာငချခငး (သ႔မဟတ) အျခားေသာ ျပစ ဒဏကခမတျခငးျဖငလညး အျပစေပးခရနငသည။

အျခားတဖကတြငလညး Civil Law (တရားမမႈ) သည လအခငးခငးၾကား (သ႔မဟတ) အဖြ႕စညး မားၾကားရ ကယေရးကယတာ သေဘာထားကြလြအျငငးပြားျခငးမားႏင ပတသတလကရသည။ ၄ငးတြင စာခပစာတမး၊ ပစၥညးဥစၥာပငဆငမႈ၊ အလပသမားေရးရာ ႏင မသားစအျငငးပြားမႈမား ကသ႔ ကစၥရပမားအားလးပါဝငသည။ တရားမမႈ၏ ရညရြယခကမာ လ႔အဖြ႔စညးကယစား အျပစ ေပးရနသာမဟတ၊ မားယြငးမႈမားအား အျဖစမနအေျခေနသ႔ ျပနလညေရာကရေစရနလညး ျဖစ ေလသည။ တရားမမႈဆငရာ တရားရးမားသည ေလာေၾကးရရနငေသာလညး ဒဏေငြ (သ႔မ ဟတ) ေထာငဒဏမား မခမတနငေခ။

What is the difference between defamation and hate speech?Hate speech laws are laws which prohibit statements which incite discrimination, hostility or violence against a group with a shared identity, such as nationality, race or religion. In some cases, the term ‘group defamation’ is used to refer to such laws. There are, however, two important differences with defamation laws: first, hate speech laws are intended to protect the safety and social equality of vulnerable groups, rather than their reputation; and second, hate speech laws protect groups of people, identified by certain shared characteristics, rather than individuals or legal persons (such as businesses or non-profit organisations).

အသေရဖကျခငးႏင အမနးစကားၾကား ကြာျခားခကမာ အဘယနညး။အမနးစကားဆငရာဥပေဒမားသည ခြျခားဆကဆမႈ ၊ မခငမငမရငးႏးေသာအျပအမ (သ႔မ ဟတ) အမးသားေရး၊ လမး၊ ကးကြယမႈဆငရာ ကြျပားေသာ အပစတစစအားဆန႔ကငမႈတ႔က တြနးအားေပးလႈ႕ေဆာသည ေဖာျပခကမားက တားျမစထားေသာ ဥပေဒျဖစသည။ တခ႕ေသာ ကစၥမားတြင အပစလကအသေရဖကျခငးဆသည ေဝါဟာရမာ ထ ဥပေဒမားက ရညညႊနးေလရသည။ မညသ႔ပငဆေစကာမ အသေရဖကျခငးႏင ယဥလင ၄ငးတြင အေရးၾကးေသာကြျပားျခားနားခက (၂)ခကရေလသည။ ပထမတစခမာ အမနးစကားဥပေဒမားသည အားအငနညးပါးေသာ အပစ၏ ဂဏသကၡာထက ၄ငးတ႔၏ လျခေရးႏင

22

လမႈေရးတနးတညမမႈက ကာကြယရနျဖစသည။ ဒတယအခကမာ အမနးစကားဥပေဒမားသည တစဥးတစေယာကခငးႏင စးပြားေရး (သ႔မဟတ) အကးျမတမယေသာအဖြ႔စညးမားစသညတ႔ကသ႔ တရားဥပေဒဆငရာပဂၢ လမားထက အေလအထစရကလကၡဏာမတကြျပားစြာတညရေနေသာလအပစမားက အကာကြယေပးထားသည။

What is the difference between defamation and blasphemy?Blasphemy laws are laws which prohibit the denial or mockery of religion(s). The difference with defamation laws is again that blasphemy laws do not specifically protect individuals or even the reputation of the religion. Rather, they protect the sensitivities of adherents to the religion.

အသေရဖကျခငးႏင ဘာသာေရးႏငဆကဆငေသာကနဆျခငးတ႔ၾကားျခားနားခကမာ အဘယနညး ။ဘာသာေရးအားကနဆျခငးဥပေဒမားမာ ဘာသာေရးအားျငငးဆနျခငးႏင ေလာငေျပာငသေရာျခငးတ႔အား တားျမစထားသည။ အသေရဖကျခငးဥပေဒႏင ကြာျခားခကမာ ဘာသာေရးအားကနဆျခငးဥပေဒမားသည တစဥးတစေယာကခငးစကမကာကြယရမဟတဘ ဘာသာတရား၏ ဂဏသကၡာအားလညးမကာကြယပါ။ ထအရာမားထက ဘာသာေရးအား ေထာကခအားေပးသမား၏ ထလြယရလြယခစားခကမားကသာ ကာကြယေပျခငးျဖစသည။

What are the problems with defamation laws?

The UN Human Right Committee has recognised the threat posed by criminal defamation laws and have recommended that they should be abolished. It has criticised the existence of law protecting the reputation or honour of heads of state and of the honour of public officials because such law are not necessary in a democratic society and have a chilling effect on free expression

The UN Human Rights Committee has also criticised excessive penalties in defamation cases and declared that imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. It held that prolonged trials for defamation have a chilling effect that may unduly restrict the exercise of freedom of expression of the person concerned and others.

Why is criminal defamation problematic?

One of the main concerns with criminal defamation is the serious chilling effect it exerts on freedom of expression. Criminal defamation laws can lead to the imposition of harsh sanctions, such as a prison sentence, a hefty fine or, in the case of journalists, suspension of the right to practise their profession. Even if the maximum penalties are low, criminal defamation can still cast a long shadow: individuals prosecuted under it face the possibility of being arrested by the police, held in pre-trial detention and subjected to a criminal trial. Even if the court imposes only a minor fine, they may be burdened with a criminal record and face the social stigma associated with this.

23

The chilling effect of criminal defamation laws is significantly exacerbated due to the fact that, in many countries, it is powerful social actors – such as government officials, senior civil servants or prominent businessmen – who bring the vast majority of cases. These individuals seek to abuse such laws to protect themselves from criticism or from the disclosure of embarrassing but truthful facts.

Another key objection to criminal defamation laws is that the goal of protecting individuals’ reputations can effectively be accomplished through the civil law. This is borne out by the experience of countries which have abolished or no longer use their criminal defamation laws. This raises serious doubts as to whether criminal defamation laws, by nature a more heavy-handed instrument, are justifiable since, as noted above, the least intrusive effective restriction must always be preferred.

Criminal defamation laws are also criticised on other grounds. Defamation is arguably a private matter between two individuals, with which the State should not concern itself. Furthermore, a criminal conviction will usually not provide the defamed person with any compensation, since in most legal systems fines go directly into the State’s pocket.

In line with the criticism on criminal defamation laws by UN bodies in the recent years many countries abolished these laws in favour of civil defamation.

ျပစမႈဆငရာအသေရဖကျခငးသညအဘယေၾကာငခကခသနညး။ျပစမႈဆငရာအသေရဖကျခငးတြငအဓကျပသနာမားအနက ျပသနာတစခမာ လြတလပစြာ ထတ ေဖာမႈအေပၚ အသးျပေသာ ျပငးထနသညေအးစကေသာ အကးသက ေရာကမႈပငျဖစ သည။ ျပစမႈဆငရာအသေရဖကျခငး ဥပေဒမားသည ေထာငဒဏခမတျခငး ၊ ၾကးေလးေသာ ေငြဒဏ ခမတျခငးႏင သတငးစာဆရာမားအမႈ တြင ယငးတ႔၏လပငနး တာ၀န မားေဆာင ရြကျခငးဆင ရာ အခြငအေရးက ဆငးင ခရျခငး စသညျပငးထနေသာအေရးယျခငး မား သ႔ ဥး တညသြားႏင သည။ အျမငဆးဆးျပစဒဏသည နလငေသာမျပစမႈဆငရာ အသေရ ဖကျခငးသည ရညလား ေသာ အရပထငေနေသးသည။ ဤ ဥပေဒအရတရားစြဆျခငး ခရေသာ အသးသးေသာ ပဂၢ လ မားသည ရတပဖြ႕၏ ဖမးဆးျခငးခရႏငျပး ၊ တရားမစြဆမာပင ျပစမႈ ေၾကာငးအရ အခပခ ရႏင သည။ တရားရးမ ဒဏေငြအနညးအကဥးခမတေသာလညး လညးေကာငးတ႕သည ျပစမႈမတ တမးအတင ခရျပး ဤ ကစၥႏငပကသက၍ လမႈေရးအမစက စြနးထငျခငးခရသည။

ျပစမႈဆငရာအသေရဖကျခငးဥပေဒမား၏ေအးစကေသာ အကးသကေရာကမႈသည ေအာကပါ အခကမားေၾကာင သသာစြာ ပမဆး၀ါးေစသည။နငငအမားတြငအမႈအမားစ ေပၚေပါကေစေသာ သမားမ အာဏာရေသာ လမေရးက႑ ရ ပဂၢ လမား ျဖစၾကေသာ အစးရ အရာရမား ၊ အၾကး တနးျပညသ႔ ၀နထမးမား သ႔မဟတ အေရးပါ ထငရားေသာ စးပြားေရး သမားမား ျဖစေန ၾက သည။ ဤ ပဂၢ လအသး သးသည သတ႔ကယသတ႕ ေ၀ဖနမႈ သ႔မဟတ အမနတရား ကေဖာ ထတျခငးျဖင အကပရကေစမည ေဘးမ အကာအကြယရရရန ဤ ဥပေဒမားက ခးေဖာက

24

တတၾကသည။ျပစမႈဆငရာအသေရဖကျခငး ဥပေဒမား၏အျခားအဓက ရညမနးခကမာ ပဂၢ လ တစဥးျခငး၏ နာမညဂဏသတငးက တရားမဥပေးမတစဆင ထေရာကစြာ ေအာငျမငစြာ ကာ ကြယရန ရညမနးသည ။ ဤအရာက ျပစမႈဆငရာ အသေရဖကျခငး ဥပေဒမားက ပယဖက ေသာ သ႔မဟတ ဆကလကအသးမျပေတာေသာ ႏငင မား၏ အေတြ႕အၾကမားက ေထာကခ သည။ ဤ ကစၥရပမားက ျပစမႈဆငရာအသေရဖကျခငး ဥပေဒမားသည သဘာ၀အားျဖင ပမ ရကစကေသာ ကရယာအျဖစအသးျပရန သငေလာျခငးရ မရ အထကေဖာျပပါအတငး အနဆး သကေရာကမႈ ရေသာ ဥပေဒကသာ အျမလအပသည။ ျပစမႈဆငရာအသေရဖကျခငး ဥပေဒမား ကအျခားအခကမားအေပၚအေျခခ၍ လညးေ၀ဖနၾကသည။ အသေရဖကျခငးတြင ႏငငမ ပါ၀င ပတသကျခငးမျပေသာ ပဂၢ လႏစ ဥးအၾကား ပဂၢ လေရး ဆငရာ ကစၥရပက အျငငးအခ ျပ ႏင သည။ ထ႔ျပင ျပစမႈေၾကာငးအရ ျပစဒဏထငရားစရငရာ၌ အသေရဖကခရသ အေပၚပမန အား ျဖငနစနာေၾကး ေပးေလမရပါ။ အဘယေၾကာငဆေသာ အမားစျဖစေသာ တရားဥပေဒစနစတြင ခမတေသာ ေငြဒဏမားသည ႏငင၏ဘ႑ာထသ႔ တကရကေရာကရေသာေၾကာငျဖစသည။

ကမာၻ႕ကလသမဂၢ အဖြ႕အစညးမားမ ျပစမႈဆငရာအသေရဖကျခငး ဥပေဒမားအေပၚ ေ၀ဖနျခငး ႏင အည ႏငငအမားအျပားသည မၾကာမႏစမား အတြငး တရားမ အေသေရဖကမႈက အသား ေပးေထာကချခငးျဖင ဤ ဥပေဒမားက ပယဖကၾကျပးျဖစသည။

If criminal defamation cannot be immediately abolished, what interim measures should be

adopted to guarantee the right to freedom of expression?ARTICLE 19 argues that all criminal defamation laws breach the guarantee of freedom of expression. However, in recognition of the fact that many countries do have criminal defamation laws which are unlikely to be repealed in the very near future, it has suggested interim measures to attenuate their impact until they are abolished:

i. no-one should be convicted for criminal defamation unless the party claiming to be defamed proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, the presence of all the elements of the offence, as set out below;

ii. the offence of criminal defamation shall not be made out unless it has been proven that the impugned statements are false, that they were made with actual knowledge of falsity, or recklessness as to whether or not they were false, and that they were made with a specific intention to cause harm to the party claiming to be defamed;

iii. public authorities, including police and public prosecutors, should take no part in the initiation or prosecution of criminal defamation cases, regardless of the status of the party claiming to have been defamed, even if he or she is a senior public official;

iv. prison sentences, suspended prison sentences, suspension of the right to express oneself through any particular

25

form of media, or to practise journalism or any other profession, excessive fines and other harsh criminal penalties should never be available as a sanction for breach of defamation laws, no matter how egregious or blatant the defamatory statement.

အကယ၍ ျပစမႈဆငရာ အသေရဖကျခငးက ခကျခငးမပယဖကႏငပါက လြပလပစြာေဖာထတ ခြငကအာမခေသာ မညသညၾကားျဖတ အေရးယေဆာငရြကမႈက ယာယလကခႏငမညနညး။ပဒမ(၁၉)တြင ျပစမႈဆငရာအသေရဖကျခငး ဥပေဒအားလးသည လြပလပစြာေဖာထတ ခြငအာ မခခကက ခးေဖာကသညဟ ေတာငးဆသည။ သ႕ရာတြင ႏငငအမားတြင မၾကာမကာလ အ တြငးရပသမးဖြယရာမရေသးေသာ ျပစမႈဆငရာအသေရဖကျခငး ဥပေဒမားရေနေသးေၾကာငး အသအမတျပျပး၊ ေဖာျပပါဥပေဒမားက မပယဖကမတငေအာင အကးသကေရာကမႈ ေလာပါး ေစေသာ ၾကားျဖတ အေရးယေေဆာငရြကမႈက အၾကျပသည။

၁။ ေအာကတြငေဖာျပသညအတငးကးေၾကာငးခငလေသာ သသယကေကာလြန၍ ေသာလညးေကာငး ၊ ျပစမႈဆငရာ အစတအပငး တငျပမႈက ေကာလြန၍ ေသာလညး ေကာငး၊ အသေရဖကျခငးခရသက အသေရဖကခရေၾကာငး သကေသ မျပႏငခလင မညသတစစတစဥးကမ ျပစမႈဆငရာအသေရဖကမႈ ျဖင အျပစမစရငရ ။

၂။ အသေရဖကမႈဆငရာအရ ျပစဒဏစရငျခငးက ထြကဆခကမား မားယြငးေၾကာငး သကေသ မျပႏငမျခငးေသာလညးေကာငး၊ မားယြငးေၾကာငး

အမနသလကႏင ေသာ လညးေကာငး၊ မဆငမျခငမႈေၾကာငမားယြငးျခငး သ႔မဟတ အသေရဖကခရေသာ ပဂၢ လ အေပၚ အသေရပက ေအာင တမငရညရြယ၍ ေသာလညးေကာငး၊ ျပလပျခငး မဟတ လင ျပစဒဏ စရငျခငးမျပရ။

၃။အသေရဖကျခငးခရသညဟ တငတနးသ သ႔မဟတ သမသည အၾကးတနးအစးရ အရာရျဖစ ေနေစကာမ ယငး၏ အဆငအတနးက ထညသြငးမစဥးစားပ ရ ႏငတရားလ အကးေဆာငမားအပါအ၀င လထအာဏာပငမားသည ျပစမႈဆငရာအသေရဖက မႈျဖင စြဆေသာအမႈမားတြင ပါ၀ငျခငးမျပရ။

၄။ အသေရဖကေသာေရးသားခကသည မညမပင စတငေလာကေအာင ထငရားေစ ကာမ အသေရဖကျခငးဆငရာဥပေဒကခးေဖာကျခငးအတြက ေထာငဒဏ ခမတျခငး၊ ဆငးင ေထာငဒဏ ခမတျခငး၊သတငးမဒယာမားမ သးသန႔ပစျဖငေဖာျပခြငက ဆငးင ျခငး၊ သတငးနညးပညာ လကနာျခငး သ႔မဟတ အျခားကၽြမးကငမႈျဖငျပလပျခငးက ဆငးငျခငး ၊ လြနကေသာ ေငြဒဏ ခမတျခငးႏင အျခားျပငးထနေသာ ျပစဒဏ ခမတ ျခငး မညသညအခါမမျပရ ။

How to establish the balance between the right to freedom of expression and defamation?When determining whether freedom of expression should be restricted for the protection of reputation judges should take into account the three-part test set out in Article 19 of the ICCPR (see the previous section). In particular they should consider whether the decision in favour of reputation as well as the sanction imposed

26

are truly necessary for the protection of the reputation. We recall that the requirement of ‘necessity’ imposes strict quality controls on laws which restrict freedom of expression:

• First, a restriction on free speech must be in response to a pressing social need, not merely a matter of convenience.

• Second, the least intrusive measure which would achieve the pressing social need must be employed since a more intrusive measure would not be necessary if a less intrusive option were available. For example, shutting down a newspaper for defamation is excessive; other remedies, such as a retraction or a modest damage award, provide adequate protection for reputation.

• Third, the impact of restrictions must be proportionate, meaning that a measure’s harm to freedom of expression must not outweigh the benefits to the interest it aims to serve. A restriction which provides limited protection to a person’s reputation but which seriously undermines freedom of expression would not meet this standard.

လြတလပစြာထတေဖာခြငႏင အသေရဖကမႈအၾကား ဟနခကညေအာငမညသ႕ဖနတးမညနညး။နာမညဂဏသတငးကကာကြယရနအတြက

လြတလပစြာေဖာထတခြငက ကန႕သတရန စဥးစား သးသပရာတြင၊ တရားသၾကးမားသည ICCPR (အထကကအခနးက ၾကညပါ) ဤ ပဒမ ၁၉ ပါအ ပငးသးပငးက ထညသြငးစဥးစားရမည။ အထးသျဖင သတ႕သည နာမညဂဏသတငး ကဥးစား ေပးေသာ ဆးျဖတခက ဟတမဟတႏင ျပစဒဏသည နာမညဂဏသတငးကကာကြယ ရန အ မနတကယလအပျခငးရမရ သးသပရမည။ “လအပျခငး”ေျမာကရန လအပေသာ အေျခအေန ဆသညမာ လြတလပစြာ ထတေဖာခြငကကန႕သတေသာ တကသည ထနးကြပမႈက သတမတ ျခငးျဖစေၾကာငး ကၽြႏပ တ႔ျပနလည သတရသည။

• ပထမအေနျဖင လြတလပစြာေဟာေျပာျခငးအေပၚ တားျပစျခငးသည အေရးတၾကး လမႈေရးလအပခကက တ႔ျပနျခငးျဖစရျပး၊အဆငေျပမႈျဖစရမအတြက မျဖစရ။

• ဒတယအေနျဖင အေရးတၾကး လမႈေရးလအပခကက ေအာငျမငမႈရရေစမညအေႏာက အယက အနညး ဆးျဖစေသာ ေဆာငရြကမႈက အသးျပရမည။အဘယေၾကာငဆေသာ အေႏာငအယက အနညးဆးဆးျဖတမႈက ရရႏငပါက အေႏာငအယက ပမားေသာ ဆးျဖတခက မလအပေတာေသာေၾကာငျဖစသည။ ဥပမာ- သတငးစာတစေစာငက အသေရဖကမႈေၾကာင ပတပငျခငးသည လြနကစြာ ျပလပျခငးျဖစသည။ ပတပငျခငးအမန႔က ျပနရတသမးျခငး သ႔မဟတ အသငအတငေသာ နစနာ ဆးရးမႈ အတြက ျပနေလာျခငး ၊ နာမည ဂဏသတငးအတြက သငေလာေသာ ကာကြယ ေစာငေရာကမႈေပးျခငး စသည အျခားေသာ သကသာခြငက ျပလပေပးျခငးမး ။

27

• တတယအေနျဖင ကန႕သတ တားျမစျခငးမား၏ အကးသကေရာကမႈသည အခးကျဖစရမည။ ဆလသညမာ လြတလပစြာ ထတေဖာျခငးအရ ေဆာငရြကမႈေၾကာင နစနာျခငးသည ျပလပရနရညရြယခက၏ အကးအျမတက မေကာလြနရ။ လတစဥး၏ နာမညဂဏသတငး ကန႕သတ အကာကြယေပးရန တားျမစျပၤး လြတလပစြာ ေဖာျပခြင က ေလးေလးနကနက ဂရမစကလင ဤစက မ မညမဟတပါ။

What are the defences in defamation cases?International law recognises the following defences in defamation cases:

• The defence of truth - nobody should be responsible for truthful statements.

• The defence of public interest - in cases involving matters of public interest, such as comments about public figures, General Comment No. 34 requires that consideration be given to “avoiding penalising untrue statements that have been published in error but without malice.” In other words, the law should recognise that the public interest of freedom of expression may prevail over reputation and that the nature of information collection and distribution may lead to errors. These errors, which normally happen because journalists cannot wait until they are completely sure that every fact made available to

them is correct before publishing the story, should be ignored if author has not acted with malice. In cases of journalism, journalists can demonstrate that they have acted without malice by proving that in the preparation of their materials they have observed the professional standards and code of ethics. Judges should examine the whole text of the material to determine whether journalists acted with malice.

• Defence of opinion: International law differentiate between opinion and factual statements. Paragraph 9 of General Comment No. 34 specifies:

• The right to hold opinions permits no exception or restriction;

• No person may be subject to the impairment of any rights under the Covenant on the basis of his or her actual, perceived or supposed opinions;

• All forms of opinion are protected, including opinions of a political, scientific, historic, moral or religious nature;

• It is incompatible with international law to criminalise the holding of an opinion;

• The harassment, intimidation or stigmatisation of a person, including arrest, detention, trial or imprisonment for reasons

28

of the opinions they may hold, constitutes a violation of the right to hold an opinion.

• Absolute and qualified privileges: There are certain forums in which the ability to speak freely is so vital that statements made there should never lead to liability for defamation. Such an absolute privilege should apply, for example, to statements made during judicial proceedings, statements before national and local parliaments and fair and accurate reports on such statements. Certain other types of statements should enjoy a qualified privilege; that is, they should be exempt from liability unless they can be shown to have been made with malice. This latter category should include statements which the speaker is under a legal, moral or social duty to make, such as reporting a suspected crime to the police.

• Words of others: Finally, journalists should not be held liable for reporting or reproducing the statements of others, so long as these statements have news value and the journalist refrains from endorsing them.

အသေရဖကမႈမားတြင ခခကာကြယျခငးမားသည မညသညအရာမား ျဖစသနညး။အျပညျပညဆငရာဥပေဒသည အသေရဖကမႈမားတြင ေအာကပါခခကာကြယျခငးမားက အသ

အမတျပသည။

• အမနတရားက ခခကာကြယျခငး - မနကနေသာေရးသားခကမား အတြက မညသ တစစတစဥးမ တာ၀နမရေစရ ။

• အမားအကးစးပြားက ခခကာကြယျခငး။ ။ လထအၾကားေကာၾကားေသာ ပဂၢ လမားအား မတခကမားေပးျခငး စသညအမားအကးစးပြား ပါ၀ငပကသကေသာ အမႈမားတြင အေထြေထြ မတခကအမတ (၃၄) က “ အျငးမပါေသာ မားယြငးစြာထတေ၀သည မမနကနေသာ ေရးသားျခငးမားက အျပစေပးျခငးမေရာငကဥ ျခငးက သးသပရန လအပေၾကာငးေဖာျပသည။ အျခားတစနညးအားျဖင ဆရပါမ အမားအကးစးပြား အတြက လြတလပစြာေဖာျပျခငးသည နာမညဂဏသတငးကျပန႕ႏေစျပး သတငးစ ေဆာငးျခငးႏင ျဖန႕ေ၀ျခငး သေဘာသဘာ၀က အမားသ႕ တြနးပ႕ႏငေၾကာငး က ဥပေဒမ အသအမတ ျပရမည။ ဤသ႔ေသာ အမားမားသည သာမနအားျဖင ျဖစေလျဖစထ ရ သည။ အဘယ ေၾကာငဆေသာသတငးသမား (ဂာနယလစ) မားသညပႏပျခငးမျပမ ယငးတ႔လကခရရေသာသတငးအခကအလကအတငး ျပညစမနကနသညဟ အတညျပရန အခနမေပးႏငေသာေၾကာငျဖစသည။စာေရးသက အျငးျဖင ေရးသားျခငးမဟတပါက ယငးကစၥက လစလ ရႈႏငသည။ စာနယဇငး ဆငရာအမႈမားတြင သတငးစာဆရာမားသည သတငးက ျပငဆငရာတြင သတ႕သည ကၽြမးကငမႈ အဆငအတနးႏင သကၡ ကင၀တက အျငးမပါပ ေလလာလကနာေၾကာငး သကေသျပနငသည ။ တရားသၾကးမားအေနျဖင

29

စာနယဇငးသမားမားသည အျငးျဖငေဆာငရြကျခငး ဟတမဟတက ဆးျဖတ သးသပရန အခကအလကအားလးက စစေဆးရမည။

• ထငျမငယဆခကက ခခကာကြယျခငး။ ။ အျပညျပညဆငရာဥပေဒက ထငျမငယဆခကႏင အျဖစမန ေရးသားျခငးက ခြျခားသည ။ အေထြေထြ မတခက အမတ (၃၄) ၏အပဒ(၉) တြင ေအာကပါအတငးသတမတ ျပ႒ါနး ထားသည။

• ကငးလြတခြင သ႕မဟတ တားျမစ ကန႕သတခကမပါေသာ ထငျမငယဆျခငးက လကကင ကငသးခြင၊

• မညသတစစတစဥးမ ယငး၏လကေတြ႕ ၊ ေလလာသရမႈသ႔မဟတ ထငျမငယဆခက အေပၚ အေျခခ၍ ျပလပျခငးအတြက ဤ ပဋဥာဥပါ အခြငအေရးမား မ အေနာက အ ယက အဟန႕အတားမျဖစေစရ။

• ႏငငေရး၊သပၸေရးရာ၊ သမငးေရးရာ၊ကယကငတရား၊ သ႔မဟတ ဘာသာေရးစသည ကစၥရပမး ႏငပကသကေသာ ထငျမငယဆခကအားလးက အကာအကြယေပးသည။

• ထငျမငယဆခက ကအျပညျပညဆငရာဥပေဒအရ ျပစမႈအျဖစ သတမတရန မျဖစႏငပါ။

• တစစတစဥးအား ယငး၏ ထငျမငယဆမႈေၾကာင၊ဖမးဆးျခငး

၊ ထနးသမးျခငး၊ တရားစြ ဆျခငး သ႔မဟတ ေထာငဒဏခမတျခငး အပါအ၀င အေနာကအယကေပးျခငး ၊ ျခမးေျခာကျခငး၊ သ႔မဟတ ကရျခငးမားသည လြတလပစြာ ထငျမငယဆခြငက ခးေဖာကျခငးပငျဖစသည။

• သတမတခကျပညမ၍အျပညအ၀ရရေသာအခြငအေရးအခ႕ေသာ ေဆြးေႏြးပြမားတြင လြတလပစြာေျပာဆရနမရမျဖစလအပသျဖင၊ ယငးသ႔ေျပာဆမႈအတြက အသေရဖက မႈအရ တာ၀နမရေစရ။ ဤသ႔အျပညအ၀ရရေသာ အခြငအေရးက ဥပမာအားျဖင တရားခြငတြင ေျပာဆခကမား ၊ အမးသားႏငေဒသႏရ လြတေတာတြငေျပာဆခက မားႏင ယငးေျပာဆခက၏ မတ ၍ တကေသာ အစရငခစာမားတြငရရရမည။အျခား ေသာ ေျပာဆေရးသားခကမားသညလညး သတမတခကျပညမေသာ အခြင အေရးရရႏငသည။ ဥပမာ ယငးေျပာဆေရးသားခကသည အျငးျဖင ေရးျခငးျဖစေၾကာငး သကေသမျပႏငသေရြ႕ တာ၀နရမႈမ ကငးလြတခြင ရသည။ဤ ကငးလြတခြင သတမတခကတြင ေျပာဆသသည တရားဥပေဒ ေရးရာကစၥ ၊ ကင၀တအရ သ႔မဟတ လမႈေရး တာ၀နရမႈ အရ ရ တပဖြ႕သ႔ သသယ ရေသာ မႈခငးအတြက သတငးေပးျခငးပါ၀ငရမည။

• သတပါး၏စကားလးေ၀ါဟာရမား၊ ေနာကဆးအေနျဖင စာနယဇငးသမားမားသည ဤေျပာဆေရးသားခကတြင သတငးတနဖးရျခငးႏင အတညျပရန ေရာငကဥျခငးမ တပါးသတပါး၏ ေျပာဆေရးသားခကမားက သတငးေပးျခငးသ႔မဟတ ျပနလည

30

ထတေ၀ျခငးအတြက တာ၀နမရေစရ။

Are politicians and other public officials entitled to a higher protection against defamation?Vigorous debate about the functioning of public officials and the government lies at the heart of democracy. To ensure that this debate is pursued freely, uninhibited by fear of litigation, international courts have consistently held that public bodies and officials should tolerate a wider degree of criticism than ordinary citizens.

ႏငငေရးသမားမားႏင အျခားလထ အရာရမားသညအသေရဖကမႈ စြဆျခငးမ အကာကြယ ပမခစားခြငရသလား။အစးရႏငလထအရာရမား၏ တာ၀နအေပၚတကၾကြစြာေဆြးေႏြးေျပာဆျခငးသည ဒမကေရစ၏ ႏ လးသားတြင တညရသည။ ဤ ေဆြးေႏြးပြသည လြတလပမႈရေၾကာငးေသခာေစရနႏင တရားစြ ဆခရျခငးမ စးရမေၾကာကရြျခငးမရေစရန၊ အျပညျပညဆငရာ တရားရးမား က အစးရ အရာ ရမားႏင လထအဖြ႕ အစညးမား အေနျဖင သာမန ျပညသျပညသားမားထက ေ၀ဖနမႈက ပမ သညးခရန စဥဆကမျပတေျပာဆသည။

Can public bodies such ministries sue for defamation?Several established democracies do not allow public bodies to sue for defamation under any circumstances, both because of the danger to freedom of expression and because public bodies are not seen as

having a “reputation” entitled to protection. As abstract entities without a profit motive, they lack an emotional or financial interest in preventing damage to their good name. Moreover, it is improper for government to spend public money on defamation suits to defend its own reputation.

The UN Human Rights Committee has recommended the abolition of laws criminalising defamation of the State.

၀နၾကးဌာနမားစသည လထအဖြ႕အစညးမားသည အသေရဖကမႈအတြက တရားစြဆႏင သ လား။အခ႕ ေသာဒမကေရစရရျပးႏငငမား တြင မညသညအေျခအေနတြငမ လထအဖြ႕ အစညး မား အား အသေရဖကမႈျဖငတရားစြဆရန ခြငမျပပါ။အေၾကာငးမာ လြတလပစြာေဖာထတခြငအတြက အႏရာယရျခငးႏင လထအဖြ႕အစညးမားအေနျဖင ဂဏသတငးကာကြယျခငး အခြငအေရး မရရေသာ ေၾကာငျဖစသည။ အျမတမရေသာ ေယဘယ သေဘာျဖငရပတည သျဖင သတ႕ သည မမတ႔၏ နာမညေကာငးပကစးျခငးမ ကာကြယရန ေငြေၾကးအရေသာလညးေကာငး၊ စတ လႈပရားမႈ အရေသာလညးေကာငး၊စတ၀ငစားမႈ ကငးမၾကသည။ထ႕အျပင အစးရအေနျဖင ဤ သ႕ေသာ အသေရဖကမႈမ မမ ဂဏသတငး ကာကြယရနအတြကလထ၏ေငြက အသးျပျခငး သည မသငေလာပါ။

ကမာၻ ကလသမဂၢလ႕ အခြငအေရးေကာမတသည ႏငင တစခအား အသေရဖကမႈအရ

31

ျပစမႈေျမာကေစ သည ဥပေဒမားက ဖကသမးရန အၾကျပသည။

What should be the remedies in defamation cases?Like any restriction on freedom of expression, sanctions for defamatory statements must be ‘necessary’, that is, they should be proportionate so that their footprint on the right does not go beyond what is needed. Traditionally, the ordinary remedy for defamation has been financial compensation, but in several countries a culture of excessive awards has had a negative effect on the free flow of information. A variety of less intrusive but still effective alternative remedies exist, such as a court order to issue an apology or correction, or to publish the judgment finding the statements to be defamatory. Such alternative remedies are more speech-friendly and should be prioritised.

Where monetary awards are necessary to redress financial harm, the law should specify clear criteria for determining the size of awards.

အသေရဖကမႈမားတြင ကစားခြငမားသည မညသညမားျဖစရမညနညး။လြတလပစြာ ေဖာထတခြငအေပၚကန႕သတျခငးမားနညးတ ၊ အသေရ ပကျခငးဆင ရာေရးသား ေျပာဆခကမားအတြက အေရးယမႈသည လအပသည ။ထ႔ျပငအခးညရန လအပ သည။ သ႔မသာ အခြငအေရးကငသးရာတြင လအပသညထကေကာ မသြားေတာပါ။

ထးစအရဆလင အသေရဖကမႈတြငသာ သာမနကစားခြငမာ ေငြေၾကးအရနစနာေၾကး ေပးျခငးျဖစသည။ သ႔ ေသာ အခ႕ေသာ ႏငငမားတြင မားျပားေသာ နစနာေၾကးေပးသည ယဥေကးမႈက သတငးလြတ လပစြာ စးဆငးခြင အေပၚ ဆန႕ကငဘက အကး သကေရာကမႈျဖစ ေစသည။ အေႏာကအ ယကအနညးငယျဖစေစေသာ ကစားခြင ျပမႈ အမးမးသည ရေနဆ ျဖစသည။ ဥပမာအားျဖင ေတာငးပနရနသ႔မဟတ ျပျပငရန တရားရးမ အမန႕ချခငးမး ျဖစ သည။ သ႔မဟတ ေရးသား ေျပာဆခကသည ။အသေရဖကမႈ ေျမာကေၾကာငးတရားရး ဆးျဖတ ခကက ထတေ၀ျခငးမး ျဖစသည။ဤသ႔အျခားေသာ ကစားခြငျပျခငးသည ပမရငးႏးမႈျဖစေစသ ျဖင ဥးစားေပးရမည။

ေငြေၾကးနစနမႈအတြကေငြေၾကး ခးျမငျခငး အမန႕ခမတရနလအပပါက ေငြေၾကး ပမာဏ က ဆးျဖတရနဥပေဒက လအပေသာ စ တစရပကရငးလငးစြာ သတမတ ျပ႒ာနးရမည။

32

Can the right to freedom of expression be restricted on national security/public order grounds?Yes, Article 19, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR lists national security and public order and safety as legitimate grounds for restriction of the right to freedom of expression.

လထျငမ၀ပပျပားေရးႏငအမးသားလျခေရးကအေၾကာငးျပ၍လြတလပစြာေဖၚထတေျပာဆခြင ကကန႕သတႏငပါသလား၊ကန႕သတႏငပါသည။ အငစစအာပ၏ပဒမ ၁၉၊အပဒ၃တြင အမးသားလျခေရးႏင အမားျပည သလျခစတခရေရးသညလြတလပစြာေဖၚထတျခငးကကန႕သတနငေသာတရား၀ငသညအေျခ ခအေၾကာငးအခကမားျဖစသည။

What are the international definitions of “national security”, “public order” and “public safety”?There are no international definitions of “national security”, “public order” and “public safety”. The U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities has attempted to fill this analytical void in its Siracusa Principles. Principle B(iv) defines when a restriction can be said to serve national security:

National security may be invoked to justify measures limiting certain rights only when they are taken to protect the existence of the nation or its territorial integrity or political independence against force or threat of force.

National security cannot be invoked as a reason for imposing limitations to prevent merely local or relatively isolated threats to law and order.

National security cannot be used as a pretext for imposing vague or arbitrary limitations and may only be invoked when there exists adequate safeguards and effective remedies against abuse….

A state responsible for systematic violation of human right shall not invoke national security as a justification for measures aimed at suppressing opposition to such violation or at perpetrating repressive practices against its population.

According to this principle, restrictions on the basis of national security are only justifiable if they address a threat to the “existence of the nation or its territorial integrity or political independence,” as distinct from localised violence and ordinary criminal activities.

Principle B (ii) of Siracusa Principles sets out that the expression “public order” may

အမးသားလျခေရးကာကြယေရး၊လထျငမ၀ပပျပားေရးႏငလထလျခ စတခေရးProtection of national security, public order, public safety

33

be defined as the sum of rules which ensure the functioning of society or the set of fundamental principles on which society is founded.

Principle B (vii) of Siracusa Principles sets out that “public safety” means protection against danger to the safety of persons, to their life or physical integrity, or serious damage to their property.

Examples of restrictions of freedom of expression on national security/public order grounds: laws protecting national security, public safety and public order with impact on freedom of expression are laws classifying certain types of information or banning the divulging of military information or treason laws or laws banning calls for insurrection or overthrow of government (sedition laws).

အမးသားလျခေရး၊အမားျပညသလျခစတခေရးႏင အမားျပညသျငမ၀ပပျပားေရး ဆသည ေ၀ါဟာရမား၏နငငတကာအဓပၸါယဖြငဆခကသညအဘယနညး။အမးသားလျခေရး၊အမားျပညသလျခစတခေရးႏင အမားျပညသျငမ၀ပပျပားေရး ဆသည ေ၀ါဟာရမား၏နငငတကာအဓပၸါယဖြငဆခကမရေပ။ကမာၻ႕ကလသမဂၢ ၏ လမးေရးခြျခားမႈႏငလနညးစမားကာကြယေရးဆပေကာမတကအမးသားလ ျခေရး ဟေသာေ၀ါဟာရက သ၏ဆငရာက စညးမဥးျဖင ရငးလငးရနၾကးပမးခ သည။ ထစညးမဥးအပဒ B(iv) တြင ဖြငဆထားသညမာေအာကပါအခကမားသည အမးသားလျခေရးကအကးျပသညကန႕သတခကမားျဖစသည

ဟေခၚဆႏငသည-

ဤအဓပၸာယဖြငဆခကမားအရအမးသားလျခေရးေပၚတြငအေျခခေသာကန႕သတတားဆးခက မႈမားသည သာမနရာဇ၀တမႈမားႏငကြျပားနားေသာ ႏငငတညတေရး၊နယေျမစးမးခငမာေရးသ႕မဟတ နငငေရးလြတလပခြငမားကျခမးေျခာကမႈမားအားရငဆင ေျဖရငးႏငမသာလင တရား မ တေသာကန႕သတတားဆးပတပငမႈမားအျဖစမတယႏငသည။

ဆငရာကစညးမဥးB (ii) အရဆလင အမားျပညသျငမ၀ပပျပားေရးဆသညမာလ႕ဖြ႕အ စညး၏ လပငနးေဆာငတာမားကအာမခေသာစညးမဥးအစအေပါငးပငျဖစသည၊သ႕မဟတ လ႕အဖြ႕ အစညးတညေဆာကထားသညအေျခခစညးမဥးမားပငျဖစသည။

ဆငရာကစညးမဥးB (vii) အရဆလင အမားျပညသလျခစတခေရးဆသညမာလမား၏လျခေရး။ အသက စညးစမအးအမမား၏အႏာရာယကကာကြယျခငးမညေပသည။

အမားျပညသလျခေရးႏငအမးသာလျခေရးမားကအေၾကာငးျပ၍လြတလပစြာေဖၚထတေျပာဆျခငးက ကန႕သတႏငေသာဥပမာမားမာ- အမးသားလျခေရး၊အမားျပညသလျခစတခေရးႏင အမား ျပညသျငမ၀ပပျပားေရးဆငရာဥပေဒမားႏင လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငးတ႕ ထေတြ႕ ရငဆငမႈ ျဖစပြားျခငးမားမာသတငးအခကအလကအမးအစားကခြျခားေသာဥပေဒႏင စစဖက ဆငရာ၊ပနကနထၾကြရနႏင အစးရကျဖတခရနရညရြယေသာသတငးအခက အလက မားက ျဖန႕ချခငးကတားဆးပတပငျခငးတ႕ႏငဆငေသာဥပေဒမားပငျဖစသည ။

What are the problems with national security/public order and safety restrictions?

34

Very often, national security/public order and safety restrictions are impermissibly vague or respond to statements which pose only a hypothetical risk of harm, making them ideal instruments of abuse to prevent the airing of unpopular ideas or criticism of government.

Often courts are prevented from assessing the rationale of the authority’s decision aiming at protection of public order or public safety or national security. For example, the laws may not allow court to assess the classification of information. As a result governments can invoke easily national security/public order/public safety concerns to restrict public criticism against them or prevent public control over their actions.

အမးသားလျခေရး၊အမားျပညသလျခစတခေရးႏင အမားျပညသျငမ၀ပပျပားေရးတ႕ႏငသက ဆငေသာျပနာမာ-းသညအဘယနညး။မၾကာခဏဆသလပင၊ အမးသားလျခေရး၊အမားျပညသျငမ၀ပပျပားေရးႏင လျခေရးကန႕ သတခကမားသည ခြငမလႊတႏငေအာငသသာျမငသာမႈကငးျခငးသ႕မဟတ အႏာရာယျဖစ ႏငေခကတ႕ျပနေသာအခကမားျဖစေနတတျပး အစးရအားေ၀ဖနမႈမားကတားဆးရာတြငသး ေသာကရယာမားျဖစေနတတသည။

တရားရးမားအားမၾကာခဏဆသလအာဏာပငမား၏အမးသားလျခေရး၊ အမားျပညသ ျငမ၀ပ ပျပားေရးႏငလျခေရးကန႕သတခကမားကကာကြယမည ဆးျဖတခကမားကသးသပခက

မျပလပရနတားျမစခရသည။ဥပမာ- ဥပေဒသညတရားရးအား သတငးအခကအလကမား ကအမးအစားခြျခားျခငးအားအကျဖတခြငေပးမထားေခ၊ သ႕ျဖစေသာေၾကာင အစးရမားသည အမးသားလျခေရး၊အမားျပညသတညျငမေအးခမးေရးကလြယကစြာအေၾကာငးျပ၍ ၄ငးတ႕၏ အျပအမမားအတြကအမားျပညသ၏ ထနးခပမႈႏင ေ၀ဖနသးသပမႈမားမကငးလြတေအာင ေဆာင ရြကႏငၾကသည။

When can the public right to know be restricted on grounds of national security?The Tshwane Principles set out no restriction on the right to information on national security grounds may be imposed unless the government can demonstrate that:

1. the restriction (a) is prescribed by law and (b) is necessary in a democratic society (c) to protect a legitimate national security interest; and

2. the law provides for adequate safeguards against abuse, including prompt, full, accessible, and effective scrutiny of the validity of the restriction by an independent oversight authority and full review by the courts.

The Tshwane Principles set out that national security interest refers to an interest the genuine purpose and primary impact of which is to protect national security and set out categories of information whose withholding may be necessary to protect

35

national security interests (for example, information about ongoing defence plans, the production of weapons systems, specific measures to safeguard the territory of the state, critical infrastructure, etc).

အစးရသညေအာကပါအခကမားကသကေသအေထာကအထားမျပႏငဘအမးသားလျခေရးကအေၾကာငးျပျပးသတငးအခကအလကမားကကန ႔သတႏငခြငမရေၾကာငးTheTshwane Principlesကဆသည။၁။ ကန႕သတခကက(က) ဥပေဒအရျပဌာနးသည။(ခ) ဒမကေရစလ႕အဖြ႕အစညးတြင လအပ သည။ (ဂ) ႏငင၏တရား၀ငလျခေရးဆငရာအကးစးပြားကကာကြယရန ႏင

၂။ ဥပေဒသည အလြသးစားျပျခငးမျပနငေအာငလေလာကစြာကာကြယထားႏငသည။ ကန႕သတ ခက၏မနကနမႈကထေရာကေသာစစမးစစေဆးမႈျပလပႏငျခငးပါ၀ငျပး ထစစေဆး မႈကလြတလပေသာအဖြ႕အစညးတစခကေဆာငရြကႏငျပးတရားရးကအျပညအစသးသပခြင လညးေပးထားရမည။

The Tshwane Principles မားသည အမးသားလျခေရးဆသညမာစစမနေသာရညရြယခက ႏငအမးသားလျခေရးကအေျခခအားျဖင အကာအကြယေပးမညစညးမဥးအျဖစသတမတထား သည။ထ႕ျပင အမးသားလျခေရးကအကာအကြယေပးရနလအပေသာအခကမားကထနးသမး ထားသညသတငးအခကအလကအမးအစားအျဖစသတမတထားသည။ဥပမာ၊လကရ အေကာင အထညေဖၚေဆာငရြကေနေသာ ကာကြယေရးစမကနးမား၊ လကနကထတလပေရးစနစ မား၊ ႏငင၏နယနမတကကာကြယေစာငေရာကေသာတကသ

ညေဆာငရြကခကမား၊အလြနအ ေရးၾကး ေသာ အေဆာကအဥမား၊

Are there cases when the public right to know cannot be restricted on grounds of national security?Some categories of information are of particularly high public interest given their special significance to the process of democratic oversight and the rule of law. The Tshwane Principles provide that there should be a presumption of overriding interest in favour of disclosure of information relating to the following categories:

1. violations of international human rights and humanitarian law;

2. information about cases of deprivation of life or liberty or torture;

3. information about the structure and powers of government;

4. decisions to use military force or acquire weapons of mass destruction;

5. the overall legal framework concerning surveillance of any kind;

6. financial information concerning state budget or procurement rules or reports made by supreme audit institutions;

7. information concerning the existence and scale of statutory violations and other abuses of power by public authorities,

36

8. information that could enable the public to understand any imminent or actual threat to public health, safety and environment.

အမ းသားလျခေ-ရးကအေၾကာငးျပသည အမားျပညသ၏သရခြငကတားဆး ကန႕သတခြငမရ ေသာျဖစရပမားရပါသလား၊အခ႕ေသာသတငးအခကအလကအမးအစားမားသည အထးသျဖငအမားျပညသအကးစးပြား ျဖစျပးဒမကေရစျဖစစဥတြင လႊတထားမညအေျခအေနလညးျဖစမည အေျခအေနႏင တရား ဥပေဒလညးစးမးသညစးမးသည အေျခအေနတြင ျဖစမညထးျခားမႈမားရေနသည။ ေအာကပါ အခကမားႏငဆကစပေသာအေျခအေနတြင သတငးထတျပနျခငးကစဥးစားရနလအပသည။

၁။ႏငငတကာလ႕အခြငအေရးႏငလ႕ဂဏသကၡာႏငဆငေသာဥပေဒကခးေဖါကျခငး

၂။ လြတလပမႈ သ႕မဟတလ႕ဘ၀က ႏႈတပယျခငးသ႕မဟတညငးပနးႏႈပစကျခငးႏင သကဆငသည သတငးအခကအလက

၃။ အစးရတညေဆာကဖြ႕စညးပႏငအာဏာႏငသကဆငသညသတငးအခကအလကမား

၄။ စစအငအားကအသးခရနဆးျဖတခကသ႕မဟတ အစအျပလက ထခကေစေသာ လကနကရယျခငး

၅။ မညသညအရာကမဆေစာငၾကညရျခငးႏငသကဆငေသာဥပေဒေရးရာအေျခခတစခလး

၆။ ႏငငေတာ ဘတဂကႏငသကဆငေသာေငြေၾ

ကးဆငရာသတငး အခကအလကမား သ႕မဟတ စာရငးစစခပတငသြငးေသာအစရငခစာ

၇။ ျပညသ႕၀နထမးကအာဏာကအလြသးစားျပသညသတငးအခကအလကမား

၈။ ပတ၀နးကငထနးသမးေရး၊လျခေရးႏငကနးမာေရးတ႕ႏငပတသကျပးအႏရာယရႏင ေသာသတငးအခကအလကမားကလထနားလညသေဘာေပါကေစႏငေစသည သတငး အခကအလကမား။

Can courts examine the decisions of public bodies to withhold information on grounds of national security?Yes. Individuals have a right to challenge before court the decision of public bodies to withhold information on ground of national security. A court should not dismiss a challenge without examining the information.

The Tshwane Principles set out that when examining whether a restriction on access to information is necessary in a democratic society for protection of national security, public bodies and courts should consider whether:

(i) Disclosure of the information pose a real and identifiable risk of significant harm to a legitimate national security interest.

(ii) The risk of harm from disclosure outweighs the overall public interest in disclosure.

37

(iii) The restriction complies with the principle of proportionality and must be the least restrictive means available to protect against the harm.

အမးသားလျခေရးကအေျခခေသာသတငးအခကအလကမားကထနခနထားရနအမားျပညသ ဆငရာအဖြ႕အစညးမား၏ဆးျဖတခကကတရားရးမစစမးစစေဆးႏငပါမညေလာ။ စစေဆးႏငပါသည။ လတစဥးတစေယာကတငးတြင တရားရးေရ႕ေမာကတြင အမးသားလျခေရး ကအေျခခေသာသတငးအခကအလကမားကထနခနထားရနအမားျပညသဆငရာအဖြ႕အစညး မား၏ဆးျဖတခကကစနေခၚ ႏငသည။ တရားရးသညသတငးအခက အလကကမစစေဆး ဘစနေခၚမႈကပလပ၍မရေပ။

The Tshwane Principlesကဆထားသညမာဒမကရကတစလ႕ေဘာငတစခတြင အမး သားလျခေရးကအေၾကာငးျပျပးသတငးရႏငခြငကကန႕သတမည၊မကန႕သတမညဆသညက တရားရးႏငျပညသ႕ေရးရာအဖြ႕အစညးမားကေစာေၾကာေသာအခါတြငေအာကပါအခကမားဟတ မဟတဆသညကစဥးစားရမည။

(၁) သတငးထတေဖၚျခငးသည တရား၀ငအမးသားလျခေရးကစစမန တကစြာဖြငဆႏင ေသာ အႏရာယေပးႏငေခရျခငး

(၂)သတငးထတေဖၚျခငးမေပၚေပါကႏငေသာစြန႕စားရမႈ၊အႏရယျဖစႏငေခသည ျပညသတစရပ လး၏အကးစးပြားထကပမေနျခငး

(၃) သတငးကန႕သတျခငးသည အခးအစားမျဖငကကညျပး အႏရယကာကြယေရးအတြက ကန႕သတခကသ

ညျဖစႏငသမအနညးဆးျဖစေစရမည။

When can public statements be restricted on protection public order or public safety grounds?Sometimes people call to overthrow government or for insurrections. It may be legitimate to restrict such statements for the protection of public order or safety. When determining whether public statements the state bodies and courts should take into account the three-part test set out in Article 19 of the ICCPR (see the previous part). Normally the key issue to examine is whether 1) the statements were made with intent to cause harm to public order/public safety, and 2) there is a clear nexus between the statement and the likelihood of this harm occurring. The Johannesburg Principles summarises the ‘intent’ and ‘nexus’ requirements providing that the expression may be punished only if the government can demonstrate that:

(a) the expression is intended to incite imminent violence;

(b) it is likely to incite such violence; and

(c) there is a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the likelihood or occurrence of such violence.

What does the Intent requirement imply?

The requirement of intent seeks to draw a line between legitimate political debate on matters of national security and incitement

38

to illegal action. Expression which does not incite illegal action should not be restricted even if it supports separatist sentiments or changes of political form of government. For example, as long as they do not glorify violence people should be able to discuss whether a certain region should seek autonomy or independence or the head of state should be monarch or a president.

What does the Nexus requirement imply?

The second requirement – that there be a clear nexus between the statement and the likelihood of harm occurring. Whether a clear nexus exists between the prohibited expression and the occurrence of violence depends, necessarily, on the specific circumstances of each case. For example a poem may be intended to incite violent acts but if it is unlikely to have that effect in practice because of the context in which the poem was written or distributed the authorities should not take action.

ဘယေသာအခါတြငအမားျပညသတညျငမေအးခမးေရးႏငအမားျပညသလျခစတခရေရးကကာကြယရန ဟေသာအခကေပၚတြငအေျခခ၍အမားျပည သ၏ အသကကန႕သတတားဆး ႏငမည နညး။တစခါတစရတြင လတ႕သညအစးရကျဖတခရန သ႕မဟတပနကန၊သပနထရန စစညး ၾက သည။ ယငးကျပညသလထတညျငမေအးခမးေရးႏငလျခစတခေစေရးအတြက ထသ႕ေသာ ထတေဖၚမႈ မးမားကတရား၀ငကန႕သတျခငးသညတရား၀ငျဖစႏငေပသည။ အမားျပညသ တ႕၏

ဖြငဆခကမားက နငငေတာအဖြ႕အစညးမားႏင တရားရးတ႕ကစဥးစား ဆးျဖတေသာ အခါတြင အငစစပအာ၏ ပဒမ ၁၉ တြငပါရေသာ (ေရ႕အခနးတြငရႈ) အခက သးခက ျဖင တက ဆငစစေဆးသငသည။ ပမန အားျဖင စစစေသာအဓကျပနာသည (၁) ဖြငဆတငျပမႈသည ျပညသလထတညျငမေအးခမးေရးႏငစတခလျခေရးကပကျပားေစရနရညရြယထားျခငးရမရ၊ (၂)ဖြငဆတငျပခကမားႏငထသ႕ေသာအႏရယျဖစႏငေခတ႕အၾကားရငးလငးျပတသားေသာဆကစပမႈရမရတ႕ျဖစသည။ ဂဟန နကစဘာ မအရထ “ရညရြယခက”ႏင “ဆကစပမႈ” တ႕အား အကဥးခပျပထားသည။ အစးရကေအာကပါအခကမားကသကေသျပႏငေသာအခါမသာလင အျပစေပးျခငးကျပလပႏငသည။ ယငးတ႕႕မာ

(က)ထတေျပာဆမႈသည လတတေလာအၾကမးဖကမႈမားကလႈ႕ေဆာရနရညရြယျခငး

(ခ) ယငးအၾကမးဖကမႈမားကလႈ႕ေဆာငႏငေခရျခငး

(ဂ)ထတေဖၚေျပာဆမႈႏင အၾကမးဖကမႈျဖစႏငေခသ႕မဟတျဖစေပၚေနျခငးတ႕ႏင တကရက ျဖစေစ သြယ၀က၍ျဖစေစ ဆကစပ မႈရေနျခငး

ရညရြယခကတစချဖစေျမာကရနမညသညလအပခကမားႏငကကညရမညနညး။

ရညရြယခကတစချဖစေျမာကရနလအပခကမာအမးသားလျခေရးႏငပတသကေသာတရား၀င ႏငငေရးျငငးခနမႈႏင တရားမ၀ငအျပအမတစခအတြကလႈ႕ေဆာမႈတ႕အၾကားျခားနားခကမဥးက ခမတရနလအပသည။ထတေဖၚေျပာဆခကတစခသည ခြထြကေရးသမားမားကေထာကချခငး၊ သ႕မဟတအစးရ၏ ႏငငေရးပစေျပာငးလရနတြနးအားေပး ျခငးမးမားျဖစသညတင တရားမ၀င လႈ႕ေဆာျခငးမဟတသည

39

အတြကကန႕သတရနမျပလပသင ေပ။ ဥပမာ။ အၾကမး ဖကမႈ က ေရ႕တနးမတင သေရြ႕ ေဒသတစခသညကယပငအပခပခြငရ႕သင သည၊သ႕မဟတ လြတလပ ေရး ေပးသငသည၊ သ႕မဟတႏငငေခါငးေဆာငသညဘရငျဖစရမည၊ သမတျဖစရမည စသည တ႕ကေဆြးေႏြး ျငငးခနျခငးႏငေစသငသည။

ဆကစပမႈရျခငးအတြကလအပခကမားတြငမညသညတကအကး၀ငသနညး

ဒတယလအပခက- အႏရာယျဖစႏငေခႏငထတေဖၚေျပာဆခကတ႕အၾကားတြငဆကစပမႈက ရငးလငးျပတသားစြာရေနေစရမည။ တားျမစထားေသာထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငးႏငအၾကမးဖကမႈ ျဖစေပၚမႈတ႕အၾကားတြငရငးလငးေသာဆကစပမႈရေနလငပင ယငးသည တကေသခာေသာ သးျခားအေျခအေနတစရပေပၚတြငမတညေနသည။ ဥပမာ- ကဗာတစပဒသည အၾကမးဖကအ ျပအမတစခကလႈ႕ေဆာရနရညရြယေကာငးရညရြယမညျဖစေသာလညးလကေတြ႕တြငထအကးရလဒမရႏငေပ။ အေၾကာငးမာကဗာတြငေရးသားထားေသာအေၾကာငးအရာသ႕မဟတ ေသာ အေၾကာငးအရာကမအာဏာပငမားကအေရးမယသငေသာေၾကာငျဖစသည။

40

What is incitement?When we use the term “incitement”, we are talking about speech or other acts of expression that advocate or promote hatred in a way that is intended to encourage individuals to commit acts of violence or other human rights violations against a protected group.

Example of incitement of hatred: A politician is speaking to a large crowd of people who all belong to one religious group. He tells the group that all of the problems in their society are caused by another minority religious group, and the only solution is for that group to be exterminated. The community has a history of violence between the two groups, and tensions are particularly high at this time. The politician knows that many people in the crowd are capable of violence against the minority group.

In the scenario, the politician is advocating religious hatred that will incite (or encourage) people in the crowd to commit acts of violence against another group. We call this “incitement” for short. The politician commits incitement even if no one acts on the incitement. It would also be incitement if the group is targeted for their ethnicity or nationality.

There are also many ways of advocating hatred to incite people to commit violence

or other human rights violations. Incitement can take place through expression at a public rally, or it can happen through a radio broadcast, or in a newspaper article or online blog. It can also be committed by any person, a politician, a religious or community leader.

လႈ႕ေဆာျခငးဟသညအဘယနညး။လႈ႕ေဆာျခငးဟေသာေ၀ါဟာရကသးစြေသာအခါ ၊ ေျပာဆေသာစကား သ႕မဟတ အျခား ေသာ ေဖၚထတ တငျပေသာအျပအမမားကဆလျပးယငးသည အမနးတရားကတကတြနးေသာ၊ တး ျမငေစေသာ အျပအမျဖစျပး၊လပဂၢ လမားကအၾကမးဖကမႈတစခကကးလြနမေစရနအားေပး သည။ သ႕မဟတ အကာအကြယေပးထားေသာ လစ၏အျခားေသာ လ႕အခြငအေရးမား ကခး ေဖါကျခငး ပငျဖစသည

အမနးတရာျဖစေစရနလႈ႕ေဆာမႈဥပမာ-

ႏငငေရးသမားတစေယာကသည ဘာသာေရးတစခကယၾကညေသာ လအပစၾကးက စကား ေျပာေနသည။ သကယခလ႕အဖြ႕အစညးတြငျဖစေပၚေနေသာျပနာမားအားလးသည အျခား ေသာဘာသာေရးကကးကြယေသာလနညးစအပစေၾကာငျဖစေပၚေနသညဟဆသည။ ထျပ နာ တ႕၏အေျဖမာလညးထအပစကရငးလငးပစျခငးပငျဖစေၾကာငးဆသည။ သမငးတြငလညး ထအပစႏစစအၾကားတြငအၾကမးဖကမႈမားရခသည။တငးမာမႈသညထအခနတြငအျမငဆးသ႕ ေရာကရေနသည။ႏငငေရးသမားကလညးသရထားသညမာလအပစထတြငလနညးစအပစအားအာၾကမးဖကႏငေသာေခရသည။

အမနးတရားျဖစရနလႈ႕ေဆာျခငးIncitement to hatred

41

ဤျဖစရပတြင၊ နငငေရးသမားသည ဘာသာေရးအမနးတရားကေထာကခအားေပးေနသည။ ယငးကအျခားေသာအပစအားအၾကမးဖကမႈကးလြနေစရနလႈ႕ေဆာေနျခငးပငျဖစသည။ ယငးကလႈ႕ေဆာျခငးဟေခၚဆမည။ လႈ႕ေဆာမႈေနာကသ႕လကျပးမညသတစဥးတစေယာကမ အၾကမးမဖကေသာလညးနငငေရးသမားသည လႈ႕ေဆာမႈကကးလြနသညဟဆရမည။ အကယ ၍ အပစၾကးသည လမးႏြယစ၊ႏငငသားကပစမတထားပါကလႈ႕ေဆာမႈဟပငဆ၇မည။

အျခားေသာလ႕အခြငအေရးကခးေဖါကရန၊အၾကမးဖကမႈကးလြနရနလႈ႕ေဆာသညအမနးတ ရားကျမငတငေပးေသာနညးလမမားမားစြာရသည။ လႈ႕ေဆာမႈသည အမားျပညသ စတနး လညလညပြမားတြင ေဖၚထတျခငးမတစဆငျပလပႏငသည၊သ႕တညးမဟတ ေရဒယ အသ လႊငျခငး၊သတငးစာေဆာငးပါးႏင အငတာနကဘေလာမားမတစဆငလညးျပလပႏငသည။ ႏငငေရး သမား၊ဘာသာေရးေခါငးေဆာငႏင လစလေ၀ေခါငးေဆာင မညသမဆ ကးလြနႏင သည။

Why do people engage in incitement?The reasons that people incite violence or other human rights abuses are complex. All societies have in them diverse groups with different religions, ethnicities and nationalities. Incitement has happened in communities across the globe in a variety of different contexts.

The environment in which violence or other human rights abuses between groups can easily be encouraged often builds up over months, years, or even decades. These violations do not erupt out of nothing, but

instead occur as a consequence of people exploiting hatred and manipulating fear of different groups for various political, religious, economic or social ends.

While many factors are at play, incitement appears to take root more easily where there is a lack of respect for equality, a lack of legal protection for minorities, and a climate of fear where censorship and self-censorship is rife. Where people are not free to speak out to counter hatred, and minorities are denied the platforms to speak and to be heard, hateful rhetoric passes unchallenged. This is often worsened where public bodies are corrupt, and discrimination is embedded in institutions and the judiciary.

Our experience shows that the best way to tackle incitement is through prevention that encourages more speech to counter hatred that can incite violence or other human rights violations. Incitement is less likely to happen in societies where the right to freedom of expression and the right to equality and non-discrimination are protected in law and practice.

အဘယေၾကာငလတ႕သညလႈ႕ေဆာမႈတြငထေတြ႕ပါ၀ငရသနညး။အေၾကာငးမာအၾကမးဖကရနလႈ႕ေဆာျခငးသ႕မဟတအျခားေသာလ႕အခြငအေရးမားကအလြသးျခငးမားသညရႈတေထြးလသည။ အားလးေသာလ႕အဖြ႕အစညးမားတြင ကြျပားျခားနားေသာ လအပစ မားရၾကသည။ ယငးတ႕သညကြျပားျခားနားေသာ ဘာသာေရး၊မးႏြယစ ႏငႏငင သားမားအမးမး

42

ကြျပားျခားနားစြာရႏငသည။ လႈ႕ေဆာမႈသညကမာၻတစ၀မးလးတြင အသက အ၀နး အမားအျပားတြငေပၚေပါကလကရသည။

အပစတစစနငတစစ အၾကားအၾကမးဖကမႈႏင အျခားေသာလ႕အခြငအေရးေဖါကဖကမႈမား ေပၚေပါက ေသာပတ၀နးကငတြင အာေပးမႈကရက၊လႏစစသညအားျဖငၾကာေညာငးသညတင ေအာငတညေဆာကအားေပးႏငသည။ ထေဖါကဖကမႈမားသည အေၾကာငးမေပၚေပါက လာသညမဟတေပ၊ယငးတ႕သညအပစအခငးခငးအမနးတရားကအလြနအကြျပျခငး၏အကး ရလဒမားပငျဖစသည။ထ႕ျပငလမႈေရး၊စပြားေရး၊ဘာသာေရး၊ႏငငေရးအမးမး တ႕အတြက စး ရမေၾကာငၾကမႈမားကေစစားခပကငျခငးေၾကာငလညးေပၚေပါကျခငးျဖစသည။

ထသ႕ေသာအေျခအေနမးမားမရခေသာအခါတြငပငလင၊သာတညမမႈကေလစားမႈမရျခငး၊လ နညးစကအကာအကြယေပးေသာတရားဥပေဒမရျခငး၊ လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငး အတြက ဆငဆာရျခငး ေၾကာငစရမမႈျမငမား ေနျခငးစေသာအေျခအေနမား တြငလႈ႕ေဆာျခငး သညအလယတကအျမစတြယႏငသည။ထ႕ျပင အမနးစကားကတနျပနေျပာဆခြငကခြငမျပ ေသာ အေျခအေနႏငလနညးစကေျပာခြင နားေထာငခြငမျပေသာအေျခအေနမားတြင အမနး စကား ဆသတ႕ ႏႈတေရးရာေျပာငေျမာကစြာျဖင လြမးမးခြငရေနေပမည။ပ၍ဆးေသာအေျခအေန မာ ျပညသ႕၀နထမးအဖြ႕အစညးမားကအကငပကျခစားေသာအေျခအေနမား ႏငလမးေရး ခြျခားမႈမားသညတရားစရငေရးႏငအျခားအဖြ႕အစညးမားတြင အျမစတြယ ေနေသာအေျခ အေန မားတြငေပၚေပါက ႏငေပသည။

အေတြ႕အၾကအရလႈ႕ေဆာမႈကတ႕ျပနနငေသာအေကာငးဆးေသာနညးလမးမာ အမနးစကား ဆျခငးကတ႕ျပနမည စကားမားကပမေျပာဆရနအားေပးျခငးနညးသာျဖစသည။ လြတလပစြာ

ထတေဖၚေျပာဆခြင၊သာတညမအခြငအေရးမားႏငလမးေရးခြျခားမႈမရေစေရးအတြကတရား ဥပေဒႏငကာကြယထားသလလကေတြ႕လညးကငသေသာအခါတြငအမနးစကားျဖငလႈ႕ေဆာ မႈသညျဖစႏငေခနညးေပမည။

Should incitement to hatred be prohibited?Yes. Article 20, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR requires States to prohibit by law “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. The prohibition of incitement to hatred restricts the right to freedom of expression but the restriction is legitimate under the international law, as Article 19 paragraph 3 of the ICCPR sets out that protection of rights of others and public safety and order can justify the restriction on freedom of expression.

အမနးစကားဆလႈ႕ေဆာျခငးကတားဆးပတပငသငသေလာ။ပတပငသငပါသည။ အငစစပအာ ။အပဒ၂၀၊ စာပဒခြ ၂ တြင ေဖၚျပထားသညမာ၊ အၾကမးဖကမႈ၊ရနလမႈ၊လမးေရးခြျခားမႈမားအတြကလႈ႕ေဆာေသာဘာသာေရးဆငရာ၊ လမးေရး ဆငရာ၊အမးသားေရးဆငရာလႈ႕ေဆာျခငးမားကအားေပးကညသညမညသည အမနးစကား က မဆဥပေဒျဖင တားဆးပတပငရမည။ အမနးစကားဆလႈ႕ေဆာျခငးကတားဆးပတပငျခငးသည လြတလပစြာေဖၚထတေျပာဆျခငးကကန႕သတရာေရာကေသာလညးကန႕ သတမႈသည ႏငငတကာဥပေဒအရ တရား၀ငသည။အာတကယ၁၉ ၏ စာပဒ ၃ အရအျခား ေသာ အခြင အေရးမား၊လထလျခစတခေရးႏငတညျငမေအးခမးေရးတ႕ကကာကြယ

43

ရနအလ႕ငာ လြတလပ စြာ ထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငးအားပတပငေသာလညးတရားမတမႈရနငသည။

What are the freedom of expression concerns with the laws prohibiting incitement?There are two problems that are seen in many countries around the world where incitement laws are used:

• Influential individuals directly incite violence or other human rights abuses without being held accountable, and without victims being protected or given redress;

• Laws on incitement are abused to persecute minority or vulnerable groups, or to shield the government from criticism.

လြတလပထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငး၏ အမနးစကားဆလႈ႕ေဆာမႈမားကတားဆးပတပင ေသာ ဥပေဒ မား ႏင ပတသကသည စးရမမႈမားသညအဘယနညး။လႈ႕ေဆာမႈအားတားဆးပတပငေသာဥပေဒကသးစြေသာကမာၻေပၚရႏငငမားစြာတြငေတြ႕ျမငရ သညျပနာႏစမးရသည ။

• လႊမးမးမႈရေသာလပဂၢ လကတကရကအၾကမးဖကမႈကလႈ႕ေဆာျခငး သ႕မဟတ တာ၀နခမႈ မရဘ ႏင ခရသမားအားကာကြယမႈမေပးဘအျခားေသာလ႕အခြငအေရးမားကခးေဖါကျခငး

• လႈ႕ေဆာမႈမားအားတားဆးပတပငေ

သာဥပေဒမားအားလနညးစသ႕မဟတ အကာအကြယ အက အညမေနသမားအားအေရးယအျပစေပးရန အလြသးျခငးသ႕မဟတ အစးရအား ျပစ တငေ၀ဖနျခငးမကာကြယရနအတြကအသးျပျခငးမား

How to set the right balance between freedom of expression and protection against incitement to hatred?In 2013, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights launched “the Rabat Plan of Action”, which sets out how States should implement Article 20(2) of the ICCPR at the national level. The Rabat Plan of Action gives guidance to ensure that laws prohibiting incitement are applied in the right circumstances, emphasising the following principles:

• Key terms should be clearly defined: domestic legislation should accurately reflect the formulation of Article 20(2) of the ICCPR, and not adopt language that is vaguer or subject to broader interpretation. Key terms such as “hatred”, “discrimination”, “violence” and “hostility” should be given uniform definitions.

• Incitement requires intent: the advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to hostility, discrimination or violence should be treated as an intentional offence. To impose any form of sanctions, it must be proven that

44

the speaker acted with the knowledge and purpose of encouraging others to commit hostility, discrimination or violence.

• Criminal sanctions are a last resort: where criminal sanctions for incitement exist, they should only be employed as a last resort. Using administrative sanctions or civil remedies for incitement can be more effective.

• Restrictions on incitement must comply with the three-part test: any restriction on incitement should be regarded as a restriction on the right to freedom of expression and justified according to the three-part test set out in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR. Restrictions must be (i) provided for by law; (ii) in pursuit of a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the rights or reputations of others, the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals; and (iii) be necessary in a democratic society.

Only the most severe forms of advocacy of hatred have the potential to incite hostility, discrimination or violence. Determining whether an individual engaged in incitement is a complicated legal task, and should be decided through a fair and independent judicial process. There are six factors that should be considered when deciding if speech is incitement or not:

1. Context: the social and political climate at the time of the expression, for example

taking into account the existence of conflicts, or a history of discrimination being institutionalised;

2. Identity of the speaker: the identity of the speaker, their position in society, and the level of influence they may have over their audience. For example, prominent politicians or religious leaders will have a greater influence over their audience than someone with less social status;

3. Intent of the speaker: the speaker must be shown to have the purpose to advocate or promote hatred and to encourage acts of hostility, discrimination, or violence;

4. Content of the expression: what was said, how it was said, and what people understand from what was said will be important. It should be ensured that public interest discourse is given particularly robust protection, especially in relation to politics, religion, art and academia;

5. Extent and magnitude: including how public the speech was and how far its reach was;

6. Likelihood and imminence of harm: it should be shown that as a consequence of the expression, there was a certain and specific possibility that hostility, discrimination, or violence would occur within a reasonable period of time.

These six criteria should be considered in each case before sanctions are imposed.

လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငးႏင

45

အမနးစကားဆလႈ႕ေဆာမႈကတားဆးမႈ တ႕အေပၚတြင မညကသကမနကနမတေသာခနညမႈကေဆာငရြကမညနညး။၂၀၁၃ခႏစအတြငး ၊ကလသမဂၢ လ႕အခြငအေရးဆငရာမဟာမငးၾကး က“the Rabat Plan of Action”ဆသညကတငျပခ သည။ ယငးကျပဆသညမာ ႏငငအမားသည လ႕အခြငအေရး ေၾကျငာ စာတမးအငစစစအာ၏အပဒ ၂၀(၂) အားအမးသားအဆငတြင မညသ႕ အေကာင အထည ေဖၚ ရမညက ျပဆခသည။ The Rabat Plan of Actionက ေအာကပါ မမားကအေလးထားျပးအမနးစကားဆလႈ႕ေဆာမႈမားအားတားဆးပတပငမညေနရာတြငသးမည ဥပေဒမားသညမနကနေသာအေနအထာအေျခအေနတြငသးအတအကေသခာစြာသးႏငေရးတြကလမးညႊနမႈမားကခေပးသည။

• အဓကေ၀ါဟာရမားကရငးလငးစြာဖြငဆသငသည။ ။ အငစစအာ၏ အပဒ၂၀(၂) ေရးသား ေဖၚျပခကက ျပညတြငးတရားဥပေဒမားသည တကစြာထငဟပရမည။ ထ႕ျပင ကယ ျပန႕ေသာဖြငဆခကကေပးႏငေသာ၊မတကေသာဘာသာစကားကမသးရနျဖစသည။ “hatred”, “discrimination”, “violence” and “hostility” ကသ႕ ေသာ ေ၀ါဟာရမားက တညေသာအဓပၸါယဖြငဆခကေပးရမည။

• လႈ႕ေဆာမႈတြငရညရြယခကရရမည။ ။ အၾကမးဖကျခငး၊လမးေရးခြျခားျခငး၊ရနလျခငးတ႕ ကျဖစေပၚေစမညလႈ႕ေဆာမႈ ကေပၚေပါကေစသညအမနးစကားအားအားေပးတကတြနး မႈ ကရညရြယပါေသာတကခကမႈဟမတယရမည။ မညသညျပစဒဏကမဆ

ခမတမညဆပါက ထစကားကေျပာသသည အၾကမးဖကမႈ၊လမးေရးခြျခားမႈႏငရနလမႈမားကကးလြနရန တက တြနး အားေပးသညရညရြယခကႏငအေၾကာငးအခကမားပါရသညဟသကေသျပရ မညျဖစ ပါ သည။

• ရာဇ၀တမႈအရျပစဒဏေပးျခငးမားသည ေနာကဆးေျဖရငးမႈပငျဖစသည။။ ရာဇ၀တ မႈအရျပစဒဏေပးျခငးမားရပါကယငးတ႕ကေနာကဆးေျဖရငးခကအေနျဖငသာသးသင သည။ တရားမမႈႏငအပခပေရးဆငရာျပစဒဏမားသညသာလႈ႕ေဆာမႈကေျဖရငရနအတြက ပမသငေတာသညနညးမားပငျဖစသည။

• လႈ႕ေဆာမႈကကန႕သတတားဆးျခငးမားသည ေရ႕အခနးမားတြငေဖၚျပခသညသးဆင စစေဆးနညးႏငကကညရမညျဖစသည။ ။လႈ႕ေဆာျခငးကတားဆးပတပငသညမည သညပတပငမႈကမဆလြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆခြငကတားဆးပတပငပငျခငးဟမတယရမည။ထ႕ျပင ICCPR ၏အပဒ ၁၉(၃) အရအဆငသးဆငစစေဆးနညးအရတရားမတမႈ ရေၾကာငးျပရမည။ ကန႕သတမႈ က(၁)ဥပေဒအရ ျပဌာနးေပးရမည။ (၂)တရား၀ငရည ရြယခကမားျဖစသညအျခားသမား၏ဂဏသကၡာကထနးသမးရန၊အမးသားလျခေရး၊လထ တညျငမေအးခမးေရးကထနးသမးရနသ႕မဟတကမးမာေရး၊သ႕မဟတကယကငတရားက ကာကြယရနစသညတ႕ျဖစသည။ႏင(၃)ဒမကေရစလ႕အဖြ႕အစညးအတြကလအပခကျဖစရ မည။

အမနးစကားဆျခငးကအဆး၀ါးဆးတကတြနးအားေပးမႈသာလငအၾကမးဖကျခငး၊လမးေရးခြျခား ျခငး၊ႏင႕ရနလျခငးတ႕ျဖစေပၚေစရနလႈ႕ေဆာမႈျဖစေစသည။တစစတစဥးအားလႈ႕ေဆာမႈအရာ ေျမာကမေျမာကကဆးျဖတရနမာ တရားဥပေဒေရးရာအရရႈတေထြးေသာအရာတစချဖစသည။

46

ထ႔ျပင လြတလပမတစြာဆးျဖတရနလညးလသည။ သ႔ျဖစ၍ တစစတစခေသာေျပာဆျခငးက လႈ႕ ေဆာမႈအရာေျမာကမေျမာကဆးျဖတရနေအာကပါအခက ေျခာကခကေပၚတြငစဥးစ ားဆးျဖတ ရမည။

၁။ အေၾကာငးအရာ၊အေျခအေန-ထတေဖၚေျပာဆေသာအခန၏လမႈေရးႏင ႏငငေရးအေျခ အေန။ဥပမာ- ပဋပကၡျဖစေပၚမႈကထညသြငးစဥးစားျခငး၊သ႕မဟတ လမးေရးခြျခားမႈ သမငး ရမ ရ

၂။ ထတေဖၚေျပာဆသ၏အခကအလက-ထတေဖၚေျပာဆသသညမညသနညး၊သ၏လ႕အဖြ႕ အစညးအတြငးရအေနအထား၊ပရသတကလႊမးမးႏငေသာ အဆင၊ဥပမာ-ထငရားေသာနငင ေရးသမားသ႕မဟဘာသာေရးေခါငးေဆာငသညအျခားသထကပရသတကပမလႊမးမးႏငမႈ ရသည။

၃။ထတေဖၚေျပာဆသ၏ရညရြယခက- ထတေဖၚေျပာဆသသည တကတြနးအားေပးမႈ သ႕မ ဟတအမနးတရားကျမငတငရနထငရားေစရမည။ထ႔ျပင အၾကမးဖကျခငး၊လမးေရးခြျခား ျခငး၊ႏငရနလမႈအျပအမမားကတကတြနးအားေပးျခငး။

၄။ထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငး၏ရညရြယခက- မညသညအရာမားေျပာခသနညး၊မညကသ႕ေျပာ သနညး၊ထ႕ျပင ေျပာဆခသညကလအမားမညသ႕နားလညသနညးဆသညမာ အေရးပါေပ လမမည။အႏပညာ၊ဘာသာေရးႏငနငငေရးမားႏငပတသကေသာလထအကးစးပြားအတြက ထတေဖၚေျပာဆမႈအတြက ေကာငးမြနစြာအကာအကြယေပးထားရမည။

၅။အတငးအတာႏငေလးနကမႈ-ေျပာဆမႈကမညသ႕ျဖနခသနညး။မညမကယကယျပန႕ျပန႕ ေရာကရမညနညး။

၆။ အႏရာယျဖစႏငေခ- ထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခ

ငး၏ေနာကဆကတြရလဒအျဖစျပသရမည၊ အခနအတငးအတာတစခအတြငး တကေသခာေသာလမးေရးခြျခားမႈ၊အၾကမးဖကမႈႏင ရနလမႈမား ျဖစႏငေခကျပသႏငရမည။

ျပစဒဏမားမခမ ဤစႏႈနးမားအတငးအမႈတငးကစစေဆးရမည။

Which individuals should be protected?All people should be protected from the advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to hostility, discrimination or violence against them.

It is minority groups and others vulnerable to marginalisation and the denial of their rights that most often are targeted by the advocacy of hatred. The types of hatred covered under an incitement law should encompass all of the reasons that people might experience discrimination. This includes because of their race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or other status.

မညသညပဂၢ လကကာကြယမႈေပးသငသနညးအားလးေသာလမားကအမနးတရားစကားစစအတြကတကတြနးအားေပးျခငးမအကာအကြယေပးသငသည။

အမနးစကားဆျခငးကတကတြနးအားေပးျခငး၏သားေကာငသညအခြငအေရးမားကျငငးပါယခ ထားရတတသညလနညးစမားကသာရညရြယေလရသည။လႈ႕ေဆာျခငးႏငပတသကသညဥ

47

ပေဒ သညအမနးစကားပစအားလးကလႊမးျခမႈရေစရမည။လမးေရးခြျခားမႈခစားႏငရသညအေၾကာငး တရားမားလးကအကး၀ငေစရမည။ယငးတြင လမးေရး၊အသားေရာင၊ကား/မ၊ဘာသာစကား၊ ဘာသာေရး၊ႏငငေရးသ႕မဟတအျခားေသာအေတြးအေခၚအယအဆမား၊ႏငငသား၊လမႈအေျခခ၊ ပငဆငမႈ၊ေမြးဖြားရာေဒသ၊မသနစြမးျခငးစသညအခကမားပါ၀ငေစရမည။

How else can we protect minority groups?There are many legal and policy responses that are needed to prevent incitement to hostility, discrimination and violence through creating an environment where the right to freedom of expression and the right to equality are protected.

Most important of all is creating a culture of tolerance where discrimination and negative stereotyping of minority and vulnerable groups can be openly contested through more speech. Hatred is most effectively combatted where alternative viewpoints and voices are given the space to speak and to be heard. At the same time, majority groups are more likely to reject hatred where they are able to listen to, understand and accept minority voices and opinions.

Promoting equalityThe State should ensure that their legal frameworks include comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation that protects vulnerable and minority groups in all aspects of their lives. This should include protection in relation to employment,

access to government welfare and social programmes, access to goods and services (including housing and education), access to justice, and political participation (including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and participation in elections).

There must also be a comprehensive public policy to promote equality and tolerance. This should include public information campaigns to combat negative stereotyping of and discrimination against vulnerable communities or groups, in particular through sports, the arts, and other cultural events. The promotion of equality and tolerance should be integrated into education curriculums at all levels, and be supported by training for teachers.

Law enforcement bodies, security forces, and those involved in the administration of justice should also be trained in equality and non-discrimination, and international standards on freedom of expression.

There should be equality training for public officials, politicians and religious leaders on the right to equality, and the importance of promoting tolerance while avoiding statements that might promote discrimination. The adoption of voluntary ethical codes for these actors can be a positive way of promoting good practice, particularly around elections or other times of tension.

What is the role of the media?An independent, pluralistic and diverse media is important to ensuring that multiple

48

and alternative voices can be heard on different topics, so that any advocacy of hatred can easily be challenged.

States should ensure that they have in place a public policy and regulatory framework that encourages an independent, pluralistic and diverse media, which promotes non-discrimination and equality.

As part of developing a pluralistic and diverse media, consideration should be given to facilitating the functioning of minority media organisations, and measures to increase the capacity of minority groups to access and express their views in the media.

They should adopt voluntary ethical codes to ensure that they meet their social responsibility to ensure that acts of discrimination and advocacy of hatred is spoken out against.

• Taking care to report in context and in a factual and sensitive manner, while ensuring that acts of discrimination are brought to the attention of the public.

• Being alert to the danger of discrimination or negative stereotypes of individuals and groups being furthered by the media.

• Avoiding unnecessary references to race, religion, gender and other group characteristics that may promote intolerance.

• Raising awareness of the harm caused by discrimination and negative stereotyping.

• Reporting on different groups or communities and giving their members an opportunity to speak and to be heard in a way that promotes a better understanding of them, while at the same time reflecting the perspectives of those groups or communities.

What can National Human Rights Institutions do?National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) can play a crucial role in collecting evidence and data about discrimination, including incidents of advocacy of hatred that constitute incitement to hostility, violence or discrimination. They should have the responsibility to encourage social dialogue on controversial topics, and accept complaints about discrimination and other human rights abuses.

It is important that NHRIs are independent from government and other interests, so that they are able to fully carry out their mandate. The information they provide can show early warnings that problems or tensions are building, and can inform the policy responses that States adopt.

What can Civil Society Organisations do?Civil society organisations (CSOs) are an important social actor – they help

49

shape and change public attitudes and perceptions. CSOs can positively contribute to encourage dialogue between groups to increase understanding and acceptance, and engage in public education campaigns. They can also monitor and report human rights abuses, and speak out publicly against them and in support of the rights of victims.

To assist their work, CSOs should be free from discriminatory or overly intrusive regulatory laws or mechanisms that may prevent them from carrying out their work independently and effectively.

အျခားမညသညနညးျဖငလနညးစကကာကြယမႈေပးႏငမညနညး။လႈ႕ေဆာမႈျဖငရနလျခငး၊လမးေရးခြျခားျခငးႏငအၾကမးဖကမႈမားကျဖစေစျခငးအားကာကြယႏင ရနလအပခကမားကျဖညဆးရနတရားဥပေဒႏငမ၀ါဒမား မားစြာရေပသည။လြတလပစြာေဖၚ ထတႏငခြငႏငသာတညမမႈကကာကြယထားေသာ၀နးကငကဖနတးျခငးအားျဖငျဖညဆးေဆာင ရြကေပးႏငသည။.

အေရးအပါဆးေသာဖနတေပးရမည၀နးကငမာ သးခခြငလႊတတတေသာယဥေကးမႈရသည ၀နး ကငတစခပငျဖစသည။ထ၀နးကငတြင လမးေရးခြျခားဆကဆခရသမား၊မးစေသာလနညးစ မား၊အကာအကြယမေနေသာအပစမားကလြတလပစြာေျပာဆခြငေပးျခငးအားျဖငပြငလငးေသာ ယဥျပငခြငရလာေစႏငသည။ အျခားေသာအျမငအေတြး မားကေျပာဆနားေထာငခြင ေနရာမား မား ေပးထားျခငးအားျဖငအမနးစကားကထေရာကစြာ ျပနလညေခပတကခကႏငေပမည။ တစ ျပငနကတညးမာပငလနညးစ၏စကားႏငအသမားက နားေ

ထာငခြင၊နားလညခြငေပးထားျခငး အားျဖင အမနးစကားကလမားစကလညးျငငးပါယလာႏငမည။

သာတညမမႈကတးျမငေဆာငရြကေပးျခငး

ႏငငေတာအေနျဖငလညး လနညးစႏငအကာအကြယမ႕လအပစမားအတြက ယငးတ႕၏ ဘ၀ ရငသနေရး အတြကအားလးေသာအေၾကာငးခငးရာမားအတြက လမးေရးခြျခားမႈက ဆန႕ကင ေသာအေျခခပါရသညဥပေဒေရးရာအေျခခရရေနေစရနအာမခေပးႏငေစရမည။ ထအခကတြင အလပအကငနငပတသကသညအကာအကြယ၊အစးရ၏လမႈဖလေရးႏငလမႈေရးအစအစဥမားကရရႏငခြင၊ကနပစၥညးႏင၀နေဆာငမႈမားရရနငခြင(ပညာေရးႏငအမယာမားအပါအ၀င)၊တရားမတမႈကခစားခြင၊ႏငငေရးတြငပါ၀ငႏငခြင၊(လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆခြင၊စတနးလညလည ခြငႏငေရြးေကာကပြတြငပါ၀ငႏငခြငအပါအ၀င) မားပါ၀ငရမည။

သးခခြငလႊတတတျခငးႏငသာတညမမႈကျမငတငမညျပညသ႕ေရးရာစမခန႕ခြမႈမ၀ါဒရရမည။ထမ ၀ါဒတြင အမားပင သတငးအခကအလကကမၼဏမားသည လနညးစႏငအကာအကြယမအား နညးေသာလအပစမားကဆန႕ကငသညလမးေရးခြျခားျခငးမားကတကခကရနလညးပါ၀ငသည အထးသျဖင အားကစား၊ အႏပညာႏငအျခားေသာ ယဥေကးမႈဆငရာ ပြလမး သဘငအခနးအနား မားတြငျဖစသည။ သာတညမမႈႏငသးခခြငလႊတတတျခငးကပညာေရး၏ အဆငအားလး သငရးညႊနးတမးမား တြငလညးပါ၀ငေပါငးစညးေနေစရမည။ ဆရာမားက လညးသငတနးမားေပး ျခငးျဖငအေထာကအကေပးရမည။

တရားဥပေဒေစာငေရာကေရးအဖြ႕အစညးမား၊လျခေရးတပဖြ႔မားႏငတရားစရငေရးတြငပါ၀ငပတ သကေနေသာအဖြ႕အစညးလပဂၢ လအားလးကလညး သာတညမမႈ၊လမးေရးမခြျခားေရးႏင လြတ

50

လပ စြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆခြငဆငရာမားကေလကငသငတနးေပးရမည။

ျပညသ႕၀နထမးအရာရမား၊ ႏငငေရးသမားမား ႏငဘာသာေရးေခါငးေဆာငမား သာတညမခြင၊ လမးေရးခြျခားမႈကေရာငရားရငးသးခခြငလႊတမႈျမငတငေရးကလညးသာတညမမႈအတြကသငတနးမားေပးရမည။ ယငးတ႕ကထလပဂၢ လမားက ကယကငတရားမား အျဖစလကခ ကငသးျခငးျဖင လကေတြ႕တြငအျပသေဘာေဆာငေသာကငသးမႈကရရနငသည။အထးသျဖင ေရြးေကာကပြကာလႏငအျခားေသာတငးမာမႈရေသာကာလမားအတြကအထးသငေတာေပသည။

မဒယာ၏အခနးက-႑သညအဘယနညး။လြတလပေသာ၊ဗဟအျမငရေသာ၊ကြျပားျခားနားျခငးကလကခေသာ မဒယာတစခသည အမးမး ေသာကြျပားျခားနားသညအေၾကာငးအရာေခါငးစဥေအာကမအသမးစကၾကားႏငရနေသခာစြာ ေဆာငရြကျခငးသည အမနးစကားကတကတြနးအားေပးသညမညသညလပရပက မဆ လြယကစြာ စနေခၚႏငရန အတြကအေရးပါသည။

ႏငငေတာကလညး သာတညမမႈႏင လမးေရးမခြျခားေရးကျမငတငေပးႏငမည လြတလပေသာ၊ ဗဟအျမငကလကခေသာ၊ကြျပားျခားနားျခငးကလညးလကခေသာမဒယာ ကအားေပးကညႏင သည ျပညသ႕ေရးရာမ၀ါဒႏငထနးခပေရးဆငရာအေျခခမားကေသခာစြာခမတေပးရမည။

ထသ႕ေသာမဒယာျဖစထြနးလာေရး၏အစတအပငးအျဖစ လနညးစတ႕၏ မဒယာ လပငနးစဥ မားက ေထာကပေပးျခငးမားကလညးထညသြငးစဥးစားရမည။ ထ႔ျပင မဒယာတြင လနညးစတ႕၏ အျမငႏငအသမားကရရနငရနေဖၚထတနငရန ေဆာင၇ြကမႈမား ျမငမား လာေရး ကလညး ျပလပေပးရ မည။

မဒယာသမားမားသညလမးေရးခြျခားမႈႏငအမနးစကားကတကတြနးအားေပးမႈတ႕အားဆန႔ကင သညလမႈ၀တရားေကပြနႏငရနအတြကေဖၚျပပါ အခကမားက လကနာရမည ကယကငတရား မား အျဖစ လကခကငသးရမည။

• မဒယာတြငတငျပရာတြင အေျခအေနကသးသပျပး၊မနကနေသာသတငးအခကအလက အေနျဖငေသာလညးေကာငး၊ဂရစကအေလးထားျပးေသာလညးေကာငး၊လမးေရးခြျခား သညအေျခေနမားကလထ၏အေလးထားမႈရရေအာငပ႕ေဆာငေပးရမည။

• မဒယာေၾကာင ထပမတးပြားေပၚေပါကလာႏငသညလတစဥးခငး၏အမးမးေသာအဖက စတထားမား၊လမးေရးခြျခားမႈမား၏အႏရာယကသတမျပတထားေနရမည။

• ခြငလႊတသးချခငးေလာပါးေစႏငသည လမး၊ဘာသာ၊ကား/မခြျခားျခငးႏင လအပစ၏ လကၡဏာရပမားအားမလအပဘရညညႊနးေဖၚျပျခငးမားအားေရာငရားရမည။

• ေသာေဘးအႏရာယ အသစတကျမငတငေပးျခငး။

• ကြျပားျခားနားေသာအပစမားသ႕မဟတအသကအ၀နးတ႕အေၾကာငးကသတငးေရးသာတငျပသလ ထအပစ၏အဖြ႕၀ငမားကလညးနားလညမႈပမတးျမငရနအတြက ေျပာဆခြင ႏင နားေထာငခြငမားကလညးေပးျခငးလညးျပရမည။ တစျပငနကတညးတြင ထအပစ အသက အ၀နး၏ရႈေထာငမားကလညးထပဟပေပးရမည။

အမးသားလ႕အခြငအေရးအဖြ႕အစညးမားကမညသညအရာမားကလပေဆာငႏငသနညး။

51

အမးသာလ႕အခြငအေရးအဖြ႕အစညးမားNational Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) သည လႈ႕ေဆာမႈျဖငရနလျခငး၊လမးေရးခြျခားျခငးႏငအၾကမးဖကမႈမားကျဖစေစသညအမနး စကားဆျခငးကတကတြနးအားေပးမႈမားအပါအ၀ငလမးေရးခြျခားမႈဆငရာျဖစရပမား၊အခက အလကမားသကေသအေထာကအထားမားကရာေဖြစေဆာငးရာတြငအဓကကေသာအခနး က႑မပါ၀ငႏငသည။ အျငငးပြားဖြယကစၥမားႏငပတသကသညလမႈစကား၀ငးမားျပလပရန တကတြနး အားေပးရမညတာ၀နရသည၊၄ငးျပင အျခားေသာလ႕အခြငအေရးေဖါကဖကမႈမားႏင လမးေရးခြျခားမႈဆငရာတငတနးခကမားကလကခရမည။

အဖြ႕မားသညအစးရႏငအျခားေသာအကးစးပြာမားမကငးလြတေသာလြတလပေသာအဖြ႔ျဖစျခငးသညအေရးပါသည။သ႕မသာ ယငးတ႕သည သတ႕၏ ျပဌာနးတာ၀နမားကျပည၀စြာထမး ေဆာင ႏငမညျဖစသည။ သတ႔ေပးေသာသတငးအခကအလကသည တငးမာမႈႏငျပနာမား ျဖစေပၚ ေနေၾကာငးကၾကတငသတေပးခကမားပင ျဖစျပးႏငငေတာကခယ ကငသး သညမ၀ါဒအရတ႕ျပန ႏငေရးအတြကသတငးေပးျခငးျဖစေပသည။

လမႈအဖြ႕အစညးမားကမညသညအရာမားကလပေဆာငႏငသနညး၊လမႈအဖြ႕အစညးမား (CSOs) သည အေရးၾကးေသာလမႈႈလႈပရားသမားျဖစၾကသည။သတ႕သည လထ၏အျမငႏငသေဘာထားမားပသ႑နေျပာငးလလာေရးအတြကကညပေဖၚေပးၾကသည။သ တ႕သည လထပညာေပးစညးရးလႈ႕ေဆာမႈကလပေဆာငျခငးျဖင အပစမားအၾကားနားလညမႈႏင လကခမႈအပငးမားတးတကလာေရးကေဆြးေႏြးစကားေျပာဆႏငလာေစရနတကတြနးျခငးအား ျဖငအျပသေဘာေဆာငေသာပပးမႈမားကလပေဆာ

ငေပးႏငေပသည။သတ႕သည လ႕အခြင အေရး အလြသးစားျပျခငးမားက ထနးေကာငးျခငးႏငအသေပးျခငးမား ကလညး ေဆာငရြက ႏငသည။ထ႔ျပငခးေဖါကအလြသးစားျပသမားအားဆန႕ကငေျပာၾကားႏငသလခးေဖါကခရ သညသမား အခြငအေရးကအတြကလညး လသရငၾကားအမား သေအာငထတေဖၚေျပာဆ ႏငသည။

သတ႕၏လပငနးမားကအေထာကအကေပးရနမာ သတ႕၏လပငနးမားကထေရာကစြာႏငလြတ လပစြာလပေဆာငႏငေရးကအတားအဆးျဖစေစႏငမည လမးေရးခြျခားမႈသ႕မဟတ လြနကၽြစြာ တငးၾကပထားေသာဥပေဒ၏ယႏရားမားမကငးလြတစြာရေနေစရမည။

Is incitement different from offensive speech or blasphemy?Yes. Incitement laws should protect individual human beings from expression advocating hatred that encourages acts of violence, hostility or discrimination against vulnerable groups. These laws do not exist to shield individuals from offensive expression, or to protect religions, beliefs or other abstract ideas from insult.

When a law on incitement is used to punish offensive or blasphemous speech it is a violation of the right to freedom of expression. The right to freedom of expression includes the right to engage in offensive speech, and this should not be limited or policed by the State. Allowing incitement laws to be applied in this way is counterproductive, as minority groups and critical elements are often targeted – aiding persecution rather than helping to stop it.

52

လႈေဆာျခငးသည တကခကေသာသ႕မဟတဘာသာေရးကေစာကားေသာစကားမားႏငျခားနား ပါသလား၊ဟတပါသည။ လႈ႕ေဆာျခငးကထနးခပေသာဥပေဒသည လမးေရးခြျခားမႈႏငအားနညးေသာအ ကာအကြယမလအပစမားအားရနလေသာ၊လမးေရးခြျခားေသာ၊အၾကမးဖကေသာအျပအမမား ကတြနးအားေပးေသာအမနးစကားမားကေဖၚထတျခငးမတားဆးေပးရမည။

လႈ႕ေဆာျခငးႏငဆငေသာဥပေဒတရပက တကခကလေသာစကား၊ဘာသာေရးကေစာကားေသာ စကားမားေျပာသအားအေရးယရနသးစြပါက ၊သးသသည လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆခြငက ခးေဖါကရာေရာကသည။လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆခြငတြငတကခကလေသာစကားေျပာျခငး လညးအကး၀ငသည။ ထအခကကႏငငေတာမတားဆးျခငးေစာငၾကညျခငးမားျပလပခြငမရ။ လႈ႕ေဆာျခငးဆငရာဥပေဒကထသ႕သးခြငျပျခငးသညဆနကငဘကအကးရလဒမားျဖစလာႏင သည။လနညးစႏငခစားရသညအပစသညပစမတျဖစသြားျပးသတ႕အားကညျခငးထကအေရးယ ျခငးသာျဖစေပၚလာႏငသည။

53

Should debates on religion or criticism of religion be prohibited?No. In a democratic society, it is important that all people are able to express ideas and opinions about any subject matter, including about different religions or beliefs, symbols and teachings.

Religion or belief plays an important part of everyday life in most parts of the world. For many people, their religion or belief is an integral part of who they are; it defines the way they live their life, and the community that they are a part of. This is why the freedom to talk about religion is so important.

The reality in all countries in the world is that there are many people with different religions or beliefs. While religions or beliefs share a lot in common, the differences between them are inescapable. Even people that share the same religion may have different opinions on the meaning of certain teachings or ideas.

Free debate and discussion between these groups is an inevitable and healthy part of living in a democratic society that should be encouraged. It is important to remember that for this reason, the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief go hand in hand.

ဘာသာေရးႏငပတသကသညျငငးခမႈ

သ႕မဟတဘာသာေရးကေ၀ဖနသးသပမႈမားအားတားဆး သငသေလာ။မတားဆးသငပါ။ ဒမကေရစလ႕အဖြ႕အစညးတစခတြင ကြျပားျခားနားေသာ သငၾကားျခငး၊ သေကၤတ၊ ယၾကညခက၊ႏငဘာသာေရးစသညမညသညအေၾကာငးအရာႏငပတသက၍ျဖစေစ မမတ႕၏ထငျမငယဆခက၊အေတြးအျမငမားကေဖၚထတႏငျခငးသညအေရးၾကးေသာအခက ျဖစ သည။

ဘာသာေရးသ႕မဟတယၾကညမႈ သည ကမာၻ အစတအပငးအမားစတြငလတ႕၏ေန႕စဥဘ၀အ တြကအေရးပါေသာက႑မပါ၀ငလႈပရားလကရသည။လမားစြာအတြကမ သတ႕၏ဘာသာေရး၊ ယၾကညမႈတ႕သည သတ႕မညသျဖစသညဟ ဆႏငေလာကသည အစတ အပငးမား ပငျဖစ သည။ယငးကသတ႕ေနထငရငသနပမားကဖြငဆသည။လတ႕အစတအပငးအျဖစပါ၀ငေနေသာ အသငးအ၀နးၾကးတစခလးကလညးဖြငဆသည။ထ႕ေၾကာငဘာသာေရးႏငပတသက၍လြတလပ စြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆခြငသညအလြနအေရးၾကးေပသည။

ကမာၻေပၚ ရနငငအားလးတြငစစမနစြာတညရေနသညမာ လတ႕သညကြျပားျခားနားေသာ ဘာသာေရး၊ယၾကညခကမားႏငအတရေနၾကျခငးပငျဖစသည။ဘာသာေရးႏငယၾကညမႈကအားလးအတ တကြခယေနၾကစဥတြင သတ႕တြငကြျပားျခားနားခကမား ကေရာငလြ၍မရေခ။ တစခတညးေသာ ဘာသာေရးကယၾကညကးကြယေနသမားအၾကားမာပငလင ဘာသာေရး ဆငရာ ေဟာၾကားသြန သငခကမားအေပၚတြင ကြျပားျခားနားေသာ ယဆခကမားရ ေနၾက ေပသည။

ဘာသာေရးကေစာကားေသာ(ဘရားသခငကဆဆေသာစကား)ကထနးခပသညဥပေဒ Blasphemy laws

54

အပစမားအၾကားလြတလပေသာစကားစစထးပြမားႏငေဆြးေႏြးပြမားသညေရာငလႊ၍မရႏငေသာအရာမားျဖစျပး ဒမကေရစနညးကလ႕အဖြ႕အစညအတြငးတြင ေကာငးမြနစြာေနထင ရငသန ျခငး၏ အစတအပငး တစခလညးျဖစသည။ယငးကအားေပးရမည။ ထအေၾကာငးေၾကာငအျမ သတရေနရနအေရးၾကးေသာအခကမာ လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆခြငႏင လြတလပစြာ ကး ကြယယၾကညခြငတ႕သညအတ ယဥတြျဖစ ေပၚေနသညဟေသာအခကျဖစသည။

What is blasphemy?Blasphemy is any expression that is offensive about religion or sacred ideas or symbols. Blasphemy can also go by other names, such as “religious insult”; “defamation of religions”; or “offenses against sacred values.”

ဘာသာေရးကေစာကားေသာ(ဘရားသခငကဆဆေသာစကား)ဟသညအဘယနညး၊ဘာသာေရးကေစာကားေသာစကားဆသညမာ မြနျမတေသာျမငျမတေသာ အေတြးအျမငမားႏင သေကၤတမားသ႕မဟတဘာသာေရးကေစာကားပတခတေသာမညသညထတေဖၚေျပာဆခကကမဆ ဆလသည။ ယငးကအျခားအမညမားျဖစေသာ “ဘာသာေရးေစာကားမႈ” “ဘာသာေရးက အသေရဖကျခငး”မြနျမတေသာတနဖးမားကေစာကားပတခတျခငး”စသညအားျဖငကငပြနးတပေခၚဆေသးသည။

Should we prohibit blasphemy?No. Because the right to freely express ideas or opinions about different religions or beliefs is so important in a democracy, it

must be robustly defended. Blasphemy laws should therefore be repealed.

Section 295-B of the Pakistan Criminal Code is an example of a blasphemy law. It states: “Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur’an or of an extract there from or uses it in any derogatory manner for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life.”

ဘာသာေရးကေစာကားေသာပတခတျခငးအားတားျမစသငပါသလား။မတားျမစသငပါ၊ အေၾကာငးမာ ကြျပားျခားနားေသာယၾကညခကမား၊ဘာသာေရးမားႏငပတ သကသညအယအဆအေတြးအျမငမားက လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚခြငရျခငးသည ဒမကေရစအ တြက အေရးၾကးသည။ ထအခြငအေရးကခငမာစြာကာကြယရမည၊ထ႕ေၾကာငဘာသာေရးကပတ ခတေစာကားမႈႏငဆငေသာဥပေဒကရပတရမည။

ပါကစၥတနႏငင၏ရာဇ၀တမႈဆငရာဥပေဒပဒမ ၂၉၅ -ခ သည ဘာသာေရးကေစာကားပတခတ ျခငးဥပေဒပငျဖစသည။၄ငးကေဖၚျပထားသညမာ မညသမဆအလဆႏၵျဖင ကရမ ကမးေတာ ျမတ ကေသာလညးေကာငး၊ထတႏႈတခကကေသာလညးေကာငး သကၡာ ညးႏြမး ေစရန ရညရြယလက ညစညမးေစျခငး၊ဖကစးေစျခငးသ႕မဟတမေလာမကနျပလပပါကမညသည လပရပ က မဆလပ ေဆာငသညတရားမ၀ငျပလပသကေထာငဒဏတစသကခမတရမည။

What are the freedom of expression concerns with respect to existing blasphemy laws?

55

There is growing agreement in the world that blasphemy laws go against protections for freedom of expression in international human rights law. There are three reasons for this:

• Blasphemy laws are vague. International human rights law requires any restriction on freedom of expression to be “provided for by law”, which must be written in a clear and accessible way. Because religions and beliefs are very subjective, it is impossible to legislate to protect them from criticism or offense. What is accepted doctrine in one religion may be blasphemy in another, and vice versa. This ambiguity is inherent to all blasphemy laws, and open to abuse by the State.

• Blasphemy laws do not pursue a legitimate aim. Any restriction on the right to freedom of expression must be justified by reference to a legitimate aim: namely the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, public health or morals. It is not permissible under international human rights law to restrict freedom of expression to protect ideas or beliefs from criticism. This is because human rights law exists to protect individual people, not abstract religions, beliefs, ideas or symbols.

• Blasphemy laws are not necessary in a democratic society. In a democratic society, people must be free to share

ideas or opinions that are controversial, false, or deeply offensive – including in relation to religions and beliefs. There is no human right to be shielded from offense. Accepting robust and critical debate about different religions and beliefs is crucial if the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief are to have any meaning. It is up to an individual to decide what is compatible with their religion or belief and what is not; the State cannot make this decision for them or coerce belief through sanctions. The State must also respect the right of individuals to change their religion or belief, or to hold no religion or belief. Blasphemy laws are almost always abused to silence people with ideas the State disapproves of, in particular groups with minority religions or beliefs. Blasphemy laws therefore pose a problem for freedom of religion or belief as well as for freedom of expression.

For these reasons, a number of international human rights bodies and experts have called on States to repeal blasphemy laws. The Human Rights Committee, the treaty monitoring body for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, said in General Comment No. 34 on freedom of expression that: “prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant.”

The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to

56

freedom of opinion and expression, and the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, have called on States to repeal blasphemy laws. Any attempt to protect values, religions or symbols from attack, insult or defamation, should be rejected entirely.

ဘာသာေရးေစာကားပတခတျခငးႏငဆငေသာတညဆဥပေဒမားကေလးစားျခငးႏငပတသက၍ လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚ ေျပာဆ ျခငး၏စးရမမႈမားသညအဘယနညး။ႏငငတကာဥပေဒတြငပါ၀ငေသာ လြတလပစြာေဖၚထတျခငးက ကာကြယမႈႏငဆန႔ကငလက ဘာသာေရးပတခတေျပာဆျခငးႏငဆငေသာဥပေဒသညတညရေနသညဆေသာအခကကသ ေဘာတညမႈသညကမာၻေပၚတြငတးပြားလကရသည။

• ဘာသာေရးပတခတမႈဆငရာဥပေဒမားသညရငးလငးျခငးမရ- ႏငငတကာလ႕အခြငအ ေရးကလလားသညမာ လြတလပထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငးက တားဆးပတပင သည မညသည ပတပင မႈမးမဆဥပေဒအရ သာလပေဆာငရမည။-ယငးဥပေဒသညလညး ရငးလငးစြာေရးသားထားရမည႕အျပင လြယ ကစြာခဥးကပႏငရမည။အေၾကာငးမာ ဘာသာ ေရးႏင ယၾကညမႈမားသညအလြန ပဂၢလဓဌာနကေသာေၾကာငျဖစသည။ ယငးတ႕ကေ၀ဖနသးသပမႈမားမကာကြယရနဥပေဒ ျပဌနးရနမျဖစႏငေခ။ ဘာသာတစခ တြငလကခထားေသာအခကတစခကသညအျခား ေသာဘာသာတြငေစာကားပတခတမႈျဖစေနႏငသည၊အျပနအလနအားျဖငလညးထသ ေဘာ

အတငးပငျဖစသည။ထသ႕ႏစစြနးထြကေသာသေဘာသညအားလးေသာဘာသာ ေရးကေစာကား ပတခတျခငးႏငဆငေသာ ဥပေဒတငးတြငအျမစတြယပါ၀င ေနသည။ ယငး အခကကႏငငအစးရမားကအလြသးစားျပ ရနအခြငအေရးရေနေပသည။

• ဘာသာေရးပတခတမႈဆငရာဥပေဒမားသညတရားနညးလမးကေသာဥးတညခကမရ- လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆခြငကတားဆးသညမညသညတားဆးမႈကမဆတရားဥပေဒ ႏငကကညဆေလာေသာဥးတညခကရမရဆသညကေထာကရႈျပးလကခႏငဖြယရမရက ဆးျဖတရမည။အမညအားျဖငအျခားသမား၏အခြငအေရးႏငဂဏသကၡာ၊အမးသားလ ျခေရး၊ အမားျပညသတညျငမေအးခမးေရး၊အမားျပညသကနးမာေရးႏင ကယကငတ ရားတ႕ျဖစသည။ ႏငငတကာလ႕အခြငအေရးဥပေဒအရ လြတလပစြာေဖၚထတေျပာ ဆ ျခငးက အေတြးအျမငႏငယၾကညမႈမားကေ၀ဖနျခငးမကာကြယရန ကန႕သတျခငးသည မျဖစႏငေခ။ အေၾကာငးမာ လ႕အခြငအေရးဥပေဒသည သးျခားလပဂၢ လကသာကာ ကြယရနျဖစျပး သေဘာတရားသာရသညရပမဟတေသာ ဘာသာေရး၊ယၾကညမႈ၊အေတြး အျမငသ႕မဟတသေကၤတမားက ကာကြယေပးရနမဟတေပ။ရနလမႈမကာကြယရန မည သညလ႕အခြငအေရးမမရေပ။

• ဘာသာေရးပတခတမႈဆငရာဥပေဒမားသညဒမကေရစလ႕အဖြ႕အစညးတြငမလအပ ဒမကေရစလ႕အဖြ႕အစညးတစခတြင လတငးသည ဘာသာေရးယၾကညမႈမားႏငဆက ႏြယမႈမားအပါ၀ငဆးဆရြားရြားရနလေသာ၊မားယြငးေသာ၊အျငငးပြားဖြယရာျဖစေသာ အယအဆႏငအေတြးအျမငမားကလြတလပစြာ

57

မေ၀ႏငၾကသည။အကယ၍ လြတလပစြာ ထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငးႏငလြတ လပစြာကးကြယယၾကညခြငတ႕တြင အျခားအဓပၸါယရ သည ဆလငအျခားေသာဘာသာေရး ႏငယၾကညမႈမားအေပၚတငးမာျပး အတငးအၾကပ ေ၀ဖနမႈစကားစစထးျခငးမားကလက ခရနမာအလြနအေရးၾကးေပသည။အျခားေသာ ဘာသာေရးႏငမမဘာသာေရးတကကကညမႈရသညမရသညဆသညမာလပဂၢ လတစဥး ခငးႏငသာသကဆငေသာကစၥျဖစသည။ႏငငေတာမဆးျဖတေဆာငရြကေပးရမညကစၥ မဟတေပ။ႏငငေတာကလညးလတစဥးခငးစ၏ဘာသာေရးကလကချခငးေျပာငးလျခငး တ႕ကေလးစားမႈေပးရမည။အထးသျဖငလနညးစဘာသာေရးအပစမားအတြငးဘာသာ ေရးေစာကားပတခတျခငးဆငရာဥပေဒသည ဆတဆတေနတတေသာလမားကႏငင ေတာကလကမခအတညမျပေသာအေတြးအျမငကအသးချပးႏငငေတာက အလြသးစား ျပတတ သည။ထ႕ေၾကာင ဘာသာေရးပတခတျခငးဆငရာဥပေဒသည လြတလပစြာ ယၾကညကးကြယခြငႏငလြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆခြငမားအေပၚတြင ျပနာရာ တတေပသည။

အထကပါအေၾကာငးမားေၾကာင နငငတကာလ႕အခြငအေရးဆငရာအဖြ႕အစညးမားႏငကၽြမး ကငသမားသည ႏငငအစးရမားက ဘာသာေရးဆငရာေစာကားပတခတျခငးဆငရာဥပေဒ

မားကဖကသမးရနေတာငးဆခသည။ ႏငငတကာလ႕အခြငအေရးေကာမတက လြတလပစြာ ထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငးႏငသကဆငေသာသးသပခကထတျပနခရာ ယခကသ႕ေဖၚျပခသည။ - ဘာသာေရးေစာကားပတခတျခငးဥပေဒမားအပါအ၀ငဘာသာေရးႏငယၾကညမႈမားကေလးစားမႈမရျခငးကထတေဖၚျပသျခငးမားအားတားဆးပတပင ျခငးတ႕သညႏငငတကာသေဘာတ ည

ခကမားႏငတကဆငမႈမရ။-

လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငးႏငလြတလပစြာယဆႏငျခငးႏငဆငေသာကလသမဂၢအထးကယစားလယႏင လြတလပစြာယၾကသညကးကြယခြငဆငရာ ကလသမဂၢအထး ကယစားလယ တ႕က ႏငငေတာမားအား ဘာသာေရးဆငရာ ေစာကားပတခတျခငး ဆငရာဥပေဒ မားက ဖကသမးရနေတာငးဆခသည။တနဖးမား၊ဘာသာေရးႏငဘာသာေရးဆငရာအမတလကၡဏာ မားကတကခကျခငး၊ေစာကားျခငးသ႕မဟတအသေရဖကျခငးတ႕မကာကြယသညမညသည ၾကးပမးမႈကမဆလး၀ပါယဖကရနေတာငးဆခသည။

58

Do journalists have an obligation to report truthfully or to avoid one-sided and distorted stories?

Yes. Journalism unlike some other professions has a public function, namely to inform and help everyone form an opinion of all public matters. The role of media is particularly important in democracy as without information people could not be able to hold their governments accountable. That is why reporting in a truthful and balanced way is an important professional goal for journalists.

However, the right to freedom of expression is not limited to merely truthful information. Journalists should not be compelled to publish only information whose truthfulness is ascertained. Limiting news output to only “true” or State-sanctioned news actually poses a threat to democracy itself.

စာနယဇငးသမားမားသည မနကနတကစြာသတငးေရးသားေဖၚျပရနသ႕မဟတ ဘကလက ျခငးကေရာငကဥရနႏငမတမကဘကလကမႈရေသာသတငးမားကေရာငရန၀တရားရပါသလားရပါသည။ ။ စာနယဇငးသမားမားသည အျခားေသာအသကေမြး၀မးေကာငးပညာသညမားႏင မတသညမာ သတ႕သညအမားျပညသမားႏငဆငေသာထေတြ႕မႈမားရသည။ ဆ႕ရလင

လတငး ကသတငးအစရငချပး၊အမားျပညသအားလးႏငသကဆငေသာအေရးကစၥမားအား အျမငတစ ခအျဖစပေဖၚကညရသည။ မဒယာ၏အခနးက႑သည အထးသျဖငဒမကေရစနငငတြငအေ၇းပါ သည။ သတငးအခကအလကမရပါက လထသည သတ႕အစးရ၏တာ၀နယမႈမားကသျမငႏင မညမဟတေပ။ ထ႕ေၾကာငစာနယဇငးသမားမားအတြက မနကနတကျပးဘကမလကဘသတငး အစရငချခငးသည သတ႕အသကေမြး၀မးေကာငးလပငနးပနးတငပငျဖစသည။

သ႕ေသာလညး၊ လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆခြငသည မနကနတကေသာသတငးအခကအ လကကေပးရမအျဖစကန႕သတထားသညဟတေပ၊ စာနယဇငးသမားမားကမနကနတကေသာ သတငးအခကအလကမားကထတျပနေပးရသာဖအားေပးတကတြနးထားျခငးမဟတေပ။ ကန႕ သတထားေသာမနကနေသာ တစနညးအားျဖင ႏငငေတာကကန႕သတ၊သတမတထားေသာ သတငးမေလာကကသာထတျပနရလင စငစစတြငဒမကေရစကျခမးေျခာကမႈတစချပလာျခငး ပငျဖစသည။

Should journalists be obliged by law to report objectively?

No. In some countries (Egypt, Sudan, Cameroon, Syria, Bahrain, Burma and Malaysia) the duty of journalists to report objectively is set out in statutes. These laws are problematic from freedom of expression and media freedom view point. In order

သတငးမားFalse news

59

to perform its role of public watchdog the media should be free from the state. Therefore the government and parliament should not adopt statutes regulating the professional duties for journalists. These duties should be set out the professional codes of ethics adopted by media professionals themselves instead.

In a truly democratic society, the way for a State to respond to any false news coming into circulation would be to counter it with correct information, not to clamp down on the press publishing the allegedly false news. Access to the media should be a sufficient tool for State agencies to diffuse false messages. The closing of a media or punishing it for publication of news which have turned out to be untrue is unnecessary and disproportionate, no matter what the circumstances.

စာနယဇငးသမားမားသည ဓမၼဓဌာနကေသာသတငးမားကထတျပနအစရငခရနဥပေဒက လက နာ ရနလပါသလား။မလပါ။--အခ႕ေသာႏငငမား (အဂစ၊ဆဒန၊ကငမရြန၊ဆးရးယား၊ဘာရန၊ျမနမာႏင မေလးရား) တြင စာနယဇငးသမားမားေနျဖငသတငးမားကဓမၼဓဌာနကကတငျပရနဥပေဒမားျပဌာနးထား သည။ ထဥပေဒမားသည လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚျခငးႏငမဒယာလြတလပမႈရႈေထာငမၾကညပါက ျပနာ တကေစမညဥပေဒမားပငျဖစသည။ လထ၏ေစာငၾကညရသညတာ၀န၀တရာကထမး ေဆာငရေသာ

အခနးက႑မပါ၀ငေသာမဒယာသည ႏငငေတာ၏လႊမးမးမႈမကငးလြတရမည။ ထ႕ေၾကာငအစးရႏငလႊတေတာသည စာနယဇငးသမားမား၏အသကေမြး၀မးေကာငးဆငရာ တာ၀နကထနးခပေသာတရားဥပေဒမားကျပဌာနးခယျခငးမျပသငေပ။ထတာ၀နမားကမဒယာ သမားမားကယတငမမတ႕ကငၾကရမညကင၀တမားအျဖစခယကငသးသငသည။

စစမနေသာဒမကေရစနငငတစႏငငတြင သတငးမားတစခသည ထတျပနျခငးျဖငျပန႕ႏ႕လာ မညဆလင ႏငငေတာအေနျဖင သတငးအမနျဖငသာတ႕ျပနရမည။ သတငးမားထတျပနေသာ ပႏပထတေ၀သက အေရးယမႈမျပေပ။

What are the freedom of expression concerns with statutes prohibiting false news?

The statutory prohibition of false news reporting is unacceptable under international law for the following reasons:

First, false news laws can have a serious chilling effect on the work of reporters. Facts and opinions are not always easily separated. Second, in many cases, opinions are expressed through superficially false statements, such as sarcastic, satirical, hyperbolic or comical remarks. For example, someone who describes someone else as a ‘gangster’ is not necessarily accusing the other of being involved in unlawful activities. A ban on false news can thus easily become a ban on opinions not

60

favoured by the authorities, endangering the free confrontation between different points of view which lies at the heart of democracy. Third, false news provisions fail to recognise that it is often far from clear what the ‘truth’ on a particular matter is. As such, false news provisions are almost by definition impermissibly vague and, therefore, violate the first part of the three-part test for restrictions on freedom of expression (see section 4.2). Lastly, the practice of States which still have false news provisions on the books shows the great potential for their abuse. Often these laws are used to oppress political opposition and silence human rights defenders.

Mindful of the risks of false news provisions, many national supreme courts (Canada, Uganda, and Zimbabwe)) have already held that false news provisions are incompatible with the right to freedom of expression.

သတငးမားကတားဆးေသာဥပေဒမားႏငလြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငးတ႕သကဆငသည မာ အဘယနညး။သတငးမားတငျပျခငးကဥပေဒအရတားဆးျခငးသည ႏငငတကာဥပေဒမားအရ လကမခႏင သည အေၾကာငးမာေအာကပါအခကမားေၾကာငျဖစ သည။

ပထမဥးစြာ သတငးမားဥပေဒသညသတငး ေထာကမား၏လပငနးခြငတြင စတပကဖြယ အကး သကေရာက မႈရသည။ အခကအလကျဖ

စရပမနႏငယဆခကမားသညအျမတနးလြယကစြာ ခြျခား၍မရႏငေခ။

ဒတယအခကအေနျဖင၊ ျဖစရပမားစြာတြငအယအဆမားသညအေပၚယသေဘာသတငးမားမား မတစဆငေဖၚျပေလရသည။သေရာစာမားကသ႕ပငျဖစသည။ဥပမာ- တစစတစေယာကသည အျခားသတစဥးကလဆးဂဏး၀ငတစဥးကသ႕ေဖၚျပျခငးသည အကယစငစစထသသည ဥပေဒခး ေဖါကေသာလပငနးမား လပေနသညဟစြတစြျခငးမဟတ၊ သတငးမာက တားဆးျခငး သည အာဏာ ပငမားမၾကကႏစသကသညထင ျမငယဆခကကတားျမစျခငးျဖစေနမည။ လြတလပစြာ သေဘာထားကြလြခြငကျခမးေျခာကရာ ေရာကေနသည။လြတလပစြာ သေဘာထား ကြလြခြငသည ဒမကေရစ၏ႏလးသားပငျဖစသည။

တတယအခကအေနျဖငသတငးမားပတပငျမစျခငးသည အမနဆသညကရငးရငးလငးလငးသ ေစႏငေသာသေဘာမေ၀းကြာသြားေသာသေဘာရသည။ ထသ႕ျဖစလင သတငးမားတားျမစျခငး သည အဓပါယဖြငဆခကအရခြငမျပနငေလာကေသာမေရရာမႈျဖစေနသည။ ထ႕ေၾကာင လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငး သးဆင စစေဆးနညးအနကပထမအဆငကးေပါကေနသည။

ေနာကဆးအေနျဖင၊ ႏငငတစႏငငအေနျဖင သတငးမားပတပငျခငးဥပေဒကစာအပထတြငရေန ျခငးပငလင ယငးကအလြသးစားျပႏငေခအလြနအမငးျမငမားလကရေနေပသည။မားေသာအား ျဖငထဥပေဒမားသည ဆတဆတေနေသာလ႕အခြငအေရးကာကြယသမားႏင အတကအခနငင ေရးအဖြ႕မားကဖနပရနသးတတသည။

61

သတငးမားတားျမစပတပငျခငးဥပေဒ၏အႏရာယျဖစႏငေခမာ ထတားျမစခကမားသည လြတ လပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငးခြငႏငကကညမႈမရဟမားစြာေသာအမးသားတရားလႊတေတာမားက ခယၾကသည။ (ကေနဒါ၊ယဂနဒါ၊ဇငဘာေဘြ)

What is the most appropriate way for holding journalist liable for false news reporting?

In view of the severe consequences of the use of criminal laws, it can be argued that criminal liability for false news reporting would be a too harsh and disproportionate restriction of freedom of expression if no serious public harm has followed as a result of the false reporting. Commenting on the false news prohibition in Cameroon, the Human Rights Committee stated that “the prosecution and punishment of journalists for the crime of publication of false news merely on the ground, without more, that the news was false, [is a] clear violation of Article 19 of the Covenant.”

ARTICLE 19 considers that the appropriate way to seek responsibility for journalists for false news reporting is through a media council or another self regulatory body which should establish if the reporter knew of the falsity of the statement and what actions he has taken to verify the truthfulness of the report.

သတငးမားေဖၚျပျခငးအတြက သတငးစာဆရာမားတာ၀နယၾ

ကေစရနအေကာငးဆးေသာနညး သညအဘယနညး။ရာဇ၀တမႈဆငရာဥပေဒကသးျခငးေၾကာငျဖစေပၚလာေသာဆး၀ါးသညအကးဆကရႈေထာငဆ လင၊ ရာဇ၀တမႈဥပေဒအရ သတငးမားထတေဖၚျခငးက တာ၀နယေစလငအလြနျပငးထနသည ဟ ဆႏငသလ အကယ၍အမားျပညသကဆး၀ါးေသာေဘးအႏရယမကေရာကခလင လြတလပစြာ ထတေဖၚျခငး အတြကမသငေတာေသာ တားျမစခကလညးျဖစသည။ ကငမရြနႏငင ၏ သတငးမားထတေဖၚျခငးအေပၚတားျမစခကကသးသပသည ၊လ႕အခြငအေရး ေကာမတက ေဖၚျပထားရာတြင “သတငးမားထတေဖၚသညဟေသာ အေျခခအေၾကာငးတရား တစခတညးအေပၚတြငမတညျပးျပစ ဒဏခမတလင ႏငငတကာသေဘာတညခက ပဒမ ၁၉ ကခးေဖါကျခငးပငျဖစသည။”

ပဒမ (၁၉) ကမတယထားသညမာ သတငးမားတငျပေသာစာနယဇငးသမားအတြကသငေတာ ေသာတာ၀နယေစျခငးက စာနယဇငးေကာငစ သ႕မဟတသးျခားရပတညေသာအဖြ႕မတစဆင သာတာ၀နယေစမည။

62

Are laws aiming at protection of public morals acceptable under international law?

Yes. Article 19, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR sets out that the right to freedom of expression can be limited in the interest of public morals. Moreover the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges states to protect children from material injurious to their well-being such as child prostitution and child pornography. Similarly, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women imposes a legal duty for states to prohibit or restrict the circulation of violent or degrading content concerning women.

Examples of public morals laws: laws prohibiting the pornography, violence and other harmful or offensive media content.

ဥပေဒမားသည ျပညသနတကကာကြယေရးအတြကဥးတညထားျခငးသညႏငငတကာဥပေဒ အရ လကခႏငပါသလား။လကခႏငပါသည။အငစစပအာ၏ ပဒမ ၁၉.အပဒ၃အရ၊ ျပညသ႕နတအကးငာ လြတလပစြာ ထတေဖၚ ျခငးကကန႕သတႏငသည။ထမမက ကလသမဂၢ၏ခေလးလငယ ဆငရာ အခြငအေရးသ ေဘာတညခကတြင ခေလးငယမားကထခကေစေသာ ခေလးျပည

တနဆာႏင ခေလး ညစညမးပမားကတားဆးပတပငသည။အလားတပငအမးသမးမားအား ခြျခားဆကဆမႈ ပစ အား လးက ဖကသမး မညသေဘာတစာခပတြင ဆထားသညမာ ႏငငေတာ အေနျဖင တရား၀င တာ၀နတစရပမာ အမးသမးမားႏငသကဆငသညသကၡာကဆငးေစမည အေၾကာငး အရာႏင အၾကမးဖကမႈသညအေၾကာငးအရာမားက တားဆးရနႏင ကန႕သတ ရနျဖစ သည။

ျပညသ႕နတဥပေဒ နမနာပစမား- ညစညမးပ၊အၾကမးဖကျခငးႏငအျခားေသာအႏရာယေပးႏင ေသာသ႕မဟတရနလေသာမဒယာအေၾကာငးအရာမားကတားျမစသညဥပေဒမား။

What are the main challenges in regulating public morals expression?

The terms in the public morals law such as “obscenity”, “pornography”, “profanity” or “indecent expression” do not lend itself easily to definition and are vague.

Often public morals laws do not differentiate between depictions of sex or violence which contribute to political, social and economic debates and sexual and violent content created for personal pleasure. Often these laws apply to sex and violence as form of artistic expression which can enrich personal and collective understanding of life.

ျပညသ႕နတPublic morals

63

The public moral laws do not consider the specific harm to individuals. While it is justifiable to protect children in view of their mental immaturity and consequent susceptibility to harmful influences as well as the right of parents to determine the social and cultural environment in which their children live, the regulation of media content targeting adults is less justifiable.

The enforcement of public morality laws is very difficult because it requires the use of far reaching measures and unrelenting enforcement that is backed by a strong public moral consensus. The enforcement has become even more difficult with the expansion of internet. As a result the enforcement is often discriminatory and taken only with respect to individuals or groups which are critical to the government.

In states where special bodies are in charge of ensuring protection of “public bodies” often these bodies are not independent from the government or are influenced by particular social groups.

ျပညသ႕နတကထနးေကာငးသညအခါအဓကစနေခၚမႈမားသညအဘယနညး။ျပညသ႔နတတြငပါ၀ငေသာ“obscenity”, “pornography”, “profanity” or “indecent expression” ကသ႔ေသာ ေ၀ါဟာရမားသည လြယကေသာအဓပါယဖြငဆမရသလ ေ၀၀ါးမႈ လညးရသည

ျပညသ႕နတဥပေဒမားသည မၾကာခဏဆသလ

လငထတေဖၚမႈႏင အၾကမးဖကမႈကခြျခားမႈမရ ၾကေပ၊ထအခကက ႏငငေရး၊လမႈေရး၊ႏငစးပြားေရးဆငရာအျငငးပြားမႈမားကျဖစေစသည ထ႕ျပင လငႏငအၾကမးဖကမႈအေၾကာငးခငးရာမားသညပဂၢ လေရးေဖာေျဖမႈမားအတြကျဖစသည။ ယငး တ႕ႏငပတသကေသာဥပေဒမားကလညး ဘ၀၊ပဂၢ လေရးႏငစေပါငးနားလညမႈကျဖစေစသည အနပညာဆငရာေဖၚထတမႈမားတြငအသးခေလရျပနသည။

ျပညသ႕ နတဆငရာဥပေဒမား သည လပဂၢ လတစဥး တစေယာက အတြက ေဘးအႏရာယကမစဥးစားေပ။ယငးသညခေလးငယမား၏စတပငးဆငရာဖြ႕ျဖးမႈႏငေနာကဆကတြျဖစပြားႏင ေသာအႏရာယကကာကြယျခငးျဖစသည၊ ခေလးငယမားရငသန ေနထငမည လမႈေရး၊ယဥေကးမႈ၀နးကငကျပဌာနးခြငသညလညးမဘမား၏အခြငအေရးျဖစသည။အရြယ ေရာကျပးအသက အရြယၾကးရငသမားအတြကမမဒယာအေၾကာငးအရာမား ကထနးခပျခငး သညမနကနႏငေခ နညးပါးသည။

ျပညသ႕နတဥပေဒ(ျပညသ႕ကင၀တဆငရာဥပေဒ) ကထနးသမးေစာငေရာကျခငးသညလညးအ လြနခကခသည။အဘယေၾကာငဆေသာကယျပန႕ေသာေနရာမားအထသကေရာကႏငေသာ ေဆာငရြကမႈမားလအပသည၊ထ႕ျပငျပတျပတသားသားအေရးယေဆာငရြကျခငးမားကေကာ ေထာကေနာကခေပးမညအမားျပညသကင၀တဆငရာသေဘာတညခကမားရရမည။ဥပေဒ ထနးသမးျခငးသညအငတာနကကယျပန႕လာသညႏငအမပမခကခလာသည။ရလဒအေနျဖင ဥပေဒကထနသမးျခငးလပငနးသညလမးေရးခြျခားျခငးျဖစလာသလ၊အစးရအတြကအခကအခ ျဖစေစသည လအပစမားႏငလတစဥးခငးကသာေဆာငရြကလာေတာသည။

64

How to set the right balance between freedom of expression and the protection of public morals?

Laws protecting public morals should always consider the right to freedom of expression and include safeguards for it. Any restriction on the right to freedom of expression should be set out in the law and be necessary and proportionate to protection of public morals as required by Article 19 paragraph 3 of the ICCPR (see the previous part).

In discussing what type of material may be banned as harmful to public morals international and domestic courts have taken a fairly broad view, and recognised that questions of morality are closely tied to national and local cultures and traditions. For that purpose state authorities have a broad discretion when determining what is obscene. However state bodies should be able to demonstrate that the limitation in question is essential to the maintenance of respect for fundamental values of the community.

Any restriction on freedom of expression on public morals grounds should not be discriminatory with respect to certain groups. For example, the UN Human Rights Committee found that a Russian law prohibiting “homosexual propaganda” violates the right to freedom of expression

of homosexuals.

Absolute prohibition should apply only to forms of expression which are harmful to children (for example, child pornography) or offensive to human dignity (for example, it is a crime in the UK to possess images of acts involving sexual intercourse with a human corpse).

The public morality laws should segregate rather than ban content. Segregation permits reasonable access of adults to content that is deemed to be harmful to children, but is judged to be an acceptable choice for informed adults. The sale or rental of adult films, for example, should be controlled through age restrictions on the packaging and made legally enforceable against retail suppliers. Children can be denied entry to cinemas and exhibitions showing adult rated films or nudity. Publishers, broadcasters and distributors can be obliged to provide prior notice for adults to avoid content they may find distasteful or repugnant.

The public morals laws should provide for exception of sex and violence with artistic value (for example, exhibition of nude classical statutes) or when they contribute to public debates.

Court should be able to examine if the restriction on freedom of expression is necessary for the public morals. Normally courts do so from the point of view of

65

an average person from the specific community. They should also consider restriction is proportionate. For example, a blanket ban on TV films with erotic content would be disproportionate restriction of freedom of expression since these films can be shown late at night and be rated in order to warn about the content.

အမားျပညသဆငရာကင၀တကကာကြယျခငးႏင လြတလပစြာေဖၚထတျခငးက ေကာငးမြန မနကန မတစြာ မညသ႕ ခနဆမညနညး။အမားျပညသဆငရာကင၀တကကာကြယသညဥပေဒသည လြတလပစြာေဖၚထတ ေျပာဆျခငး ႏင အတလျခစတခရမႈကအျမတနးခငခနရသည။ လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚ ေျပာဆခြငက ကန႕သတ သညမညသညကန႕သတမႈမးကမဆဥပေဒတြငျပဌာနးထားရမညျဖစသလ ႏငငတကာ လ႕အခြင အေရးေၾကျငာစာတမးအပဒ၁၉ စာပဒ၃ပါအတငး အမားျပညသ ကင၀တကကာကြယျခငးႏင အခးမတစြာ ရေနေစရနလအပသည။

အမားျပညသကင၀တကအႏရာယေပးႏငသညဟကန႕သတရနလအပသညအေၾကာငးအရာမားကေဆြးေႏြးရာတြင ႏငငတကာႏငျပညတြငးတရားရးမားသညအျမငကယရနလအပသကသ႕ ကယကငတရားမားႏငပတသကသညျပနာမားသည အမးသား၊ေဒသဆငရာယဥေကးမႈႏင ဓေလထးတမးတ႕ႏငနးကပစြာဆကစပေနေၾကာငးရႈျမငထားရနလအပသည။ထအေၾကာငးမား ေၾကာင ႏငငေတာအာဏာပငမားသည မညသညအရာသညဟရၾသတပကငးသညဟဆးျဖတ ရာတြငသတၾကးစြာထားရနလအပသည။သ႕ေသာ

ႏငငေတာအဖြ႕အစညးမားသည လမႈအဖြ႕ အစညး၏အေျခခတနဖးမားကေလးစားျခငးအားထနးသမးရနလအပေၾကာငးသကေသျပႏငရ မည။

အမားျပညသ႕ကင၀တ (ျပညသ႕နတ)ေပၚတြငအေျခချပး လြတလပစြာ ထတေဖၚ ေျပာဆျခငးကကန႕ သတသညမညသညကန႕သတခကမဆ တစစတစခေသာလအပစ အား ခြျခားျခငး မး မျဖစေစရ။ ဥပမာ၊ ကလသမဂၢလ႕အခြငအေရးေကာမတကေတြ႕ရသညမာ ရရားတ႕၏ လငတဆကဆျခငးက ၀ါဒျဖန႕ချခငးအားတားျမစသညဥပေဒသည လြတလပစြာ ထတေဖၚ ေျပာဆျခငးကခးေဖါကထား သညဟဆသည။

လ႕သကၡာညးနြမးေစေသာ၊ခေလးသငယမားကေဘးအႏရာယကေရာကေစႏငေသာထတေဖၚ ေျပာဆျခငးမးကမလး၀တားျမစသငသည။ဥပမာ၊ ယငးတ႕သည ယႏကတကကငးဒမးတြင ရာဇ၀တမႈမားအျဖစသတမတသည။

အမားျပညသဆငရာကင၀တဥပေဒသညအေၾကာငးအရာကတားဆးပတပငျခငထက သတမတ ခြျခားျခငးသာျဖစသငသည။ခြျခားသတမတျခငးက ခေလးသငယမားႏငသငေတာမႈမရေသာ အရြယေရာကသမားအတြက ရရႏငေသာအခြငအေရးကေပးေပမည။ အရြယေရာကျပးသမားအ တြကငားရမးေသာ၊သ႕မဟတေရာငးခေသာရပရငမားက ထတပးခြတြငတရား၀င အသက ကန႕သတခက ျဖင ခြျခားထား သငသည။ လကလေရာငးခသမားကတရား၀ငသတမတ ထား သည အတငးေရာငးခငားရမးေစရမည။ခေလးသငယမား ကအရြယေရာကသမားအတြကျပ သေသာရပရငရးမားသ႕၀ငေရာကျခငးမျငငးပယရမည။ထတေ၀ျဖန႕ခသမားသညအရြယေရာက ျပးသမားအတြကလညးမညသ႕ေသာအေၾကာငးအ

66

ရာကျပသမညျဖစေၾကာငးကၾကတငေၾကာျငာ ျခငးမးျပလပသငသည။ထသ႕လပေဆာငျခငးအားျဖငမမတ႕အေနျဖငမႏစျမ႕ဖြယရာမားကေရာင ရားႏငေပသည။

အမားျပညသဆငရာကင၀တ(ျပညသ႕နတ) ဥပေဒသည အမားျပညသေဆြးေႏြးျငငးခနရမည ဆလငအႏပညာတနဖးသ႕မဟတ လငႏင အၾကမးဖကျခငးဆငရာမားအ တြကျခြငးခကထား ရမည။

တရားရးမားသညလညး အမားျပညသဆငရာကယကငတရားမားအတြကလြတလပစြာထတ ေဖၚေျပာဆျခငးအားကန႕သတရနလအပျခငးရမရကစစေဆးသးသပႏငရမည။ ပမနအားျဖင တရားရးမားသညလညး လမႈအသကအ၀နးတစခမ သာမနျပညသတစဥး၏အျမငႏင ထသ႕ လပေဆာငၾကသည။သတ႕သည ကန႕သတျခငးအားအခးအစား ညညြတမတစြာ ေဆာငရြက ရန လ အပသည၊ဥပမာလငအသားေပးရပရငမားအား ရပျမငသၾကားတြငအားလး ျခငပတပင ထား ျခငးသည လြတလပစြာ ထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငးအတြက အခးအစားညညြတမတျခငးမရေပ၊ ထသ႕ ေဆာငရြက သည ထက ညဥ႕နကပငးျပသရန၊ျပသသညအေၾကာငးအရာအား အမး အစား ခြျခား ျခငးျဖငၾကတငသတေပး ျခငး စသညအားျဖင ေဆာင ရြကသငသည။

67

Is there a human right to privacy?Yes. Article 17 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to privacy. It states:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

မမကယပငလြတလပခြငလ႕အခြငအေရးရပါသလား။ရပါသည။ အငစစပအာ ၏အပဒ ၁၇ က ကယပငလြငလပခြငကအာမခခကေပးထားသည။

မညသတစဥးတစေယာကကမသ၏ကယပငလြတလပခြင၊မသားစ၊အမယာတ႕ႏငပတသကျပး တရားမတမႈမရေသာ ေႏာငယကဟန႕တားမႈမရေစရ၊ထ႕ျပင ဂဏသကၡာႏငပတသကျပး တရားမတမႈမရေသာတကခကမႈက မျပရေပ။

At whom is the right to privacy directed?The right to privacy is primarily directed at the authorities: absence a weighty justification, they may not, for example, undertake house search, intercept someone’s communications, photograph or disclose private facts. But the right to privacy can be also directed at the media or other private bodies if they invade our private space.

မညသတ႕က ကယပငလြတလပခြငကဥးတညသနညး။ ကယပငလြတလပခြငသညအေျခခအားျဖငအာဏာပငမားကဥးတညသည။ ပစအားျဖင- အမ တြငး ၀ငေရာကစစေဆးျခငး၊တစစတစေယာက၏ဆကသြယေရးက ျဖတေတာကခးယနား ေထာငျခငး၊ဓါတပရကျခငး သ႕မဟတ ပဂၢ လေရးအခကအလကမားကေဖၚထတဖြငဟျခငးတ႕ ျဖစသည။ သ႕ေသာ မဒယာႏင အျခားေသာ သးျခားအဖြ႕အစညးမားသည အျခားေသာ ကယပင လြတလပခြငရေနရာမားသ႕၀ငေရာကျခငးမးမားျဖစသည။

Can we restrict the right to freedom of expression in order to protect individual privacy?Yes, Article 19, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR provides that the right to freedom of expression may be restricted for the purpose of protection of privacy. However, as neither of these two rights is hierarchically superior to the other, the authorities (police and judges) should always balance between the two rights.

ပဂၢလကကယပငလြတလပခြငကကာကြယရနအတြက လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆျခငးက ကန႕သတတားဆးႏငပါသလား။တားဆးႏငပါသည။ အငစစပအာ ၏အပဒ ၁၉ စာပဒ၃ပါအရ၊ပဂၢလက ကယပငလြတလပခြင

ကယပငလြတလပခြငPrivacy

68

ကကာကြယရနအတြက လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚ ေျပာဆျခငးက ကန႕သတတားဆးႏငပါသည။ သ႕ ေသာ ထအခြငအေရးႏစခသည တစခႏငတစခမညသညကျမငမားသညဟ မဆႏငသျဖင အာဏာပငမားက ထအခြငအေရးႏစခကေသခာစြာခနဆရမည။

How to balance between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression?International courts have established that in privacy cases, the authorities should balance between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression taking into account the circumstances of each case.

As a rule of thumb, the greater the contribution that the published photos and information of one’s private life to a debate of politics, governance, human rights or other significant public matters the bigger the justification to tip the balance toward the right to freedom of expression. For example, in democratic societies it is considered that politicians must display more tolerance towards media intrusion in their private lives than ordinary citizens and therefore the media have a right to report details about the private life of politicians. However as it was said the publication of these details should not simply satisfy the curiosity of the people; rather it should help for understanding the political realities and the formation of public opinion and the ability to participate in public life.

ကယပငလြတလပခြငႏငလြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆခြင တ႕ကမညသ႕ခနဆ ရမညနညး။ႏငငတကာတရားရးမားကအသအမတျပထားသညမာ ကယပငလြတလပခြငဆငရာအမႈအခငး မားတြင အာဏာပငမားသည ကယပငလြတလပခြငႏင လြတလပစြာထတေဖၚေျပာဆခြငတ႕ က အမႈအခငးတစခစ၏အေျခအေနကထညသြငးစဥးစားခနဆရမည။

အၾကမးအားျဖငဆလင၊ ထတေ၀ျဖန႕ခေသာ ပဂၢ လတစဥး၏သးသန႕ ဓာတပ၊ သတငး အခကအလကမားသည ႏငငေရးျငငးခမႈ၊အပ ခပေရ႕းႏငအျခားေသာလ႔အခြငအေရမား၊ သ႕မဟတ ထးျခားေသာအျခားေသာအမားျပညသႏငဆငေသာ ကစၥျဖစေလေလ လြတလပစြာ ထတေဖၚေျပာဆခြငႏငခနဆဆးျဖတရေလေလပငျဖစသ ည။ ဥပမာ- ဒမကေရစလ႕ အဖြ႕အစညး အတြငးတြင ႏငငေရးသမားတစေယာကသည မမ၏ပဂၢလကဘ၀ထသ႕ မဒယာတ႕၏ ထးေဖါက၀င ေရာကမႈကသာမနလတ႕ထကပ၍သးခခြငလႊတရေပမည။သ႕ေသာ သတငးထတေ၀ေပးခကမားသညအမားျပညသ၏သလစတကေျဖသမယမေလာက မျဖစသငေပ။ ထ႕ထကပ၍ ႏငငေရး၏အ ျဖစမနမားကနားလညရနအေထာကအက ေပးရ မညျဖစ သလ၊အမားျပညသ၏ထငျမငယဆခက မညသ႔တညေဆာကထားသညက လညး နား လည ႏငရမည။သ႕မသာအမားျပညသ၏ဘ၀တြင၀င ေရာကရငသနပါ၀ငႏငေပမည။

69

70

ARTICLE 19

ARTICLE 19 envisages a world where people are free to speak their opinions, to participate in decision-making and to make informed choices about their lives

For this to be possible, people everywhere must be able to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of information. Without these rights, democracy, good governance and development cannot happen.

We take our name from Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

ARTICLE 19 works so that people everywhere can express themselves freely, access information and enjoy freedom of the press. We understand freedom of expression as three things:

Freedom of expression is the right to speak

• It is the right to voice political, cultural, social and economic opinions

• It is the right to dissent

• It makes electoral democracy meaningful and builds public trust in administration.

Freedom of expression is freedom of the press

• It is the right of a free and independent media to report without fear, interference, persecution or discrimination

• It is the right to provide knowledge, give voice to the marginalised and to highlight corruption

• It creates an environment where people feel safe to question government action and to hold power accountable.

Freedom of expression is the right to know

• It is the right to access all media, internet, art, academic writings, and information held by government

• It is the right to use when demanding rights to health, to a clean environment, to truth and to justice

• It holds governments accountable for their promises, obligations and actions, preventing corruption which thrives on secrecy.

Email: myanmar@article19.org

71

ARTICLE 19 Free Word Centre 60 Farringdon Road London EC1R 3GA T +44 20 7324 2500 F +44 20 7490 0566 E info@article19.org W www.article19.org Tw @article19org facebook.com/article19org

© ARTICLE 19

DEFENDING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND INFORMATION

အာတကယ ၁၉ သည ဒမကေရစ၏ အေျခခလ႔အခြငအေရးျဖစေသာ သတငးရယပငခြငႏင လြတလပစြာ ထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငအတြက စညးရးလႈ႔ေဆာမႈျပေသာ ႏငငတကာလ႔အခြငအေရးအဖြ႕ျဖစသည။ လြတလပ စြာထတေဖာေျပာဆခြငသည ဒမကေရစအတြက ပငမအခြငအေရးျဖစၿပး၊ အျခားအေရးႀကးေသာ ဒမကေရစ ၏ အစတအပငးမားႏင အျခားအခြငအေရးမားကလညး ကာကြယေပးသည။ အာတကယ ၁၉ က ၁၉၈၇ ခႏစတြင ဖြ႕စညးတညေထာငခၿပး၊ ယငးအမညက အျပညျပညဆငရာအခြင အေရး ေၾကျငာစာတမး အပဒ ၁၉ မ ရယထားျခငးျဖစသည။ မမတ႔အဖြ႔သည လကရကာလတြင လ႔အခြင အေရး၊ သတငးအခကအလက လြတလပစြာရရခြင၊ ဒမကေရစေျပာငးလမႈ၊ မဒယာ၊ အမးသမး အခြငအေရး၊ ကနးမာေရးႏင သဘာ၀ပတ၀နးကငေရးရာ ကစၥမားအတြက ကမာတစ၀နးရ အဖြ႕ ၉၀ ေကာႏင တကၾကႊစြာ ပးေပါငးေဆာငရြကသည။